Should We Love Abortion?

Jessica DelBalzo argues yes and goes so far as to say women should “venerate it wholeheartedly”:

Suggesting that abortion be “safe, legal, and rare,” and crowing that “no one likes abortion,” accomplishes nothing for women’s rights. Pandering to the anti-choice movement by implying that we allfind termination distasteful only fuels the fire against it. What good is common ground if it must be achieved at the expense of women who have had or will have abortions? Those women need advocates like us more than we need support from anti-abortionists. Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-birth camp, women who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like abortion. In fact, they should venerate it whole-heartedly. Abortion is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What’s not to love?

Your Thoughts?

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • Bruce Martin

    I believe it was Gloria Steinem who pointed out that if men could become pregnant, then abortion would be a holy sacrament.

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      And, like so many things she said, it’s almost certainly wrong and is absolutely unsupported. It’s rhetoric, not anything like reasonable argumentation.

    • julian

      There is pressure on men to procreate, especially from the religious.

      I can think of a couple cases just after enlisting where either myself or another man were taken aside to discuss whether we should get vasectomies. I was 19 at the time so I’m not unsympathetic to their concern (except that they insisted every man would eventually wish to father a child) but the other gentleman being talked to was a GySgt with 2 children. I’m pretty sure he was perfectly capable of deciding for himself.

      Obviously the pressure isn’t as great and the burden is still on women to raise the children, but ‘be fruitful and multiply’ applies to us with the ability to fertilize an egg as well.

  • Forbidden Snowflake

    Abortion: when you need one, nothing else will do.

    Abortion is a very good thing in the same sense that appendectomy is a very good thing: nobody likes to be in the situation of needing it, but since we live in reality and situations of needing it always happen, it’s great that it’s available.
    However, since abortion is controversial in a way that appendectomy isn’t, I tend to agree with the author of the quote that it should be supported as an unambiguous good.

    Messages like “no one likes abortion” can easily be misconstrued as “abortion is immoral, but the filthy sluts should have legal access to it anyway”, while the actual meaning is “nobody likes an unwanted pregnancy, but imma frame it in a way that scapegoats abortion in order to pander to anti-choicers”.

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      Well, appendectomies don’t get that because right now about the only reason to get them is in fact direct medical need where you’ll die if you don’t. You don’t get people making choices to have an appendectomy for any other reasons. Which is why you don’t need to make any claims to a right to bodily autonomy to justify them, which is not the case for abortion.

    • mas528

      A person can refuse or accept an appendectomy or any medical treatment precisely because the bodily autonomy claim is inherent in the procedure.

    • ema

      Well, appendectomies don’t get that because right now about the only reason to get them is in fact direct medical need….

      What is the mortality of [legal] 1st trim abortion? And the mortality of carrying a pregnancy to term? Now, explain how medical need does not, in fact, apply to a significant reduction in mortality.

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      ma528,

      Great. Now go to your doctor and tell them that you want to have your appendix taken out even though it’s working fine, and insist that they do it despite their own feelings on the matter because of your right to bodily autonomy, and see what kind of reaction you’ll get. I doubt it’ll be pleasant.

      ema,

      You seem to have missed the “direct” in my comment. In general, you get your appendix removed because either it has burst or is clearly about to, and so it’s a direct threat. You don’t get it removed because it might cause a problem later. Thus, that’s a clear difference; appendix removals aren’t really a choice.

    • John Morales

      Verbose:

      A person can refuse or accept an appendectomy or any medical treatment precisely because the bodily autonomy claim is inherent in the procedure.

      Great. Now go to your doctor and tell them that you want to have your appendix taken out even though it’s working fine, and insist that they do it despite their own feelings on the matter because of your right to bodily autonomy, and see what kind of reaction you’ll get.

      You either don’t know to what bodily autonomy refers, or you are being disingenuous.

      (Hint: it ain’t about what you can make other people do to you, it’s about you can avoid having other people do to you)

      Also, you’ve conspicuously avoided ema’s question.

      (Gee, I wonder why?)

    • mas528

      @verbose stoic

      Don’t shift goalposts

      You made the specious claim that bodily autonomy arguments are only made for abortion..

      I corrected you.

      The ‘direct threat’ in your comment changes nothing.. Body autonomy still holds. You still have to give permission.

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      John Morales,

      You either don’t know to what bodily autonomy refers, or you are being disingenuous.

