General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy would anyone care whether a woman has an abortion or not?
Why do people want to see it become rare?
Really, plain and simple it's just none of your danged business.
1) Contraception doesn't always work
2) Maybe in the heat of passion, contraception was thrown to the wind
3) Maybe a condom broke
4) Maybe the sex ed you received just didn't freaking matter at the moment of having sex.
5) Maybe someone was raped
6) There are too many variables for one to proclaim they want it to be rare. They can't even imagine all the reasons a woman may choose to have an abortion.
It's really just none of anyone's business and intimating that one would like to see it become rare, means one sees something wrong with it. PERIOD. That is the bottom line, IMHO.
How about we all just mind our own business and stop with the judgments.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Women is the way to propagate the species. (I'm disregarding things like 'test tube babies' for the sake of argument)
Therefore, they hold a very unique and important place in human society. So, in a sense, them having babies is very important, and of widespread interest to more than just themselves. Now, this argument breaks down with billions of humans, but imagine some kind of event where the human population is dwindled down to a small number, and then we would need all the women to make babies so human kind doesn't go extinct.
Anyway, you can see I had to go into convoluted scenarios to make an argument for it. I am just making a theoretical argument, so don't expect me to post further about it. My heart is not in it, to be honest.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)basically stating a woman purpose is to churn out babies for the sake of propagating the species.
Really, I'm LOL'ing...
quinnox
(20,600 posts)The first thing that came to my mind was a science fiction like scenario, of a devastated human kind, where they need to "start over", otherwise they would face going extinct. What can I say, this is what came to me.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)Just playing devil's advocate
quinnox
(20,600 posts)marshall
(6,661 posts)We tend to place ourselves above the other species by supposing we have something other than basic instincts driving us.
marshall
(6,661 posts)But they don't all want to criminalize it again.
Warpy
(110,908 posts)in many of the more crowded areas, it's become downright undesirable.
Pronatalism isn't driving this. What's driving this is the need of some men to control women, right down to the most personal decisions over their bodies. Since their campaign is based 100% on lies, they've managed to attract a few women to their cause by sentimentalizing a fetus into a 3 month old baby.
dchill
(38,321 posts)Women are also responsible for overpopulation?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and looking at things from a purely clinical point of view, in isolation. For example, if an alien race came to Earth, and said, why is it so populated? There, it is the women, they are having too many babies!
But of course that would be ridiculous, because it takes two to tango, as they say. And several factors play into human relationships, it is very complicated.
dchill
(38,321 posts)To say the least. And made more complicated by those who would outlaw abortion and give constitutional rights to fetuses.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)in that area, and leave everyone else to do so as well.
If we suddenly get so under populated the risk of humanity surviving is at stake, let's talk about that then. Pretty damn weak argument.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I had to struggle to come up with it at all.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)The simple position of the other side is usually, it's a human life. And you know, it is. Any biologist will tell you it's alive. Any biologist will tell you it's human.
That's actually why, even though I disagree with them, I have more respect for those on the right who do NOT make an exception for rape and incest. Either the pre-born creature is a protectable human life, or it isn't. This idea that it is protectable unless it was created in certain circumstances holds no water, so to speak.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)because strictly speaking, unwanted foetus is nothing more than a parasite.
rug
(82,333 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rejection, it harms it's host (uterus prolapse, other pregnancy related issues), and it often enough can kill it's host.
rug
(82,333 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Do you consider a fetus a parasite until birth?
rug
(82,333 posts)What's your criteria?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense." - is one of the definitions.
There are different firms of parasitism, and it's not restricted to interspecies only.
rug
(82,333 posts)Excluding, for the moment, mammalian pregnancy.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But, since you mentioned it, if each derives benefit from the other, they are not parasites.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)indigestion & heartburn, high blood pressure, headaches, incontinence, gum and teeth problems, death, etc, etc, etc.
What are the benefits? Emotional? There are parasites that can do that.
Something beneficial other than emotions?? Like tapeworms as a cure for Cronn?
PS Forgot to add - I hope you were not implying that parasitic twin is beneficial to it's host.
rug
(82,333 posts)Symbiotic organisms are not parasites.
Now, do you have any other examples of parasitism within the same species?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)disprove your statement that parasitism is restricted to interspecies.
If you like more examples, please feel free to use Google to search for "intraspecific parasitism"
rug
(82,333 posts)Frankly, that doesn't address the issue at hand.
And while most conjoined twins are symbiotic, some in fact have a true parasitic relationship. What should be done with with the parasitic twin in that case?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)I saw at least one other example of intra-specific parasitism on the first search page. You are more than welcome to search for more if you like.
As to your question about what should be done about a parasitic twin - it would be up to the doctors and parents to decide.
rug
(82,333 posts)In fact, your example (which is not evidence that disproved it) suggests the opposite. Most conjoined twins after birth are symbiotic, not parasitic. And one example, even if apposite, does not disprove it. Neither do birds' eggs.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)It should be very easy, if you are right.
rug
(82,333 posts)Neither can you. Certainly none that you've chosen to share.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)If it exists it should be simple task to produce one that does not involve a bird's egg.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Those two items have been discussed. I take it you have nothing else.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)I am sorry scientific community disagree with you on what is and isn't parasitism.
rug
(82,333 posts)Conjoined twins are from what you think they are.
You don't have a single other example despite the hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of interspecies parasitism.
And you are not the scientific community.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Search results below offer lots of links to scientific research papers. The scientific community definitely agree there is such thing as intra-specific parasitism.
I am sorry you have such a hard time accepting it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brood+parasitism+birds
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brood+parasitism+fish
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brood+parasitism+insects
The parasitic twins or unequal or asymmetric conjoined twins are one of the two main categories of conjoined twins.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unequal+conjoined+twin
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)You remove a 7-9 month fetus before birth via C-Section, the odds are it will be able to survive outside the uterus. Unless you're actually stating you think it be acceptable to abort a fetus one day before birth. In which case you're really stating you would be in favor of infanticide under certain conditions.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)I support woman's right to abort whenever she decides to do so. Her body, Her choice. What "I" feel about her decision is irrelevant.
You are more than welcome to have a C-section any time during YOUR pregnancy. Your body, your choice. Just remember to mind your own business when it comes to other people bodies.
REP
(21,691 posts)Second, what's so special about birth? Well, the circulatory system completely reverses. The lungs now take in oxygen from air. Temperature regulation becomes independent. There are so many other significant changes that take place at birth that they could fill a book. Which, in fact, they do.
hooverville29
(163 posts)described it, meaning often nothing more than 'unplanned.' But they were given a chance to live a life. And now this woman can assert her rights because someone once decided in her favor when she was in the womb.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)kydo
(2,679 posts)And probably won't be around DU long with that mentality. In other words I don't think that person has a point to make.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Rape means the woman "deserves" to have the abortion. Otherwise she "deserves" the punishment of having the child. Interesting they see that as a penalty.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not without a man (or sperm).
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Actually it's pretty offensive as well. Women are not incubators and baby vending machines and should not be reduced to that in any argument.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)Lex
(34,108 posts)are two difference things and I don't see why they are conflated.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I support a woman's right to choose, PERIOD. I want any woman who wants an abortion to be able to obtain one without issue. However, I don't think that's in any way incongruous to wanting abortions to be rare. I think that the less unwanted pregnancies there are, the better.
