"Pro-lifers" and medical termination of pregnacy.

Or “abortion” as it’s commonly known. Today I had a rather ugly argument on a Facebook group for UK based liberals, with a woman who claims to be a liberal, but… Well… Isn’t.

The theme of the discussion was Nadine Dorries’ proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill which cover the issue of abortions. The tl;dr version is that Dorries was trying to strip not-for-profit charities who carry out terminations of the right to counsel pregnant women because they might try to improve their profits… By… Wait a second… Not-for-profit…. Worried they might profit… Say, somebody’s not being honest here. And it’s Dorries. And her backers (rumoured to be US based “pro-life” organisations, but that’s unconfirmed because they’re hiding behind a law firm as a front, and the law firm isn’t saying – neither is Nadine Dorries).

Anyway, back to the argument. The lady on Facebook, let’s call her Derpina, treated us to a grisly tale of woe in which she was emotionally manipulated by one of their counsellors into paying the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS, one of the aforementioned not-for-profits) for a termination that she didn’t really want, they were only interested in her money, she only went there for contraceptive advice but instead they used her partner (who didn’t want kids) to emotionally blackmail, trick or otherwise coerce her into a termination. Yeah, I know. Visiting a charity who carry out terminations (rather than, say, your doctor), in order to ask for contraceptive advice, for a couple who are already pregnant. Sounds legit.

So anyway, after I’d very politely dismantled her story and her claims that every woman who’s used them hates BPAS by posting reams of positive testimonials and their Quality Care Commission reports (their average patient satisfaction survey score is 9 out of 10), she messaged me the following:

“Hi – about the abortion thing, I do not really expect you to understand. I am not going to post on [the board we were using] any more as I have made my point as clearly as I can. As things stand it is possible to get abortions really easily, and post-abortion councelling. Where the balance is wrong is that it is really hard to get impartial pregnancy advice. You would not agree but I can see that abortion clinics are more interested in getting money off vulnerable women than advising them, are very doom and gloom places and are far from impartial, in my limited experience (but at least I have more experience than you!). You argue that religious groups would blackmail pregnant women into keeping their babies. Again in my experience that was absolutely not the case! Thanks to people like you, I will be taking up this issue further. How would you feel if you had booked in for contraception advice, turned up to find that you were booked in for an operation on your most private parts and was pressured into going through with it “before it’s too late”, in the presence of your partner who does not want any children with you, who then say they are not in a position to offer any couple councelling, and then charge you £50? I can’t think of a better analogy that a man may understand? Yours in disappointment… with a British culture that just does not value life :(“

Well, something about that didn’t sit quite right with me… So I checked Derpina’s Facebook page. Want to guess what she has under “Religion” and “Favourite Book”? I’ll spare you my reply to her, but suffice it to say I pulled no punches. Quite unlike me, I know.

The whole exchange reminded me strongly of a page we talked about here two or three years ago, but which I couldn’t find in the archives, so I assume it’s never had a thread of its own: “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” – When the Anti-Choice Choose, published in 2000 by Joyce Arthur. I recommend reading that whole page if you haven’t already, but the one she reminded me of was this one:

“We saw a woman recently who after four attempts and many hours of counselling both at the hospital and our clinic, finally, calmly and uneventfully, had her abortion. Four months later, she called me on Christmas Eve to tell me that she was not and never was pro-choice and that we failed to recognize that she was clinically depressed at the time of her abortion. The purpose of her call was to chastise me for not sending her off to the psych unit instead of the procedure room.” (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)

With perhaps a soupçon of this one:

“”I once had a German client who greatly thanked me at the door, leaving after a difficult 22-week abortion. With a gleaming smile, she added: ‘Und doch sind Sie ein Mörderer.’ (‘And you’re still a murderer.’)” (Physician, The Netherlands)”

Predicting Religion

Charlie Stross wrote a piece explaining his skepticism about some of the more radical predictions from the futurists: Three arguments against the singularity. His short version, “Santa Claus doesn’t exist.” The long version is worth reading, but he references some other works that are also worth reading, so go in with some time to kill.

One of the ideas that Stross considers is “mind uploading.” Our minds are systems of information stored in the chemicals and electrical movements of our nervous system. Theoretically, there’s no reason our minds cannot be moved to a different substrate; say, the memory of a super computer. This is sometimes mentioned as a type of immortality.