      (Hint: it ain’t about what you can make other people do to you, it’s about you can avoid having other people do to you)

      Great, so then if a country made a law that all doctors and hospitals had the absolute right to refuse to provide any abortion or even a referral for an abortion except when the mother’s life was in direct and immediate danger, there would be absolutely no concerns that it might infringe on the right to bodily automony or choice/control over one’s own body, correct? I think that many people would indeed feel that this might be crossing the line.

      Rights sometimes mean that other people are made to take actions, if their refusal is only personal whim while the action you need them to take is required for them to actually be able to exercise a right they have.

      Also, you’ve conspicuously avoided ema’s question.

      (Gee, I wonder why?)

      Well, while I like answering rhetorical questions as much as the next person — okay, okay probably MORE than the average person — I didn’t see the need to answer her questions and instead addressed her argument, by pointing out that that sort of direct mortality had nothing to do with what I was saying or talking about. No one as far as I know uses an argument that having an appendix that might become inflamed or burst causes more deaths than the procedure to remove it, so we should be able to get it at any time. Again, appendices generally get removed when they’re about to kill you, and the pro-choice argument certainly applies to far more cases than that.

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      ma528,

      Don’t shift goalposts

      You made the specious claim that bodily autonomy arguments are only made for abortion..

      No, I most unequivocably did not. I said that the difference between abortion and appendectomies is that you only get them for direct medical need where you’ll die if you won’t, and so you don’t need to make claims of bodily autonomy rights to justify having one. Your attempt, then, to switch this to a discussion of when bodily autonomy rights are made in general completely fails to address my actual point, which surprisingly only takes up about 2/3s of my actual comment, while the point you jump on is only a minor phrasing point in the last statement. It’s difficult, then, to justify a claim of shifting the goalposts when the argument that is supposedly a new goalpost made up the majority of the original comment …

      The ‘direct threat’ in your comment changes nothing.. Body autonomy still holds. You still have to give permission.

      Except that the “permission” part is your invention and is irrelevant to the point. I easily concede that in both cases you’d have to give permission to the procedure and STILL argue that a major factor in the attitudes towards them is that in one case you have direct medical threat to life as being the reason given for doing it exclusively while in the other it is meant to extend to other reasons as well.

    • John Morales

      Verbose:

      Great, so then if a country made a law that all doctors and hospitals had the absolute right to refuse to provide any abortion or even a referral for an abortion except when the mother’s life was in direct and immediate danger …

      Dunno about hospitals, but I’m pretty sure all doctors already do have such a right.

      … there would be absolutely no concerns that it might infringe on the right to bodily automony or choice/control over one’s own body, correct?

      You seem to imagine having the right to do something means being mandated to do that something. Nope.

      Rights sometimes mean that other people are made to take actions

      Yeah, but the phrase used was “right to bodily autonomy”, to the meaning of which I alluded. But sure, care to provide a relevant example?

      Well, while I like answering rhetorical questions as much as the next person — okay, okay probably MORE than the average person — I didn’t see the need to answer her questions and instead addressed her argument, by pointing out that that sort of direct mortality had nothing to do with what I was saying or talking about.

      Interesting technique, to address an argument by ignoring its substance and claiming it’s not of relevance.

      (Also, preventative appendectomies are hardly an obscure historical phenomenon)

      PS Are you familiar with ema, or are you guessing as to gender?

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      John Morales,

      Dunno about hospitals, but I’m pretty sure all doctors already do have such a right.

      We’re going to get into all sorts of problems here with different jurisdictions and rules, but I will point out that the opposition I’ve seen to “conscience clauses” seemed to aim at that in general and not just at life-threatening cases, but I could be wrong. I’ll get into more details about the arguments as opposed to the laws in a minute …

      You seem to imagine having the right to do something means being mandated to do that something. Nope.

      I’ve never argued that, actually. My argument is more that rights do demand that you have reasonable access and ability to do it.

      Yeah, but the phrase used was “right to bodily autonomy”, to the meaning of which I alluded. But sure, care to provide a relevant example?

      I have heard arguments here in Canada that not funding abortions imposes too much on her right to bodily autonomy, since it would reduce access. Anything that would potentially reduce access to much so that her exercising her choice would be unreasonable, then, potentially — and note that I didn’t say definitely — infringes on her ability to exercise that right. So in the case I gave if that really is stated so clearly then there would be a risk that if you had, say, an area — like, say, some U.S. states — where the doctors were overwhelmingly opposed to abortion, in some communities the woman would not, in fact, be able to reasonably get access to abortions; they would instead have to undertake expensive journeys to get one. That might be considered an undue and unacceptable infringement on that right. Then again, it might not. But the argument is there, and since you seem to agree that rights in general do potentially impose obligtions, this might be another one. So all I’m pointing out here is that your definition is a little simplistic, or if it is the definition then abortion may not quite fit under the right to bodily autonomy, as it has other issues that might allow for the imposition of behaviour on others.