That being said, I can understand why the 'rare' part was dropped from the Democratic Party platform. I do think that unwanted pregnancies can and should be reduced through social policies, though.
My thoughts also, it is the woman's choice and there needs to be facilities available which are capable to handle the task. Would I have a problem with a woman who chose to have an abortion, no, but I would support her decision whatever it might be. It should not be a decision to control the woman's decision.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Why should a woman take the pill?
Why should a man wear a condom?
Who cares? It's just a few hours and a day out of work, right?
boston bean
(36,186 posts)And it should be available to everyone so they can make those choices.
Are you saying we ought to force women and men to NOT practice contraception. I'm certainly not.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....even with the occasional failure of said contraceptive....
Apparently that should annoy you for some reason?
boston bean
(36,186 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)You seem to be the one who's hung up on this.
"Hey, you might want to put on a jacket. It's freezing out"
"My cold! My choice!"
"Um, ok"
boston bean
(36,186 posts)so you resort to making it personal and about me. Par for the course.
Have a good day.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Seriously? You asked me why I care first??? I don't, other than logic states BIRTH CONTROL MAKES PREGNANCY RARE!!!
FFS, you really are something else.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I'll ignore your last personal attack.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Can't have the saddle without the horse.
No reason to take the asprin when you don't have a headache.
Don't need chemo if you don't have cancer.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That, I can agree with.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Does the nation have infinite monopoly money now to pay for things they could have more easily prevented? Do you not care about any of the harm and trauma that those extra 10 might feel when ending their unwanted pregnancy, when the state could have potentially helped them avoid the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Is this the Sociopathic States of America? Do we not give a damn when people hurt that could of been helped? Are we just charging everything to China now so costs don't matter? WTF?
Why wouldn't you care? This applies to any medical procedure that could of been prevented. People feel pain. The more you pay for that pain, the less of your monopoly money you have left to help other people with other pain (or to even prevent other pain from occuring)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Vaccum extraction is used in a lot of countries by a lot of women. If someone has a problem with it, they can stuff it. Your body, your choice.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)It is more dangerous to have a baby than it is to abort one. And it can have life-long serious consequences for those who are not ready or don't have the right support system.
It is more dangerous to have an abortion than to take birth control
It is more dangerous to take birth control than to have sex
So the options are...live in a world where sex is only allowed if a child is the intended result (no thanks)
Or live in a world where people have the right to make the right choices (and the least dangerous) for their families and/or themselves, for any reason.
Of course birth control is a better way to avoid abortions. But that doesn't mean because we have access to birth control we no longer will need to have abortions.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)It's a medical procedure, expensive and time consuming from work and family responsibilities.
Why wouldn't any women want to avoid that consequence if possible. I'd just try to prevent the situation in the first place.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)My condition made it necessary. I guess I could have decided not to have one, but it would have made things very difficult for me.
Women get an abortion because they choose to. Because they want to. For whatever reason.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I mean hell, it's none of my business if you lose all your money in the stock market. Your financial dealings are confidential for a reason.
Doesn't make it any less sad when someone goes broke.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)But some of the women who have seem to experience a lot of emotional trauma.
Probably the conflicting emotions that go along with abortion. Not to mention I've heard it's unpleasant, that there is bleeding associated with it, and of course the expulsion of the fetus is probably not very fun.
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)It didn't compare to the pre-eclampsia and the near death I and my oldest daughter experienced from my first pregnancy
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)After seeing the pre-eclampsia episode on Downton Abbey, it looks really scary. I can see why you were relieved.
I guess everyone is different. My best friend's sister, whom I've known since grade school, had one while she was at the university. He told me it was a miscarriage, only to later turn out that it was an abortion. She said she cried for a solid weekend and was depressed for a long time, it took her over a year before admitting it to anyone. She got one because she was in the midst of postdoctoral work, wasn't married and couldn't support a baby. And this was in the first trimester, so I can only imagine how it must be for some women later-stage.
REP
(21,691 posts)Abortion, as it turns out, doesn't effect a woman's well-being - except when it is denied.
New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)
Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.
The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.
The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.
The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.
Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..
In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.
"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.
Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.
The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."
The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31
Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.
RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.
Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says
The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...
The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed
PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...
Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.
Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?
Koop CE.
What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.
PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.
Romans-Clarkson SE.
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.
This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.
PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.
Handy JA.
The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant... The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980 and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children
So "psychologically healthy" is higher income, employed, educated, and has few children. That's a pretty harsh judgment of having self-esteem and having good mental health. Sucks for the 70% to whom this doesn't apply.
Equating income and number of children with mental health? I feel bad for those women who don't make big incomes or have lots of children, guess they have poor mental health. Jeez.
Numerous studies on fertility have found that the more education a woman has, the fewer children she chooses to bear. This one study on the psychological effect of abortion merely echoes these findings.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I mean, shouldn't a psychologist examine each subject's mental health (and mental health history?) rather than a questionnaire that deems wealthy, educated women with fewer children more mentally healthy than other women?
That study seems to use an extremely lazy guideline for mental health.
The irony in this is that the solid majority of white women in Virginia who voted for anti-choice candidates, to their own detriment, will be deemed more mentally fit than the 90% of black women who voted sanely for pro-choice candidates, all merely because black women are underprivileged. Again, to me that is extremely elitist. They should have just published the study as "rich women who have fewer children cope with abortion much better than less wealthy women with more children", that would have been more accurate. Instead they make this illogical leap from the characteristics of wealth to mental health. I don't find this measure reasonable at all, and some could argue it's racist or at least elitist.
REP
(21,691 posts)The women weren't separated by income, education and income prior to the study. The answers the women gave led to those conclusions. Did you miss the part about women who were psychologically unsound prior to their abortions were the ones who reported problems subsequent to their abortions?
I listed numerous studies, including one by the anti-abortion Koop who came to the same determination: abortion does not harm women's emotional well-being.
I'm replying so I can easily find that info for later and also to say:
It's in the archives of my Journal, which also has studies showing the long-term psychological sequelae of relinquishing an infant to adoption.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)It's NONE of your business. NONE.
It's none of the business of the woman who had one and regrets it. Those were her decisions.
To use other womens experiences from one side of the equation, is limiting yourself. Many, many woman have abortions and do not feel that way.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)If a woman, a close friend, confided to you, she regretted her abortion, what would you say to her? And please don't be a smart ass and say, "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS". I'm really curious has to how you would approach it.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)How about this. You make your own decisions about you and other women will make their own decisions for themselves.
Seems pretty simple, no?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Ok then.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)The answer is the same. She and a friend who agrees with her don't get to make choices for other women.
I don't see anything wrong with saying that or feeling that.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I could see a woman saying/feeling "I regret that decision" without saying "I think all abortion should be banned for everyone else because of that".
But part of me feels knowing what I've read from you, you would jump instantly to that thought.
Hence why I asked if you can separate the politics from the personal/emotional and how you'd reply.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)No thanks....
