This is topic *vomits* in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=026206

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
*curls up in the fetal position*
 

---

Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
 
That is sick. Joins Frisco in vomiting.

[ July 27, 2004, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Derrell ]
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 

quote:

---

These soft and comfortable fitted tees assert a powerful message in support of women's rights.

---

MAN. That's just sick. Having an abortion is NOT a celebration about women's rights. Nor should it be a cause of pride. Yuck.
 

---

Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
What if a guy wore it?

Yay for eyebrow raising hilarity.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Honestly, my first thought when I saw the thread title was someone had looked up necrotizing fasciitis after reading my thread.

This just made me feel even worse.
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Is this for real, or is this someone trying to hurt Planned Parenthood? It looks legit to me, but this is outrageous enough that I have to ask...

If this is true, it's disturbing. I'm all for women's rights and equality and all those wonderful things, but this is not the way to promote them. So much for "safe, legal, and rare."
 

---

Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
 
It takes a lot to drop my jaw. That is a lot.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
So, I guess the purpose of this thread is to share in the outrage over the t-shirt?

I feel so alone with no outrage to share.

I wonder how many outrageous outraged posters we will get who will outrageously post their outrage? I'm guessing...100.

Seriously, what is shocking about the t-shirt? The fact that there are people who get abortions that aren't ashamed of it? Is this news?

The statement selling the t-shirt is 100% true. Currently, abortions are a legal right that women enjoy. Witnessing the outrageously outraged posts, it does seem to be a powerful statement.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
I was hoping it was fake, too, Shig. But sadly, no.

I'm not all that surprised, Storm, just saddened and nauseated.

While it certainly is legal at this point in time, I don't think making abortion chic is good for women at all, let alone society as a whole. Even ardent pro-choicers should be hoping for at least less need for abortion, no?

This shirt is actually promoting it. Which is what sickens me.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Is it promoting it?

By the way, my last post was a little over the top, I think. I just didn't want this whole thread to be along the lines of 'That makes me so sad!' 'That's terrible!' 'Oh, no!'
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 
i heard about these shirts on the radio. i thought... that's just sad.

to think, people actually believe it's a celebration of women's rights.

planned parenthood is evil.

i'm not "pro-life" but i'm also not "pro-abortion"

society is disturbing.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
Not promoting it directly, but it's certainly trying to make it more socially acceptable, rather than backing it as a last-resort option.

One good thing about the shirt is that it'll drive a wedge between the rabid "nothing less than abortion on demand" crowd, which will approve of the shirt, and the more moderate "reduce abortion by social means, rather than forcing morality through legislation" Pro-choicers.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
I don't see a problem with it being socially acceptable.

In fact, I think it's a step forward. Certainly better than shipping girls off to live with 'grandma' for a month or so while they recover.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Better for whom? The baby?
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
Storm, there's a big difference between not being ashamed and proud.

If I wear a shirt with my college's logo, it because I'm proud of it. If I wear a shirt advertising that I ran in a charity race, it's because I'm proud of it.

We can argue for pages over whether abortion is a right or not, but please don't tell me someone should be proud of the fact that they did it.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Through the abortion debates on hatrack, I had come to feel that most pro-choicers were not *for* abortion, but against the government taking away the choice. That was something I could understand -- something I could in good conscience work with and compromise with.

This T-shirt appears to be advocating abortion. "Look at how cool I am -- I had an abortion!" This is not something I want to work with or compromise with.

So, yeah, it appears that the biggest effect this will have is as wedge-driving.
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
It may be that I have a wierd radar about this sort of thing, but I think you're all missing the point--where could anyone wear this shirt in good taste?

I'm hardly Victorian in my ideas about propriety, I think that that's way beyond socially acceptable in a typical public setting. A protest,maybe. Not something to wear to the grocery store, though.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
There is a difference between 'socially acceptable' and 'socially desireable'. And the latter is what the t-shirt aims for, even if it *also* aims for acceptability.

After all, you don't buy t-shirts for things you thing are necessary or OK, etc. You buy t-shirts for things you LIKE, things you wish to promote, something that appeals to you.

The right to have an abortion can be said to be an issue (partially) of women's rights. The actual practice, however, is far more-as many millions of women (and men who are with those women) can attest.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm hardly Victorian in my ideas about propriety, I think that that's way beyond socially acceptable in a typical public setting. A protest,maybe. Not something to wear to the grocery store, though.

---

quote:

---

Currently, abortions are a legal right that women enjoy.

---

I don't think a sane woman would enjoy the actual abortion.
As for the right to have one, I think it is a legal right "enjoyed" by men more often than women.