      Interesting technique, to address an argument by ignoring its substance and claiming it’s not of relevance.

      (Also, preventative appendectomies are hardly an obscure historical phenomenon)

      Um, except that what I’d actually be doing is conceding the questions, pointing out what the substance of the argument actually was, and then pointing back to my original statement and indeed arguing that it wasn’t of relevance to what I was talking about. So, my technique would be to address an argument by pointing out that it only works against an argument that was not mine. Most Internet denizens would be calling it a strawman by now …

      As for preventative appendectomies, they may not be obscure, but they aren’t common and commonly discussed either, and so aren’t a common and standard understanding when we use the term “appendectomy”. That’s all my argument requires, as I have said already a few times.

      Interesting technique, to address an argument by ignoring its substance and claiming it’s not of relevance.

      (Also, preventative appendectomies are hardly an obscure historical phenomenon)

      [shrug]. I went by the same, which reminds me of Emma. I could be wrong as to gender, but also won’t guarantee that we haven’t had run ins before either. If I’m wrong as to gender, I apologize.

    • Dianne

      Now go to your doctor and tell them that you want to have your appendix taken out even though it’s working fine, and insist that they do it despite their own feelings on the matter because of your right to bodily autonomy, and see what kind of reaction you’ll get. I doubt it’ll be pleasant.

      If you went to your doctor with an appendix that caused nausea, vomiting, weight gain, and amenorrhea, you’d be without an appendix within 24 hours unless you have a contraindication to surgery. If you went to your doctor and said you wanted your (perfectly functional) appendix out because you were going to the South Pole to overwinter and you didn’t want to risk it going bad there your appendix would be in formaldehyde as soon as the surgery could be scheduled. If you asked your doctor to take out your appendix because three first degree relatives had carcinoid tumors in the appendix the pathologist would be looking over your appendix in no time. And so on.

      No, the results wouldn’t be pleasant, per se-surgery hurts-but you’d be without the named organ pretty quickly unless there were a strong medical reason not to do surgery.

    • Dianne

      Dunno about hospitals, but I’m pretty sure all doctors already do have such a right.

      Hospitals are required to treat and stabilize any person who presents with a life threatening emergency. Including a pregnancy that is killing them. Any physician has the right to refuse to perform a procedure if they aren’t competent or willing to do so but they must refer to someone who is willing to perform the procedure in a timely manner. Risking the patient’s life or health by refusing to do is extremely unethical and illegal.

    • John Morales

      [meta]

      Dianne, thanks for the informed commentary.

    • John Morales

      [meta + OT]

      Verbose,

      If I’m wrong as to gender, I apologize.

      Kudos.

      (But — why are you sloppy thus?)

  • Gwynnyd

    Can I love it only as much as, say, a colonoscopy? *Venerating* abortion is a little creepy and also misses the point, in my opinion.

    • Forbidden Snowflake

      Can I love it only as much as, say, a colonoscopy?

      Sure, once it becomes as socially acceptable as colonoscopy.

    • Gwynnyd

      I’m good with that.

  • Makoto

    While no one likes breaking bones, I think setting a broken bone should be safe, legal, and rare. That is, I hope there are ways we try to prevent broken bones, but if they do happen, it should be a simple matter of getting them set to the person can deal with it.

    Abortion, to me, is not so different. Safe, legal, and rare, just means I hope that we as a society promote safe sex and sex ed, but when that fails (condom breaks, pill doesn’t work, poor planning, etc., or, in the cases of rape and incest), we have the ability to provide an abortion when needed. It’s far better than forcing a woman to have a back alley abortion (which is so very unsafe), travel to another country to get one (so very expensive), or raise an unwanted child (so very bad to society).

    The problem I see with many laws these days is that they promote ignorance (abstinence only) and punish abortion (any ultrasound law) for no good reason. If you want fewer abortions, make sex ed comprehensive, loosen restrictions on contraception, and provide safe abortions. Many countries show this result, or the opposite as several states in the US end up proving lately.