REP
(21,691 posts)Included in the studies I cited is Koop et al (remember him?), who was forced to admit that abortion does not cause mental harm to women.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Of course she should be free to make her own choice.
That has nothing to do with thinking abortion is an unfortunate outcome.
Lex
(34,108 posts)but I don't go around deciding maybe they shouldn't have them.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)Let me tell you, the after math of that surgery was traumatic. It hurt so bad. I can still feel some pain today after many years because of it. I would hope no one would try to prevent others from having the surgery, because of my trauma.
Also giving birth was pretty traumatic, and changed my life in a whole lot of ways. Some for the better and in many ways made my life harder.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)if my birth control failed, i wouldn't have hesitated to have one. my sister had 2 -- 2 when she was in college and 1 right after that. i knew about the 3rd one and she joked about it. said after they vacuumed it out they vacuumed the carpet. eventually she got married and after giving birth to 2 girls had herself "fixed". apparently having an abortion was not traumatic for her.
BTW. i'm not talking about my sister NanceGreggs.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)There are enough studies published to show it's a load of crap.
Overwhelming majority of abortions happen when woman doesn't want to be pregnant. Why the heck should anyone feel sad is beyond me, unless one is conditioned to feel that way by bunch of arseholes who WANT women to feel like shit.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)that some women have an emotional reaction to the choice of abortion because of the social stigma attached by so many in society?
Tien1985
(920 posts)I've been staying out of this, but you said exactly what I was thinking.
REP
(21,691 posts)It involves a local anesthetic to the cervix and the insertion of a small suction cannula into the uterus. It hurts about as much as extremely bad cramps, but doesn't last very long. There is some minor bleeding afterwards, similar to that associated with a period. Recovery time is 2-3 days. Tylenol or Ibuprofen is given for the post-op pain.
Compare that to my last surgery, where I was given general anesthesia; had five incisions made in my shoulder; had the ends of my clavicle, acromion, and sub-acromion sawed off; had two large titanium anchors drilled into my greater tuberosity to hold the sutures that are holding my torn supraspinatus and subscapularis tendons so they can re grow to the bone; a large bone spur removed; the glenohumeral joint debrided, etc. I had a severe reaction to the surgical wash and a few other post-OP complications; and I was given Dilaudid for the post-OP pain. The post-op pain is excruciating and horrible. This is considered a minor, out-patient procedure. It will take me a year to fully recover from. It was far more unpleasant and traumatic than my abortion.
Yet I very much wanted both procedures done (and I had the second one done twice in one year; once on each shoulder).
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)i think more accurately people want them to be sad, some sort of guilt about having consequence free sex
boston bean
(36,186 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)because they did something terrible
boston bean
(36,186 posts)A woman "should" feel bad about it. Is what they are implying.
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)who had abortions and did not experience guilt/sorrow/tragic consequences
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)They may tell you that, but I don't believe that they didn't experience guilt/sorrow/tragic consequences.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That is such a crock of horseshit. Most women do not suffer guilt, trauma or "tragic consequences".
And you claiming they lie about out it is offensive.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)newcriminal
(2,190 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)How do you think a woman would feel when she's given birth and then puts the baby up for adoption?
What the woman feels is her own damn business. Life is hard. People struggle with their feelings all the time.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)I am very pro choice, but don't bullshit me and tell me there is no other emotion other than relief that the woman feels. To tell me there is no sorrow, is bullshit.
"How do you think a woman would feel if she is forced to be an incubator?"
Angry, sorrow, tragic many many more feelings.
"How do you think a woman would feel when she's given birth and then puts the baby up for adoption?"
Sorrow, tragic, many many more feelings.
"Life is hard. People struggle with their feelings all the time."
I absolutely agree.
When a woman has an abortion, how do you think a woman feels?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I was just presenting the other side. If you are going to attribute emotions to one side then you must also attribute them to the other side. Therefore it's not an argument that can be used to deter abortion.
I know that a lot of women feel relief at being able to have an abortion. I imagine some do at being able to give up a baby to a good home. I know that if I were forced to be an incubator I would feel rage.
Also, by attributing only negative feelings to a woman after having had an abortion I think you are putting a moral judgment on her action. That is exactly what progressives are not supposed to be doing. It's a woman's right to choose what she wants, it's not a moral decision. That's what religious anti-choice groups want people to believe, but it's not a viable life and the woman's life is the one in question.
What people feel about their choices is their business. What they choose to with their own body is their right.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)"Also, by attributing only negative feelings to a woman after having had an abortion I think you are putting a moral judgment on her action."
By putting only positive feelings to the woman after having an abortion I think is untruthful, and making light of the awful decisions she has to make either way.
REP
(21,691 posts)Relieved. It's been nearly 30 years - still no 'sorrow' or 'regret.'
I can tell you how my grandmother, who had two abortions, felt: "I'm 93 years old - when is this "regret" supposed to happen?" She lived to be 98 and without regret or sorrow about her abortions. She was a life-long supporter of legal abortion.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)I really have nothing I can say about it.
REP
(21,691 posts)It also saved my life. Turns out bringing a pregnancy to term would be terribly detrimental to my health or just flat-out kill me, but no one knew that then. All I knew is that I did not want to be pregnant a second longer.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Why did you feel the need to qualify it by stating "It also saved my life. Turns out bringing a pregnancy to term would be terribly detrimental to my health or just flat-out kill me"
REP
(21,691 posts)As I said, no one, not even I, knew that at the time. I just knew I did not want to be pregnant a second longer and could not wait to have the abortion. I was so happy and relieved when it was done, and I felt physically about a million times better immediately.
REP
(21,691 posts)New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)
Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.
The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.
The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.
The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.
Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..
In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.
"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.
Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.
The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."
The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31
Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.
RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.
Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says
The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...
The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed
PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...
Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.
Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?
Koop CE.
What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.
PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.
Romans-Clarkson SE.
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.
This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.
PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.
Handy JA.
The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...
TL;DR: Abortion doesn't effect well-being.
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)This doesn't prove your point. It says:
The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure
long-term negative emotional effects - not that they don't feel any negative emotions.
I certainly don't want woman to feel long-term negative emotions, but don't bullshit me and tell me there is no negative emotions with it.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Right there... Before or.
REP
(21,691 posts)(not you, of course - I know you're awesome )
REP
(21,691 posts)Yes, women who had psychological problems before their abortion were likely to have them after the abortion, but abortion does not cause emotional harm. One study even found most women felt relief, not "sorrow."
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)I've had more than one. Not a regret, not a second thought. Two of my daughters; not a regret, not a second thought. I can name several more.
The larger feeling women experience is relief.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)I can agree that unwanted pregnancies should ideally be rare but not the medical procedure of abortion
just like i think HIV infection should be less but not access to HIV Medication
no other medical procedure is advocated as something that should be rare besides abortion
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)A couple have even gone on to be awesome mothers when the time was right.
I've never had an abortion. If I did get pregnant I would have an abortion because my husband and I don't want children. I'm 44-years-old and the three or four eggs I have left are hard-boiled at this point, so I don't think it's likely to happen.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)"oh, isn't it a little miracle"- uh, no. Around 50% of the human population is capable of giving birth. All mammals have live births.