P.S. I think progress would be if a man got a tatoo everytime he was the father of an aborted baby. It wouldn't have to be visible until he was naked.

[ July 27, 2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It's sacrificing human beings in support of a selfish political agenda. I join in the vomiting.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
To be fair, not everyone feels that way. But the t-shirt is designed to make the practice both more acceptable and more desireable.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I don't think the shirt is intended as a message of jubilant celebration, "wheee...chalk up another one!"

The idea, I think, is designed to combat the social stigma that people tend to condemn women who have had abortions and view these women as faceless evils without appreciating any considerations that went into the decision-making process. I don't think it will be a particularly effective tactic, but I believe this is the reasoning.

As to whether or not abortion should or shouldn't happen - I've already made my stance known on previous threads.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Yes, I don't think it is meant as a celebration, either. And I suppose it could be argued that, since the stigma is high, the counteracting influence must be dramatic as well-thus it could be said that it's not meant to make it more desireable at all.

I don't buy it, though. The very people who would publicly wear such a t-shirt are the ones (most likely) who are the most radical about the issue. They're hardly the best ambassadors for making abortion more socially acceptable.

No, I still think the effort is designed at least in part to make abortion more socially desireable, because I think that is part of Planned Parenthood's agenda-making abortion a more desireable option versus other options.

Here's a question: why should abortion become more socially acceptable? It is already universally available.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Planned Parenthood's mission is *not* to make having an abortion more desirable!

I don't understand where people get that idea. Have any of you actually BEEN to a Planned Parenthood?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
What this t-shirt does is force people to own up to the humanity of the mother. What if someone you loved and cared about had an abortion but the whole family denies/ignores it?

If that hypothetical woman showed up at a family gathering or something with this shirt on, it wouldn't be a statement of pride or an 'in your face' thing -- it simply forces the people around you to acknowledge that there are faces, people, and *humanity* behind this decision. The anti-abortion lobby gives a lot of face to the fetus and not a whole lot to the mother -- this is, I believe, an attempt to counter that trend.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Gasp? Go into the lion's den? Perish the thought! </sarcasm>

Unfortunately Kas, you are unlikely to change the outlook of people who are so deeply entrenched in their positions.

Which is an observation to be made for the extremes on either side of the fence.

-Trevor

Edit: As Rak pointed out, only the most radical are inclined to wear this t-shirt, if only because most women don't want the conflict people are likely to throw at her because of the shirt.

Which is why I tend to think it's going to be an ineffective ploy, but oh well.

[ July 27, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Have any of you actually BEEN to a Planned Parenthood?

---

quote:

---

I don't understand where people get that idea. Have any of you actually BEEN to a Planned Parenthood?

---

Hmmm, which time? The time I went to get proof of pregnancy for my insurance company, and they tried to get me to have an abortion, despite the fact that I told the woman from the get-go that it was a planned pregnancy?

Me: *Happy smiles*
Her: Is this a planned pregnancy?
Me: Yes *waves and smiles to husband in waiting room*
Her: I'm going to ask you a sensitive question. Does your husband force you to have sex?
Me: Uhh....what?
Her: Do you feel like your husband forced you to have sex against your will?
Me: Um, no. We have a consensual sexual relationship. *confused look*
Her: Did he force you to stop using birth control in an effort to get you pregnant?
Me: No! What are you talking about?
Her: You seem to be getting upset. Are you sure that you want this baby? You have other options, you know.

And so on.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
(Edit: To Trevor)

Maybe. I just think it's Ironic.

[ July 27, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It's safe to say PSI didn't have a good experience.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I don't know if you noticed, but PSI doesn't generally have good experiences anywhere.

Except Static-X concerts.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Maybe we need to send you to KamaCon so you can have a good experience?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Yeah, but I keep hoping.

I only hope because I hate to think there is someone with a better track record of worse experiences than me.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
It's interesting how things are different in other countries...over here (Brazil) abortion is considered a serious crime. This year we're having a serious (sometimes getting ugly) discussion about what would be "mitigating circumstances" that would allow an abortion. Two women were allowed to abort when their fetuses (it is right? The Latin plural would be feti or fetii, but ...) were foud to have some fatal disease (where it's brain do not evolve). The Catholic Church (very strong over here) sued the women and they could not abort anymore. One of them still mananged to do it while the court order pended, the other not. She followed the pregnancy until its end and the child died 4 days later. Ugly stuff.

[ July 27, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Eduardo_Sauron ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I'm glad to hear from a perspective outside the US.