    • Lscano

      I’d to modify the analogy here. Abortion isnt the broken bone, its the setting technique. Broken bones are inconvinient and undesirable but luckily we have this wonderful simple and safe proccedure that prevents the unwelcome long term consequences.

      We should love abortion just like we love antibiotics or any other medical advance.

    • Makoto

      True, Lscano, I should’ve been clearer. Setting the bone is akin to the abortion in my mind – should be safe and legal, and to me, rare, just because in many cases we can work to prevent it, just as we can prevent broken bones (the need for setting). But broken bones happen, through mishap, through outside actions, and so on, and so we need to set broken bones when needed, not try to tell the person “well, your bone is broken, deal with it”, while not providing the care they need.

    • ischemgeek

      Speaking as someone who may have broken my wrist yesterday (doc is thinking it’s probably an occult fracture based on my symptoms and holy-shit-and-climing pain level when unmedicated – yay for opiates is all I’m gonna say about that part), this analogy is made of win. :D

      Take it a step further: would you let a broken bone heal on its own without medication or setting because it’s God’s will for you to not have self-setting bones?

    • seditiosus

      Agreed; it’s an excellent analogy. My view is that we should love properly performed abortions in the same way that we love all safe, reliable medical procedures that save lives or increase quality of life. “Venerate” does seem like an odd choice of word to me, but I agree with it in the sense that we should certainly venerate medical science and the many ways it improves our lives.

  • Leni

    Venerate is a little weird.

    Years ago I read an interview with Diamonda Galas (singer, for those of you who don’t know. She doesn’t have any relevant expertise other than being a woman who’s had an abortion) in which she was asked what she thought about abortion.

    She basically said “I think every woman should have one”. I was really shocked by this, but I’ve come to sort of agree, at least in a half-assed sort of way.

    There’s almost a mythology built up around it that I think presents the issue with a kind of after-school special simplicity. The girl finds out she’s pregnant, scrapes together the money, and shame-facedly trudges to the clinic for the dreaded procedure, which she invariably cries throughout and regrets for the rest of her life.

    Well, lots of women don’t cry, except perhaps from relief. Lots of women don’t regret it or fret endlessly about who the child might have been. In my case, I cried during the procedure out of relief. Briefly. And kind of because I thought I should. Afterward, I realized that it really wasn’t as emotionally traumatizing as I’d expected it to be. It’s not that I didn’t have any feelings about it, but rather that my feelings weren’t guilt, which was what I expected them to be. To my surprise, that never happened.

    It was liberating. It was a huge relief and an incredible learning experience. I know very well that this is not true of all women. And I don’t fault women who do feel sad, or perhaps have abortions for medical reasons that they would otherwise not have chosen. My heart breaks for those women and I do not in any way mean to demean their hardships or imply that their feelings are not genuine and valid. I can definitely venerate the fact that they could make a choice, if not the circumstances that led to it and the pain that resulted from it.

    I only wish to point out that their experience is by no means universal. I’m not even sure if it’s the norm. I don’t want be saddled with other people’s guilt, especially if they’ve never actually had one or been in a situation where it really was the best choice.

    So veneration is a little weird, but I definitely don’t think we should fear it and stigmatize it as much as we do. Or saddle women with our expectations of what they should feel about it (which, weirdly, maybe is what happens when we say we should venerate it), or that we should mythologize it as some sort of agonizing choice that ultimately implies you’re somehow a bad person if your soul wasn’t forever crushed by it.

    Gwynnyd:

    If people were actively preventing others from getting colonoscopies, even shame them out of getting them, I would definitely consider venerating it.

  • Alverant

    I’m going to play off Snowflake’s post a little.

    Messages like “no one likes abortion” can easily be misconstrued as “abortion is immoral, but the filthy sluts should have legal access to it anyway”

    That may be true, but so what? They’ll intemperate anything they can in order to support their position. We already see it with creationists. No matter what facts or logic you present to them, it will be twisted to mean only what they want to mean.

    Meanwhile we can be honest with ourselves. We can support abortion while still hoping it will be a rare event. We will have the integrity they lack because we won’t have to make excuses. When an anti-choicer gets an abortion (and yes, it does happen) they have to rationalize it and explain why theirs should be allowed while at the same time justify forbidding it to others.

    Think about the ACLU, they have defended people who hate them because they are consistent. They believe in the rights of all within US borders even if if they’re using those rights in disgusting ways. As it’s often said, “I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    • Forbidden Snowflake

      That may be true, but so what?