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)she was 17 yrs - who almost killed herself because she found out she was pregnant. She was able to get an abortion and it definitely affected her emotions, no it did not make her sad or feel guilty, she felt relieved and had no guilt. In other words for her it was the right thing to do............ as it is for many women.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I keep hearing the argument that what they mean is they want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Agreed, me, too. Then say that.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Some women with unwanted/unexpected pregnancies would raise the child, if they had the resources to feel confident they could provide housing, food, education, etc. - but find their own situations so precarious that it is cheaper to have an abortion (in resources, energy, etc.), even if it is not what they would want in a more equitable society.
And some women would carry to term and give the child up for adoption, but don't because of societal disapproval, lack of money for medical care, inability to take time off from work near the birth, etc.
So wanting abortions to be rare isn't just about wanting to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but it is also part of ensuring that choice doesn't just mean access to abortions - but also means access to the resources to carry a pregnancy to term (and perhaps even raise a child) if that is the choice a woman wants to make.
ETA: Choosing to have an abortion isn't a real choice if you don't have access to the resources to feel you can do anything else.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)There are several logical fallacies in that argument - but in the black and white world in which abortion is discussed (including here on DU), I have no desire to pick it apart and make myself a target.
When DU can have a civilized discussion about it, without insisting that it is a parasite until it takes its first breath - for example - I'd be glad to have a discussion beyond the post you responded to. It is a discussion the left really needs to have to get past the see-saw where the side with the most voices wins, temporarily, until the other side drags a few more voices to its side of the fulcrum.
But this thread is a perfect example of why I have no interest in having it here and how.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)about why it's harmful to reproductive health.
so... yeah. carry on.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)all that happens is lots of juvenile screaming by people who see only black and white. So I'll wait at least until the adults outnumber the juveniles to make another try. It obviously isn't a discussion that will result in anything other than a bunch of shouting at the moment.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)forced-birthers would carry on here otherwise. Cool topics like "How to force more women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term by restricting access to abortions".
newcriminal
(2,190 posts)Ms. Toad said nothing like that.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Posturing does not advance discussion.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)According to Skinner as long as they are "polite" it's all good. Do you have a problem with admin's decision? You are welcome to post about it in ATA.
rug
(82,333 posts)And that anyone who disagrees with that is a "forced birther". Is that correct?
BTW, you are conflating two separate issues. To be anti-abortion does not equal outlawing abortion. Any more than being pro-abortion equals no restrictions of any kind.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)We're not monsters.
On January 28, 2014, Canada will celebrate 26 years of reproductive freedom. Since their Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, the country's experience is proof that laws against abortion are unnecessary. A full generation of Canadians has lived without a law and we are better off because of it.
Canada is the first country in the world to prove that abortion care can be ethically and effectively managed as part of standard healthcare practice, without being controlled by any civil or criminal law. Their success is a role model to the world.
After 26 years with no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever:
- Doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.
- Abortion rates are fairly low and have steadily declined since 1997.
- Almost all abortions occur early in pregnancy.
- Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are very low.
- Abortion care is fully funded and integrated into the healthcare system (improving accessibility and safety).
- Further legal precedents have advanced women's equality by affirming an
unrestricted right to abortion.
- Public support for abortion rights has increased.
Responsible abortion care: Since 1988, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has successfully managed abortion just as it does for every other medical procedure -- by applying policy and encouraging medical discretion for doctors, subject to a standard code of ethics.
Doctors abide by CMA policy and guidelines, and follow best medical practices based on validated research and clinical protocols. Criminal laws are inappropriate and harmful in medicine because they constrain care and negatively impact the health of patients.
rug
(82,333 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)This is important information.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And you have no interest in having the discussion here. But obviously you just can't resist pushing your anti-choice horseshit over and over and over again.
Poor little thing doesn't want to make herself a target. THEN DON'T. Don't come in here with your insulting, condescending and dangerous bullshit. JUST STOP IT ALREADY.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Go back to the original recent post, because you obviously did not read carefully enough to understand what my position on choice is.
As to my participation in these discussions,
In the first thread, I responded to the question as to why discussion threads on abortion drop like a stone, and why it appears active support for choice among Dems was waning: The rhetoric alienates people who support choice, but who understand that virtually everyone views the contents of a woman's uterus, at some point before birth, as significantly more than a parasite, and who understand that we will never reach anything other than a standpoint until we can have adult discussions about what that means.
In this thread, I responded to a similarly narrow issue - why making unwanted pregnancies rare was not synonymous with making abortions rare. And that part the goal of making abortion rare is actually the full range of reproductive choice in the face of an unexpected pregnancy, not JUST the choice to have an abortion.
I declined to get dragged into the broad substantive discussions in either thread for the reasons I've indicated, and responses like yours are why I decline to get dragged into the broader discussions.
Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #241)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
LumosMaxima
(585 posts)It's a direct attack on women's self-determination. The ability to control one's own body is the most fundamental human right imaginable and essential to exercising any other kind of independence. THAT is what the anti-abortion crowd really objects to. Their position is, ultimately, a way of denying full personhood to women. If anyone other than the individual woman controls her reproduction, she is not a person, but the property of society, a resource to be managed.
The entire debate comes down to that: are women people or not? Anti-choicers say no, they are not people, and therefore not entitled to full autonomy. These same folks claim to be all about individual rights, so I have pointed out the contradiction to them, and it drives them NUTS. They believe in individual rights, but not full individual rights for women, which means that they do not perceive women as full individuals. I've never yet had one come up with a meaningful rebuttal.
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)Your post is absolutely 100% spot on. Abortion is a private matter between a woman, her health care provider and anyone else who she chooses to involve. Her body. Her right. Her decision.
Once that premise is diluted (as we see all the time), then you get into all of the usual arguments about term and what should and should not qualify for a legal abortion.
But if the decision stays private and personal with a woman, you empower the woman, you acknowledge her right to control her own body, you acknowledge her ability to make the wisest choice for her own situation, and you take the political aspect out of it. The world at large would be completely unaware that it was occurring for one, individual woman.
If someone disagrees with abortion, then they should not have one. THAT is where THEIR right ends.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Whenever the abortion conversation comes up, I mentally replace the word 'abortion' with 'vasectomy' (in that both are wholly valid medical procedures).
It's an easy way for anyone to hear how dumb our society is for putting in place cultural mores forcing this conversation in the first place.
The friends of mine who have had vasectomies would be absurdly embarrassed if we all began moralizing to them over a few beers about how ethical or unethical having a vasectomy is, or asking them why they decided to choose to have it done over other options, etc., and likely retort with "STFU... it's none of your damn business, no laws were broken, and 'How about we all just mind our own business and stop with the judgments....'"
No argument from me, BB!!!
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)I want to see one person comment in this thread that doesn't share your opinion, followed by you NOT torching them with a flamethrower.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Which of course, I do not agree.
Please don't try to make this about "me".