Stross considers some of the technical problems, but he also touches on some potential religious and political problems:

However, if it becomes plausible in the near future we can expect extensive theological arguments over it. If you thought the abortion debate was heated, wait until you have people trying to become immortal via the wire. Uploading implicitly refutes the doctrine of the existence of an immortal soul, and therefore presents a raw rebuttal to those religious doctrines that believe in a life after death.

John Scalzi disagrees:

I think Charlie’s correct that there will be theological arguments about it; I don’t think he’s necessarily correct that trying to upload one’s brain into the cloud implicitly refutes the soul any more than any other non-organic life-extending therapy, like getting an artificial heart or blood dialysis. In the case of a brain upload (or more accurately, I suppose, mind upload) what would be extended is not the physical body but some aspect of the consciousness, but it’s an open question of whether this represents a difference of degree or of kind. I think a theologian worth his or her salt could very easily make the argument that if the soul is not threatened by an artificial heart, neither is it threatened by the consciousness having its lifespan artificially extended via the cloud (or the net, or the wire, insert your favorite computing metaphor here).

The only thing I’d add is that it’s very difficult to predict what issues are going to become religious and political firestorms. When Evangelical Christianity became America’s majority religion, its first big issue was stopping Sunday mail delivery. This, when the issue of slavery was beginning to split the nation. After that, the big issue was temperance and prohibition, which isn’t a natural outgrowth of the supposedly bible centered worldview of the Evangelicals.

Stross’ mention of abortion is probably the best example. It’s been well documented that Evangelicals once considered abortion a Catholic issue and were reluctant to get involved. It wasn’t until Francis Schaeffer made it the centerpiece of his campaign, which crystallized the movement we call the Religious Right, that the issue took center stage. It’s possible to imagine a world were Schaeffer never got involved, and so abortion would not be the flashpoint it is today.

George Carlin…

…You are sorely missed…

YouTube Preview Image

Redefining rape?

I’m going to copy and past text directly from a petition at MoveOn.org. I honestly thought that this was a hoax when a friend told me about it, and having discovered that it’s not… I really wish it was:

“A far-reaching anti-choice bill, introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, includes a provision that could redefine rape in the realm of federal funding for reproductive health care.

Right now, federal dollars can’t be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. But the Smith bill would narrow that use to “cases of ‘forcible’ rape but not statutory or coerced rape.”

As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape – a lack of consent does. Please sign the petition today.

A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators and Representative.”

Essentially, some US senators are trying to redefine rape so that drug rape, date rape and marital rape don’t count. I’m not going to equivocate about this: THIS IS WRONG – and it’s driven by misogynists on the religious right.

I can’t sign the petition because I’m not a US citizen, but if you live in the USA and you’re as horrified about this as I am – go and sign the petition.

Thank you all.

What happens when abortion is banned.

Grisly news from Thailand last week, where rooms containing 2002 aborted foetuses were found at a Buddhist temple.

The remains are widely believed to have come from illegal clinics.

Abortions are only permitted in Thailand in cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s life is in danger.

But official statistics suggest around 300,000 abortions are carried out each year, the vast majority in back-street clinics.

The gruesome discovery of so many foetuses in the grounds of a temple has prompted debate about an issue usually considered taboo.

This is just more evidence (as if more evidence were needed) of what pro-lifers don’t want to acknowledge: If you ban abortions, they’ll happen anyway – but they won’t be clean, safe, clinical procedures. They’ll happen in back-street clinics with no regulation or assurances of standards of safety or competency of practitioners.

“Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has so far resisted demands for new legislation, saying the problem lies in society’s values.”

Burying his head in the sand much?

Women will take massive risks, and some will die. How do pro-lifers rationalise this? Do they ignore it, or do they just not care? Worse, do they want desperate women to have to risk their lives?

Maytinee Bhongsvej has been working [at the Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women] for almost 20 years, first as a volunteer, now as the director. In all that time, she has seen little change.

Young women in particular, she said, are often ignorant about sexual matters so when they accidentally become pregnant, there is a tendency to panic.

“They do everything they can think of to get rid of it,” Maytinee said, in a calm voice that belied her evident frustration.

“They walk into things deliberately, have accidents deliberately, fall down the stairs, get a friend to kick them in the tummy, all because they don’t know what to do.”

The tragedy here is that it is men like Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva who get to make the law.