      The problem isn’t only that “nobody likes abortion” is easily misconstrued, but also that it isn’t actually true. Look at the analogy from upthread, the one about setting broken bones. Would you actually say “nobody likes bone-setting”? Probably not, I think, because it’s simply a bizarre statement which shifts the unpleasantness of the situation from the disease (broken bone/unwanted pregnancy) to the cure (bone-setting/abortion).
      Saying it is not actually being honest, it’s talking about abortion in an apologetic, simpering way that is reserved for abortion and no other medical treatment.

      I very much prefer the slogan someone came up with recently on Pharyngula: “Keep abortion safe, legal and none of your goddamn business”.

  • No Light

    What do I think? That she’ll say anything for attention. She believes all adoption is slavery, that all disabled foetuses should be aborted, that mothers should be given up to 7 days after giving birth to make the choice to smother their baby (for any reason), and that any adult or child who becomes disabled should be euthanised.

    So yeah, I think she’s in need of help.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com WMDKitty

      What in the holy hell are you smoking?

    • Adoptee

      For the record, while No Light isn’t being fully honest, he’s also not that far off the mark.

      She did once say that she supported euthanasia for profoundly disabled infants, though that was several years ago and I can’t say for sure if she still favors that. More to the point, she is an anti-adoption activist, active to this day. In the past, she claimed that adoption was as damaging as severe sexual abuse and claimed that happy adoptees were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. She consistently depicts adoptive parents as bad or damaged people and even insists that they not be called “parents.” She even mirrors the rhetoric of the pro-lifers, speaking of the “adoption industry” and claiming that women who choose adoption must be brainwashed.

      I am not a regular reader of this blog, so I won’t pull the whole leaving-and-never-coming-back thing. I just stumbled across this post at random on my journeys through FTB. DelBalzo has been keeping her pro-choice and anti-adoption activities separate, and if you look into her background you’ll see why. She has some truly toxic ideas, and I plan on shouting them from the rafters everytime her name comes up.

    • No Light

      WMDkitty – they are her views. She is a truly vile person. No need to be so hostile to me.

      I hate her, she claims I have no right to life because of my disability. She’s said that she’d have her own daughter committed if she ever chose adoption, the very same daughter that she claims can consent to sex with adults once she’s ten years old. This is common knowledge to those of us who’ve had the misfortune of dealing with her.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      I had no idea about her upsetting and damaging views on adoption. But they don’t seem relevant to the rightness or wrongness of what she said in the article at hand.

    • mas528

      Indeed Daniel.

      If fact, I seem to recall a common fallacy that no light is making…

  • Elly

    I’m with Leni… I had a first trimester abortion at 22. I felt just fine about it: I experienced no guilt, no pangs of regret, and no ruminations about “what might have been.” In fact, giving birth ten years later only affirmed the rightness of my decision (for me, at least). I had my (two) kids exactly when I wanted them; at a time when I was emotionally mature, had a good job + money in the bank, comprehensive health insurance and a solid, stress-tested marriage. I adore my kids… and they almost certainly never would have been born if I hadn’t aborted. Becoming a mother at 22 would have put me on a very different life path than the one that led to their (eventual) conception.

    “Venerate” is probably not the word I’d use, though. I get the author’s intent. Women who suffer the heartbreak of aborting a wanted child due to maternal or fetal health issues have my full sympathy – but always putting their plight front and center lends credence to the notion that the only “good” abortion is one filled with anguish and regret. This makes it easier to demonize those of us who simply don’t want children at certain times of our lives (if ever) as “sluts” who are having abortions for “convenience.” Well, from where I sit, there isn’t jack s**t wrong with having an abortion for “convenience.” As much as I love my kids, I can still acknowledge how much they cost me: physically, professionally and financially. No woman should be forced into that decision.

    I think I’d go with “value” vs. “venerate.”

    • Leni

      …but always putting their plight front and center lends credence to the notion that the only “good” abortion is one filled with anguish and regret. This makes it easier to demonize those of us who simply don’t want children at certain times of our lives (if ever) as “sluts” who are having abortions for “convenience.”

      Yes, yes, a thousand times yes :)

      You said just what I was thinking but better, thanks!

    • opposablethumbs, que le pouce enragé mette les pouces

      Well said, Elly (and incidentally fairly similar to my own experience).