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)At Fri Nov 8, 2013, 04:54 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Know what I wanna see?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4003590
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Disruptive and uncalled for.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 8, 2013, 05:01 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This alert is weak.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Personal attack.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)The very thought of any human being forced to be an incubator should be a major incentive for people to mind their own business.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and I've heard anti-choicers say this, is that it isn't going to be rare and it won't probably ever be their definition of "rare," so their response ends up being something like, "The safe and legal thing doesn't work to make it rare so we'll have to have restrictions."
boston bean
(36,186 posts)It will never be "rare" and what does rare mean any how. 1 per 300,000,000 women?
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)In your OP you attribute unwanted pregnancies where a woman might want an abortion to:
1. Flawed technology
2. Impulsivity
3. Flawed technology
4. Impulsivity
5. Violence
6. Other
When I say I hope abortion is rare, I'm saying I want public health measures that reduce pregnancies due to the very causes you outlined.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Even getting a cavity filled carries risk. I'd like to see cavities become rare, too.
That doesn't mean I want people to suffer with rotted teeth--I want them to not have any NEED for the drilling and filling. Good dental practices and advanced prophylaxis can reduce dental decay....by the same token, better birth control can reduce the need for abortion.
It's not "anti-woman" to want to spare a person from an intrusive medical procedure.
I mean, really: "Safe, legal, and common as eggs for breakfast!" That's just absurd. Hell, everyone get one--let's make it mandatory!
Don't read into that comment more than is there. When people get good medical care as a matter of routine, the need for many invasive procedures is reduced.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)There will always be a need. Define rare? How do you quantify this?
MADem
(135,425 posts)"define rare." On a continuum, it signifies less rather than more.
You define it--you brought it up. How do YOU quantify it? What's rare to you?
And what do you have against women getting better medical care to reduce their need for this legal and private procedure?
If the number of people who have to go through that invasive medical procedure--and it IS that, it's not like getting a skin tag removed--can be reduced, through prophylactic medical care, that's a good thing. Why shouldn't women get medical care that is at least as decent as the dental care people with Cadillac Dental Insurance have?
No one is saying women who need abortions shouldn't get them. But there's nothing wrong with taking steps ahead of potential conceptions to avoid the need for them--that's just sensible.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I don't need to quantify, as I reject the framing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If you don't want to quantify the word you brought into the conversation, I guess we're done. I told you where I saw the word on a continuum, but I guess that wasn't enough.
I'm not going to get wrapped up in drama, here. It's not my business if a person gets an abortion; that said, from a generic, risk-averse perspective, if anyone can find a way to reduce a need to be tossed on a table, given drugs, and being subjected to a procedure upon their person--no matter what that procedure is, be it heart, prostate, womb, or tooth--and still retain their good health in a manner that is acceptable to them--then there's nothing wrong with that. Most normal people would call that an advancement in medicine. The goal is for the doctor to have no need to interfere. If the patient is given the means to prevent the interference of a doctor, well, good for them.
Trying to make a desire for people to be able to reduce risk by reducing necessity in a medical setting into an opposition to a procedure that's none of my damn business is just not flying with me.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)should be the one to quantify what "rare" means in their opinion.
Not the person who rejects the use.
LOL, again.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Who used it first? Why, you did. You used it, now, either define it or just stop the foolishness.
Not sure what you're "LOL" ing about, but this has become very pointless in a hurry.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)So, if you feel it should be rare, you quantify it. Because your insistence on using the term leads on to believe that in some way it is quantifiable. The burden is on you.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Why use a word that can't be quantified, per YOU? And then turn around and demand others do your work for you?
If I say "Abortion should be fligglebutt" and you ask me "what's fligglebutt?" and I turn around and demand that YOU define it, well, that's precisely what you are doing to me.
The difference between "fligglebutt" and "rare," though, is that you can look up the latter term in a dictionary.
If you really NEED a definition, start with Mirriam Webster. And stop haranguing people who are unquestioningly pro-choice. Find real enemies, why don't you?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)In part, because it's open to interpretation. and you appear to be arguing for the antiquated phrase.
MADem
(135,425 posts)invasive procedures that often occur as a consequence of a lack of said care.
I guess, if you want to insist that I am arguing "for" anything, I'm arguing "for" quality preventive medicine.
For everyone.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)so busy looking for "enemies" you might realize that.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)It does not. Look through this thread.
PS my agreement was to your last sentence in that post.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not sure what you're trying to do, here.
I think I have been quite clear as to my views. I wish you would do likewise.
I get the sense that you want to badger anyone who doesn't have the same POV towards the word "rare" as you do, irrespective of their views on choice.
Don't you think that's a bit absurd, to demand that sort of thing? Particularly since you seem unable to articulate your definition of "rare" so that people will understand your anger?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Pregnancy and birth have a greater risk than abortion.
The option isn't between abortion and no risk. It's between abortion and something with even higher risk.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Why a person wants an abortion is no concern of mine. IF they want one is no concern of mine.
But if someone can avoid risk-- and not even get into that "could have an abortion" territory by not getting pregnant in the first place, because they had good medical care to include preventive medicine--then the choice is between needing the procedure, and not needing the procedure because they had good medical care ahead of time.
It's like needing that dental filling, and not needing it--because instead of cleaning your teeth with a toothpick and a rag, you got the cleaning, the fluoride treatment, and the lecture from the hygenist about brushing/flossing.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)so your dentist analogy is a really dishonest comparison
MADem
(135,425 posts)There's a lot of argument about doing it on people who don't need it, and there are different ways of doing it, and the discussions are quite vigorous about when/where and who needs it. And a lot of people can avoid it entirely with PREVENTIVE care--regular checkups, healthy diet, medications when called for, etc.
And prostate operations--those used to be the "go to" default...remove the prostate the minute the PSA gets squirrelly. Now, that has changed to a "watchful waiting" strategy by many MDs. Even when they think action is mandated, they will sometimes use the radioactive seeds (like Kerry got) rather than take out the knife. Less invasive. Less intrusive. Less RISK.
And it wasn't that long ago in the big scheme of things that filling a tooth was unheard of--it was just yanked out, not saved, no fillings, no root canals...the whole science of dentistry has evolved enormously, and prophylactic care is a HUGE part of it all.
There's nothing "dishonest" about saying that if a person can avoid having an intrusive medical procedure, that they might want to do that. And people ARE saying that--about angioplasty, about prostate removals, and even about dental care.
And if they can avoid an intrusive procedure with preventive care, well, good for them.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)that a person wants/needs is something they might not want to do.
your other examples are not ones where disease has already occurred. if this argument wanting a reduction in unwanted pregnancies by offering low cost or no cost birth control to girls and women, no one would disagree.
to me saying abortions should be rare, is not at all saying that as a society we should do more to reduce unplanned pregnancies but rather a judgment on those who have abortions
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't know about you, but I don't like the dentist. That said, I know it's "good for me" so I go--not as often as I should, but I go. My goal in going is PREVENTION of disease, though I'm not always lucky in that regard.
Disease HAS already occurred when a doctor is recommending an angioplasty, or a prostate removal/radiation procedure. People get their tooth drilled because they've got a bit of rot up in there. But preventive care can prevent the need for those procedures.
I don't see the phrase as a judgment at all. In fact, it's none of my business what people do, medically, so how can I "judge" anyone? I do think if people can avoid going under the knife, that's great for them. And that's the essence of my view on this subject. No morality, no shame (why not shame the candy eater for his cavity? The prostate patient for his heredity? It's silly. It's just medicine).
I do think some folks like to fight about this topic, though, and they like to accuse folks of having views they don't hold, just to get their blood boiling.
Eh.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)So while it's not appropriate to eliminate abortion it's important to make sure it's used less often since it is an invasive procedure that can often be prevented.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)appleannie1
(5,044 posts)don't think it should be commonly used as the only form of birth control used by people that deal in sex as a gamble or crap shoot. I think that birth control should be available to anyone that wants it. It should be covered the same way that other drugs and health supplies are covered. I think that good sex education should be part of the school curriculum. I also feel that part of that should be good education on sexually transmitted disease. Another thing I believe in is work place child care or government sponsored child care so working women do not feel they have to choose abortion simply because they can't afford to care for a child. If all of the things were provided, abortion would be much more rare than it is today and statistics in countries that provide those things prove that. That does not mean I have my nose in anyone's business, it simply means I believe in a common sense approach that results in abortion being rare.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Many of the hunted "witches", back in the good old days, were those who knew the herbs for contraception and abortion which they claimed led to fornication and adultery.
It was also because the only true way to know the true father or heir (before DNA), was to monitor the woman's sex life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)What is a child 15 minutes before birth? Can it be cut out like an ingrown toenail?
Is there a difference between a tumor, infected appendix, 24hr embryo and a 36wk fetus? If you could only remove 3 of the 4 which would you leave and why?
Legally the moment a Dr. decrees a child has been born they go from Parasite to Human. From a non-legal opinion is that realistic? Does the Dog rate more rights in the seconds before?
I don't want to see some Fetus having legal rights. But as that potential child becomes more and more human as the weeks go by. I think society has an expectation that something more than waking on the wrong side of the bed is behind a decision.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)in the 279th day of pregnancy because she 'got up on the wrong side of the bed'. This should be good!
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)If you take a society and strip away all morality/societal pressure and culture. More to my point is the same societal forces that prevent such a thing from taking place is what is also being used to shame women for having sex, etc. It's not a question of if the "bar" is there but only where society sets it. Societies input is what dictates our collective behaviors outside of what is legal. Such as holding a door, treating employees fairly or not, etc.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)"Waking up on the wrong side of the bed?" Seriously, dude? Do you think "flighty women" get to their third trimester and suddenly change their minds? Is that honestly what you think?
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Unless society is willing to keep it's collective mouth shut even in the most absurd case then by definition there is some gray area where societies interest goes from none to voicing an opinion, which essentially is shaming and coercion. While in the USA today there is more than enough societal coercion to make any such extreme unthinkable. In a theoretical discussion it has it's place. IMO Society needs more than just legal limits. Holding a door for an elderly or Disabled person isn't a legal requirement. It's enforced by societal pressures outside of the legal system.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)They have had zero legal restrictions on abortion for 26 years. Zero. None. Doctors have ethical boards and standards. Women and physicians can be trusted.
I know.... Crazy, right?
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Those Dr's Standards and Ethics are derived from Society. If you remove societies inputs there are no Ethics, only the Binary Legal or Not.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)It's probably more poor ability to explain my view that all law and morality comes from the people. Murder being only a crime because people collectively "feel" it should be. But that's my detached view of systems.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)It's at the top of the anti-choicer's hit parade. If you think your argument is original and profound, you're sorely mistaken.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Not sure how you get from
No Societal Comment necessary till we get to the Absurd
with the whack jobs that condone murder. But if that's what floats your boat.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)It's one that they make all the time to justify intervention. There are people who believe that you're "theoretical" situation is common place. I don't understand what you think your accomplishing by bringing it up.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)While I hope that DU mostly has a single unconditional support attitude. Outside of DU there are many moderates that are potential allies but may not be in lock step with wording or some relatively trivial detail. Hopefully I can help people to see the subtlety in difference between the H8'er and one who is a potential ally. So I take a position that doesn't fit cleanly into one box or another.
wercal
(1,370 posts)An abortion doesn't happen in a vacuum. It means the mother (and possibly father) have to shell out a lot of money. It means the mother may experience emotional stress (similar to worrying about any other medical procedure). It means the mother may experience physical pain (similar to other medical procedures). And of course, like any other medical procedure, there is always the risk of complications.
I am confident that the 'rare' language that was once in the platform was meant to bolster birth control and sex-ed efforts. This makes perfect sense, because getting an abortion has more potential negative complications than wearing a condom. IOW, it was an acknowledgement that the sensible first line of defense in birth control certainly shouldn't be abortion.
So, while I really don't know why you are fixating on this, and knowing that you verbally attack anybody with an opposing view, I'll go ahead and say it.
I want abortions to be more rare.
There, I said it.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)progressoid
(49,825 posts)It's politicians' attempt to appease both sides. Basically, "I say I'm pro-choice, but golly I wish the womens didn't have to make that choice."
For me, I don't care. It's none of my business.
moriah
(8,311 posts)And that's where "rare" for me comes in.
A woman shouldn't have to choose between continuing a pregnancy and keeping her job, or keeping a roof over her head, or starving.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)As long as someone isn't trying to limit choice, it's really none of your business what their personal opinion is.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Or saying that it should be rare... seems pretty limiting to me.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)About abortion doesn't limit a woman's right to choose in any way, shape or form. Not at all.
If a few words on a screen effects a person so much then they have issues and should probably seek counseling. I
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Message boards are all about opinions...where was the attack?
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)I was bored so I decided to play along.
The first question was, "Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice?"
I told them I was pro-abortion. They hung up.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)their beliefs. I could ask the OP why do people care about the death penalty? Or saving seals? Or cracking. The real issue is forcing one's belief on another. I can't force someone to like abortion... If they don't.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Others are however, actually trying to force others to not be able to obtain an abortion.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)believe that they are saving human beings from murder.
I don't agree with them at all.
But that's the argument.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is a reasonable one. If there was no reasonable debate, abortion would not be the wedge issue it is today - it would have been decided one way or the other by now.
What is decidedly unreasonable is objecting to a woman's right to choose while at the same time shutting down attempts to prevent unwanted pregnancies (e.g. sex education and contraception).
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)...although the more extreme Catholics might argue that contraception is almost as bad as abortion (because God wanted the kid to be conceived).
At that point, I think you have to say, "prove it or stay away from my laws!"
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)To women up to and including death.
Every one.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)So that argument doesn't sway them.
ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)So True
alc
(1,151 posts)But for many, the answer is the same as if you asked 150 years ago
Why would anyone care whether someone kills his slave or not?
The question about the slave is offensive. The obvious answer is "because the slave is a human". The answer many abortion opponents will give is "because the fetus is a human". You may think that's stupid, but it doesn't change their beliefs.
If they think the fetus is a human, then it is their business, just like it was slavery opponent's business to end slavery. I'm pro-choice. I also realized long ago there's no reason to discuss "details" with believers. It's worth discussing the basis of abortion stance but if they believe the fetus is human we just disagree on everything else. When the fetus becomes a human is a possible discussion. The only other possible discussion is why the would allow a human created from rape to be aborted (and that doesn't usually get you anywhere other than them admitting that there shouldn't be any exceptions).