  • Cassandra Caligaria (Cipher), OM

    Yeah… As the broken bone analogy above made pretty clear, I think when some of us say things like “nobody likes abortion” we are trying to find a common ground that’s not there. The anti-choice crowd don’t like ending pregnancies. We don’t like the existence of unwanted pregnancies or pregnancies that go awry.

  • http://florilegia.wordpress.com Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto

    I love abortion. I don’t like the whole connotation of wishing it were rare. To me, it’s not even as benign as wishing bone-setting were rare. Abortion is all about solution. It’s such a fantastic thing that we can have complete control over our own bodies in this regard. Getting pregnant isn’t (usually) traumatic to the body like having broken bones is. It’s so mild and painless a change that it takes a few weeks to even notice. So, here we have a treatment that’s reliable and remarkably safe for a condition that’s either hardly noticeable (at that point in time) or so likely to do damage that the procedure is likely only to be a relief. It’s far more like having a polio vaccine or taking antibiotics for meningitis, and you’d never hear people (aside from anti-vaxxers of course) wishing vaccines or antibiotics were rare. I’m not sure if I expressed myself very well there.

    I’d like to see pro-choice advocates totally drop from their rhetoric any implication that abortion is something to be shunned or used only as a last resort. It makes the decision so much more emotionally laden than it has to be, and it makes the political position for choice so much the weaker. If not venerating, we should at least be celebrating.

    Replace “rare” with “free” “accessible” “without shame”.

  • Buffy

    I disagree. I do wish abortion were rare. Why “venerate” a treatment/cure when you can venerate a preventive? Naturally abortion should be accessible, safe and affordable (free if necessary) to any woman who needs it.

    But preventing the need is better. I wish every teenage girl and woman had a comprehensive sex education and access to affordable (even free) birth control. That alone would dramatically reduce the need for abortion.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com WMDKitty

      IAWTC.

      I have to second the call for comprehensive, accurate sex-ed, and low-or-no-cost birth control and abortion services. (Funny how countries that have exactly those things have the lowest abortion rates…)

    • Leni

      Why “venerate” a treatment/cure when you can venerate a preventive?

      Because the treatment/cure is treated like a more shameful option than the slightly less shameful preventative.

      We live in a world in which people are directly prevented from seeking the treatment, cure, and preventives. They are obstructed, denied, and patients are made to feel ashamed for asking for help.

      That’s why.

    • ischemgeek

      I’ll explain from my perspective: Been on the pill 2 years. Have yet to make it through a month with good compliance. I try my ass off, but I have ADHD and it doesn’t go well with doing stuff at the same time every day.

      I’ve tried taking it in the morning (which doesn’t work because my wakeup time can be as early as 4 or as late as 11 depending on day of the week and how late I went to bed), before bed (bedtime varies between 11 and 6AM because at least once a month or so I’ll get absorbed in something and stay up until it`s early again, plus I forgot my pill to boot), at supper (which I forget to eat at least once a week), at lunch (likewise), with breakfast (likewise), I’ve tried setting an alarm (which I forget to re-set), and set up reminders on my laptop (which inevitably fails the time I don’t have my laptop on at that time). And so on. Me and daily pills that need to be taken at the same time don’t go together, and this is with Concerta on board (which makes me more focused, organized and able to remember things).

      I’ve asked for the patch, but the (male) doctor I see doesn’t like the patch and refuses to prescribe it to me, saying there’s no reason the patch should work any better than the pill (I’m not saying it’ll work better, Doc, I’m saying it will be easier to be compliant with since I need to remember something once a week at any point during the day instead of seven times a week at the same time each day). Depo is a no because of family history of early-onset osteoporosis and the docs and I don’t want to take the risk. I’ve asked for an IUD, but for some stupid reason, they won’t let me get one until I’ve had a kid. Which negates the whole damn reason for wanting a damn IUD.

      I think it’s a matter of time before the pill fails due to my inability to remain compliant. I’ve lucked out so far, but sooner or later, it’s going to happen.

      So while I wouldn’t go so far as to say I “venerate” abortion, but I treasure the fact that I won’t have to be a slave to my uterus because of my learning disability when my birth control fails because the fucking doctors won`t treat me as a person rather than a part in an assembly line and always brush me off with, “You just have to try harder.” and comments about lack of committment, laziness and irresponsibility. Grgh.

    • mas528

      Because even with top notch sex ed, condoms break, people don’t read instructions, sometime the risk of stroke is too great with the pill, it has even happened that the pill was misformulated by the manufacturer.