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Yet, look through this thread and all the reasons for wanting it to be "rare".
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Isn't birth control better than an abortion? Shouldn't we do everything we can to make this invasive procedure as unnecessary as possible? Abortion is way riskier than a condom or an IUD or the pill. Why wouldn't people want it to be rare, it's an invasive medical procedure with inherent risks.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It's a linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024004413
Lithos
(26,397 posts)It's all about me, my insecurities and my fear you are cheating on me. Sex outside of my control is immoral and you are to blame for any issues. Mommy would never have done this.
</sarcasm> <--- Please note!!!
****
Back to reality - I agree with you completely. It's a woman's choice. I am pro-choice and pro-life (like Wendy).
L-
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Mira
(22,378 posts)If you are against abortion, don't have one.
We've all heard it, but it's the bottom line.
Personal:
I'm the oldest of seven. Grew up in real poverty. Was taken out of school from one day to the next and put to work in a job already procured by my Dad to help bring up the kids.
When I was about 35 my Mom visited me and we sat up really really late with a bottle of Scotch the night before her flight home. She confessed to having had 2 abortions between child 6 and 7.
First,
I cried a few tears for potential siblings I never knew. Then I went on my knees at her knees and thanked her.
I'm still exceedingly grateful.
It's the people who are on the planet already, and alive and kicking and trying to survive, who are the important ones.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)WHO do you think I cared more about? My daughter was crying when I left for the hospsital, "Mommy, I don't want you DIE". Now you can contrast this with these stupid, anti-choice people putting words into a fetus saying, "Mommy, don't kill me." Well, my 3 year old was fully capable of thinking and talking herself. Nobody had to make up words for her to say. She is 34 years old today and still remembers that day. She also said to me, only a few years ago, she would rather have her MOMMY than any brother or sister.
The anti-choice people are very dangerous and clueless. The ALREADY BORN have far, far more rights than any embryo or fetus. Let them talk to my now 34 year old daughter if they don't believe that.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)is abortion on demand, as if it's a bad thing.
I totally agree BB, and this term, used by many, enrages me. Because it's nobody's business, it should absolutely be "on demand." I despise all the waffling on some of the 'pro-choice' side: that abortion is okay if pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, but questionable or not really talked about if for any of the reasons BB itemizes in the OP. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. If she wants one, it's up to her, and her alone.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)functioning_cog
(294 posts)that's why
cui bono
(19,926 posts)What if having a baby confines her to a life of poverty for both her and the child?
But it doesn't matter what the reason for having gotten pregnant or the reason for getting an abortion. It's her right to decide. And no one's right to force her to be an incubator for 9 months.
karadax
(284 posts)I'd love to fully equalize the decision making when it comes to conception. It exists to a degree for men but it's not quite like popping a magic pill. It kind of makes the OP a moot point to an extent if a guy has greater control over efficacy of his sperm. Most people wrongly associate abortion with irresponsibility / bad decision making on one persons part. If men can get a simpler, less risky method of birth control shy of abstinence lots of people wouldn't care about a woman's body as much.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If one holds that belief, one will be very much opposed to anyone having an abortion. As opposed as they would be to someone murdering a newborn child.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Chaos, I tell you.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Me, I have enough on my plate worrying about my own body.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)since it neither breaks my bones or picks my pockets.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)in many cases, it's proof that we are FAILING in other areas.
Rape rates.
Contraceptive access.
Family planning/sex education.
Others.
It's a final line of defense that should not be tested nearly as often as it is, because there are cheaper, safer, front-end measures that prevent the whole thing from becoming an issue.
I know some women, including a roommate that had abortions. Roomie openly wished she had known more about the contraceptive she was intermittently using at the time. That's a public safety/health issue that can be addressed. That's a big red F on the report card of public health education in our local school system (engendered by right wing fuckery to promote abstinence only education on 'equal footing' with comprehensive sex ed.).
Abortion is actually safer than giving birth, but you know what's safer than abortion? Never getting pregnant unintentionally in the first place.
That takes good public policy on public health/education, and we're just not there yet.
I earnestly desire to take this issue away from the right wing, by making it no longer an issue at all.
Edit: Essentially, I would like to help build a world in which the evangelical right is holding nothing more than an empty sack full of crocodile tears about abortions that aren't happening anymore anyway, because unintended pregnancy is a thing of the past.
If they want to whine about medically necessary abortions after that, I will man the FUCK out of that barricade without apology.
Lobo27
(753 posts)strong support of free will trumps that part of me. It is not my life, I can not make their decisions for them, nor should I be able to stop them from their decisions.
The part of me that is against abortion is the part that wants to see life flourish, something like if the child had been born perhaps they would have been the next Einstein or Tesla etc.
But then I think, If the would be child came to term and the mother or family lived in horrible conditions what kind of life would the child live. Why bring them to the world only to suffer. The child services system is a mess, the GoP crusade to negate mother and child any services that may benefit them.
Some of my thoughts, but at the end of the day nothing more then thoughts. FREE WILL!!!!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and any child could be the next Hitler or Bundy.
Lobo27
(753 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life thinking it's stupid.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And another tell me about her abortion afterwards, each unsolicited.
Not one of them wanted an abortion.
Not one of them wanted to be in a position in which they would need to make this choice.
All four agonized over the decision.
I'd like these situations to be rare.
So rare, that actual abortions also become rare as a result.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)They don't give a crap about the fetuses; that is just their cover story.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Some people are aghast, (not to mention envious), that some people dare to enjoy life.
MH1
(17,537 posts)birth control would be highly accessible and second nature to almost anyone old enough to have sex.
In my fantasy world, rapes wouldn't happen, or would be a helluva lot rarer than they are today.
In my fantasy world, people would eat more nutritious food and ingest fewer nasty chemicals and therefore would be at much lower risk for problem pregnancies and deformed fetuses.
So, in my fantasy world, abortion WOULD be rarer, because there just wouldn't be as much need for it. And that would be a good thing, because an abortion is an operation - unless we are talking about a medication abortion, and I would also prefer to see more access to medication abortions which would further reduce surgical abortions. Any surgery carries risks, and even with a medication abortion you have the possibility of a bad reaction to the drugs. And either way you have the hassle, and we all have busy enough lives as it is.
I understand the argument that saying "safe legal and rare" implies there is something WRONG with having an abortion. But, I'd also like to see coronary bypass operations more rare than they are. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad choice for the person who needs it!
That said, I'm ok with just saying "safe and legal", because the logic of what I said above is probably too complicated for a lot of people, even though it really isn't complicated at all.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Why are there so many people with extra bedrooms, income, and no children who cry against abortions but aren't willing to adopt any kids? I know people like that.
To avoid killing the fetus, offer to pay expenses and take the child - even if it has serious disabilities - the same as you expect the real mother to do....
Prisons are filled with unwanted children who grew up in homes where no one was home when they came from school, nobody helped with homework, bought clothes or toys, took drugs, saw too many sexual friends, and knew they were unwanted.
It takes more than shooting a doctor who performs abortions or preventing the mother in some way from having one, to raise a child. Some homes are like hell because the kid just wasn't wanted, thru no fault of the child. Save the kid by taking it away from the mother who doesn't want it or shut up.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)liberal N proud
(60,300 posts)They are against welfare.
They are against food stamps.
They are against any social program.
But they are pro gun and people killing in certain situations.
They are pro death penalty.
To me it comes across as one of those issues the right uses to pull the fundies in to the huddle when they need them.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And to some of those who believe that life begins somewhat later than contraception, late-term abortion is murder.
These people view abortion as babies being killed, so of course they care.
REP
(21,691 posts)I think you meant "conception." But what is conception? When the ovum is fertilized and becomes a zygote? When the zygote becomes a blastocyst and implants? There are 5 days between those two stages - if the zygote does develop into a morula, etc at all, and if the blastocyst does implant properly ... And even then, a great deal of these will fail to develop further.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And I agree with you, I was just saying how I think extremists look at it.
William769
(55,124 posts)And the answer is the same, none of their fucking business!
P.S. Sorry for the potty mouth.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)have too much time on their hands and probably have their own personal issues that they are neglecting to attend to. I find that it's hard enough to concentrate on everything going on in my own life that I can't even imagine the time and energy it would take to worry about somebody else's life. I think that it's, frankly, unhealthy to spend what precious little time we all have thinking about what other people are doing. *ugh*
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)the new approved code language?
I mean really? How much time on their hands do some of these people have to divisively bicker over narrowly framed arguments regarding a single word ("rare" and chastise other liberals as terrible right-wing nuts because they haven't jumped on the language-train yet?
boston bean
(36,186 posts)There's some meaning behind it and why people are insistent upon using it.
Fair game for discussion. Sorry you would like to see that discussion limited.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)are fake feminists.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)If you have something to add to the topic, I welcome your response. Angry, false comments are just that, angry and false.
Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #245)
Post removed
bananas
(27,509 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)I alerted on it, but now I think it might have been sarcasm.
NoOneMan was apparently quoting boston bean, but left out the quote marks.
I apologize if I misunderstood.
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
Mail Message
At Sat Nov 9, 2013, 12:10 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
I'm not sure if you are a man or not, but ALL men are by nature can't be feminists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4006139
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS:
"ALL men are by nature can't be feminists" ???
"the proper wedding tackle" ???
kestel is a female veterinarian
This post is disgusting, disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, and over-the-top.
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Nov 9, 2013, 12:22 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think the complainant is being over-sensitive in the midst of a very robust argument.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yea, that sounds more like somebody trying to be disruptive. Playing into stereotypes and just wanting to get a rise out of someone. Not good for this thread.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Thank you.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)Congratulations.
No attempt at a coming together of minds, as far as I can see.
But what do you care, you are so jaded, you just want revenge,
and if you can't get revenge on the people who hurt you,
you'll screw over some innocent and pretend it was revenge.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)I simply commented after the fact on a hidden post that was quite a mis representation of what I stated. Couldn't comment to a hidden post, could I?
I'm not really sure where you are coming from, but it really feels over the top.
I'm not into revenge. That's why I don't alert. If you had not alerted it would have more than likely remained. Cause even you think his attack on me (make no defense of it, it was directed personally to me with link stalking and contempt). Yet for you, it appears that is ok, and now we should all feel bad for this poster, cause you feel like your alert was wrong... Thanks for the support and understanding....
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)The woman would care. It's her right.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)And the constant bickering doesn't accomplish much.
Everyone has a right to their own opinion and the choice of each person should be respected. Who's place is it to tell another what to think? Especially over trivial nuances. I don't think that everyone will be all on the same page concering this topic ever. The right to choose is a big tent with many different ways of accomplishing it.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)It takes a lot of fucking audacity to insist a woman must feel sorrow or regret about having an abortion.
It is paternalistic, woman-shaming nonsense.
I hate this "rare" meme that's going around now.
It is none of anybody's goddamn business besides the woman making the decision.
Period.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)It's fucking disgusting.
I cannot even believe this shit is allowed to continue day after fucking day here.
LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)We are liberals. We get involved in things none of our buisness all the time. How dare we have an opinion on animal rights. We are not those animals it is none of our buisness who wants to wear a fur coat or not? We are middle class, why should we care for the poor? None of our buisness. How dare we oppose the death penalty! Its none of our buisness!
1) You are right
2) Yeah that happens
3) Agree
4) Yep.
5) Exactly.
6) That is not an argument against wanting it to be rare. It like the other 5 points are pro-choice arguments and WE ARE PRO-CHOICE. WE SUPPORT HAVING AN ABORTION RIGHTS FOR ALL THE REASONS YOU LIST!
Many of us simply see the loss of life as regrettable and would like to minimize it in some way that does not infringe on the woman's autonomy.
We are not the ones making judgments here. The ones trying to shame those of us who want it rare are the ones making the judgments. You are intentionally trying to associate our position with ones we don't support and you are talking to us as if we were anti-abortion rights activist.
[p class=post-sig style=margin-top:0px;text-align:center;]
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Are we all in this together? Do we want to reduce harm and trauma in a society at large? Do we want to reduce costly procedures if possible so we can spend such resources more effectively to promote the best aggregate health outcomes?
Or do we just not give a fuck what the nation pays for health care and how the money is tossed around and if any of it could be prevented by the state educating people, providing free services & preventative measure, and promoting wellness.
Seriously....what does a liberal believe? That there is a place for the state to attempt to promote the general welfare of the people? Or that everyone can do whatever the fuck they want whenever without anyone caring at all, no matter what it costs, if it could be reduced and what harm it causes? Liberals or libertarians?
Bottom line: If a state can cost-effectively run programs and provide services that prevent costly, risky or traumatic procedures and make them rare, thereby reducing harm and freeing up resources for other critical health expenditures, then it should absolutely seeks to do so on everyone's behalf.
If the state can, while making a procedure safe, legal and accessible, also promote its rarity with prevention programs, then we should all support this as liberals.
bananas
(27,509 posts)I agree with you, I was juror 2 4 or 6, I don't think an explanation was necessary.
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
At Sat Nov 9, 2013, 05:38 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Maybe its everyone's business
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4006136
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Once again some man coming in to frame the issue of abortion as a "traumatic procedure". I'm so sick of seeing these right wing talking points trotted out on DU.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 9, 2013, 05:52 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Don't see this as RW talking points. The post is not anti-choice, reading the last line, sounds like President Clinton's quote of "legal, safe and rare": "If the state can, while making a procedure safe, legal and accessible, also promote its rarity with prevention programs, then we should all support this as liberals."
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: make them rare, Seems to the Point here. After all it used to be a part of the Democratic debate to make Abortion Safe, Legal, And rare. We seem to have forgotten the rare part.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Anti Choice world leaders. They push them hard, I expect the 'We Love Rick Warren' threads to show up any moment. Francis is a preacher who says abortion is murder of babies, and on DU he is considered a living saint whose opinions must be repeatedly endorsed.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Response to boston bean (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ellie
(6,927 posts)It is no one's fucking business whether or not a woman has an abortion.