      Has the knowledge of how to prevent atherosclerosis through diet and exercise reduced the number of bypass surgeries?

      Even when they try. margarine instead of butter. But transfats are worse for you!

      No matter though. It decouples sex from procreation just as bypass decouples eating from heart attack. As corticosteroids decouple allergic asthma from suffering and death, as lasix decouples salt from hbp induced kidney failure.

      I think abortion is good when you need it.

  • anfractuous

    The reason given to oppose abortion is usually that it is ending the life of a human being – a god-given ensouled human being. That’s the basis of the argument that abortion is immoral. I reject that argument, so the morality issue is moot. Abortion is and should be no more significant than removing any other growth of my body.

    A more nuanced argument was made by Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, an Episcopal priest. I don’t agree with her religious sentiment but her overall point is perfect. She says, as the last in a list of other reasons, “And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.” Read the whole speech here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2245366/posts

  • http://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com/ George W.

    I actually read the article in question yeterday at a different blog, and I’ve been giving it much thought over the last 24 or so hours.

    I think that “we love abortion” in the same way that “we love unpopular speech”. I love the right for women to control their bodies in a world where it is necessary that they are afforded that right. I love the right of people to say things I don’t agree with in a world where it is necessary that they are afforded that right. That doesn’t mean that I love every word spoken, but I love the fact that much good comes from the right to speech and much evil is averted by it. Even in a world where abortion wasn’t as necessary, or free speech wasn’t as necessary, I would still love the fact that the right to both are still available.

    I love abortion when it saves a womans life. I love free speech when people are free to criticize corruption. I love abortion when it saves a rape victim the second victimization. I love free speech when it allows people to challenge bad ideas.

    I don’t love abortion when it could have been prevented by better social policy, but I love that it is available to everyone. I don’t love free speech when it’s used to marginalize minorities, but I love that my convictions aren’t the barometer of the right to express ideas- because if it could be my convictions, it could just as easily be anyones.

    So I don’t “love abortion”- I love the “right to abortion”. There seems to me something intrinsically good about the right to it and not necessarily anything intrinsically good about the action itself.

  • kevinalexander

    The whole question of love/hate abortion is a non sequitur anyway. The debate needs to stay focused on whether one person should have the right power to force another to pay a huge price for a religious prejudice that she does not hold herself.

  • Leni

    @ischemgeek

    I think maybe you need a new doctor or a second opinion.

    I have an IUD and have never had children. When I got it they told me that not having had children just makes implanting it more painful and a little harder to do.

    I also just looked at the product website and not having had children is not listed as a safety concern as far as I can tell.

    • http://twitter.com/aynsavoy annesauer

      Seconding this. Your doctor does not seem to be providing you with reliable information (especially re: being able to get an IUD).

      FWIW, I’ve used the Nuva Ring for 8 years now and have had only good experiences. I chose it because I also would have difficulty taking a pill at the same time every day.

  • leaper

    OK, I’ll get back to reading all the comments, but I didn’t see anyone with this take on it

    So, at 19, I accidentally got pregnant. It was OK because I was going to marry my boyfriend and all I wanted was to be a wife and mom. The boyfriend effed up early on, so he was out of the picture early which was a good thing because he continued on the path of being an indulgent, immoral person.

    I had a revelation one day. That bringing this human into the world was actually selfish and childish. And, now she is living an Effed up life! No opportunity, life is always hard and unfortunate. How nice of me to put her through this!

    9 years later, I’m a working single mom, trying to be a good person, still not at all mature… I slipped up. This time with a very honorable person. One time, really? So, I knew the unselfish thing would be to terminate.

    Now, 16 years later, there could be another human on this earth, living a less than desirable life. And the man, who would be paying support and having visitations.

    It’s like playing god really. I can radically alter/create lives, or, I can realize…
    This absent minded and immature being has the power to create and alter lives. Whole human lives!

    I’m not even talking about MY life. I’m fine! I’ll raise 20 children! I don’t care about me! It’s the other lives that are hanging on my mistake and my decision!

    And my now 24 year old daughter should have had it so much better. She really should have had it all. She didn’t.

    Long story short: abortion is hard, but absolutely the right thing to do. (if you effed up with birth control which is REALLY the right thing to do!) And how freaking expensive is that?!!!

  • colubridae

    “ma528,
    Great. Now go to your doctor and tell them that you want to have your appendix taken out even though it’s working fine, and insist that they do it despite their own feelings on the matter because of your right to bodily autonomy, and see what kind of reaction you’ll get. I doubt it’ll be pleasant.”

    What a load of bullshit.
    1 Just because doctors don’t approve of something or give an ‘unpleasant reaction’ doesn’t make them right.
    2 If you’ve got enough money you can have a prophylactic appendectomy without any problem.
    3 With regards to appendectomies what if you know you wish to travel far from medical help, having a prophylactic appendectomy would seem a sensible precaution.
    4 its you own choice, whether a doctor approves or disapproves doesn’t enter into it, frankly it’s none of his business. Doctor’s for historical and financial reasons have way too much power over individuals. Just because it’s the status quo doesn’t make it right

    Once again people like Ma528 want to make others toe their (ma528’s) line, irrespective of want the individual herself/himself/itself desires. It’s always about controlling others.

    • mas528

      @colubridae,

      First of all, I did not say this. It was a response that was being made to me.

      Second, you’re right, it was a load of bullshit. It was shifting a shifting of goalposts coming from a person who didn’t understand bodily autonomy.

      I am well aware of prophylactic appendectomies. But they weren’t relevant to the original claim.

      I do understand that the comment threading system is hopelessly broken and it is difficult to know who said what. I’m beginning to think the ‘reply’ button is displayed randomly after a comment.

      Lastly, my nick is mas528, not the mispelling. This is probably why you didn’t find it on the page.

    • John Morales

      [meta]

      It ain’t broken; this is 1-level comment thread nesting, and deliberate.

      I prefer flat threads, but it’s not a bad compromise IMO and works quite well. People can make comments on the OP and each is considered its own subthread, adding to it by replying to the root comment.

    • http://verbosestoic.wordpress.com Verbose Stoic

      colubridae,

      1 Just because doctors don’t approve of something or give an ‘unpleasant reaction’ doesn’t make them right.

      I never said it made them right. My point here was that if if it was commonplace to get appendectomy just because then appendectomies would have a more negative reception than they do now, thus explaining in part why appendectomies get better press right now than abortions.

      2 If you’ve got enough money you can have a prophylactic appendectomy without any problem.

      If you have enough money, you can get pretty much anything you want. That doesn’t mean that it would be right or would be considered socially acceptable if it became commonplace, or that most doctors would sign onto it if people asked them.

      3 With regards to appendectomies what if you know you wish to travel far from medical help, having a prophylactic appendectomy would seem a sensible precaution.

      Not relevant to my point, as even you concede; this is not what is generally done and we are not arguing here over whether abortions should be allowed or not. I am just talking about why abortions and appendectomies aren’t considered equally uncontroversial, not saying that abortions should be made illegal.

      4 its you own choice, whether a doctor approves or disapproves doesn’t enter into it, frankly it’s none of his business. Doctor’s for historical and financial reasons have way too much power over individuals. Just because it’s the status quo doesn’t make it right

      At this point, then, you and John Morales seem to be disagreeing, since he says that the right to bodily autonomy doesn’t impose what others must do to you and here you seem to be suggesting it does. At any rate, just because you want something indeed doesn’t mean that others must provide it, meaning that if the doctor disapproves the doctor can indeed say that they won’t provide that service and there’s really nothing you can do about it … unless, of course, you can appeal to a legally guaranteed right — like that of bodily autonomy — to justify how that refusal would deny you your legally guaranteed right.

      Once again people like [Verbose Stoic] want to make others toe their ([Verbose Stoic's]) line, irrespective of want the individual herself/himself/itself desires. It’s always about controlling others.

      My original comment aimed solely at pointing out why abortions and appendectomies are not seen the same way by our society. That this would lead me to wanting to ban them is your own invention, and is not relevant to this discussion.

  • colubridae

    Oops sorry mas528.

    My comment should have been aimed at verbose stoic.

    My apologies.

    The point I was trying to make was ‘everyone should be allowed to decide what medical procedure should be undertaken. Including abortion, appendectomy or vasectomy.

    The most any doctor can do is refuse such treatment and said doctor better have a good reason for refusing.’

  • Smhlle

    @1 i think the statement “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament” originated with Flo Kennedy.

  • JR

    Abortion is a surgical procedure with risks, like any other procedure. So yes, it should be avoided if at all possible. The risks include scarring of the uterus that can result in infertility. There are doctors who can repair scarring, but its an ordeal (I know from experience). Feminists won’t tell women about any negative consequences of abortion.

    http://www.ashermans.org/home/


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X