What's the prevailing attitude regarding birth control - condoms, the pill, etc. in Brazil? From your experience, of course.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Claudia - I double-checked the PP website as well to verify the existence of the shirt, which led to my belief it wasn't designed as a celebration.

As for the instinctive, queasy reaction - I don't think it's a bad thing. Abortion, in my opinion, is not a casual act and most people will feel sorry for the woman who had to make such a choice and the pain she went through.

"Feel sorry for" seems condescending, but I'm not sure how to better phrase it - "I regret the suffering you had to endure" might work better, but it seems no less pretentious.

You're a pediatric doctor? An ability to empathize with people is absolutely critical in your line of work - which you already know. Unfortunately, it can be a painful burden to bear as well.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
Hi, TMedina. Thankfully, we have a laic government, here in Brazil. The government is trying to expand the usage of condoms. As you may know, Brazil has one of the world's most aknowledged and advanced Anti-AIDS program. So, the condom is the most popular anti-pregnancy device used over here. Unfortunatelly, the Catholic and Neo-Pentecostal protestant churches are always at odds with the government approach, as they think the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy or AIDS is pre-marital celibacy.

In big cities like Rio or São Paulo, people usually dismiss the theological factor, but in rural areas, where people are poorer and less educated, most still pay heed to their priests. So, we have very poor families with 9, 10 kids. My grandmother (my father's mom) is a good example, since she had 9 sons and daughters. only 6 survived infancy, and most of them had to work during childhood in order to have enough money to buy some food and clothing. Only my father and 3 siblings survived to reach adulthood.

So, if you ask me: you think your grandma would be right if she decided to abort some of her sons or daughters? I really don't know what would be more cruel: to abort or the darwinism to which my father, uncles and aunts were subjects. I guess if people just had information and acted upon it (taking pills, using condoms, etc) the abortion would not be as sought after a solution as it is today (even here where it is illegal).
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Is it "anti-choice" and not "pro-life"? I guess it depends on where you stand.

And why would people opposed to abortion necessarily be anti-choice?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

The message of the day is that women might have complex, or even painful, experiences with abortion, but they are still confident they made the right decision and adamant that it had to be their decision to make.

---

1. Is abortion wrong
2. Should you have the ability to choose to have an abortion if you so desire

For myself, I believe:

2: You should have the legal right to make a choice as to whether or not you want to have an abortion.

1: I don't know. Right and wrong is often highly subjective and a matter of personal perspective. But I am unwilling to force my moral perspective on anyone else because I think my moral outlook is right.

Which ends up forcing me to side with the pro-choice camp simply because that's exactly what the pro-lifers are doing.

-Trevor

P.S. Of course, the chain of logic that led me to this particular belief structure is by no means a universal standard applied to all such decisions.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
It's amazing how much people read into a monochrome t-shirt with a simple declarative. I was just thinking that some people might consider it a cry for help. You had an abortion? You poor thing. Maybe it could be seen as a statement of anger. I had an abortion and boy am I pissed!

I happen to agree that the purpose of the t-shirt is to take abortion out of the realm of shame. Obviously, this is going to make pro-life people angry, who want to keep it there because doing so supports the idea that it should be illegal. Obviously, then, it's probably a good idea for pro-choice people to wear it.

I do not think anyone has to really worry about this t-shirt as I doubt it will ever be worn. I think anyone with two brain cells knows that if they wore this t-shirt, they would literally be spat upon. At the very least harangued. Does anyone doubt this?
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
That really depends where they wore it.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Annie:

I can understand your comment about the medium, but t-shirts are often worn with political or social slogans to denote a stance or position.

Sometimes they are amusing, sometimes not.

While turning people into walking billboards is not necessarily a masterful tactic and not one I think will succeed, given my commentary earlier, it does bring the message home in no uncertain terms.

Certainly moreso than the broad strokes both sides tend to paint with.

And I'm not sure that a t-shirt is any more or less offensive than the pro-life bumper stickers I see. I'm surprised the PL people don't have t-shirts available - they seem to have used every other marketing ploy.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
People here seem to do a better job of discussing abortion than the public at large does - or at least the parts of the public with operating budgets and communication directors.

Would anyone here be really surprised that the emotions of women who have had abortions run the full gamut of possiblities? Women who are comfortable (even a small number might say "happy"), women who regret it, and others who just accept it without wanting to label their emotions.

Advocates for prochoice organizations don't like to talk about those women who come to look on their abortions with regret. Prolife organizations don't really like talking about all the women who are comfortable with the decision they made.

Does anyone know if there are any non-ideologically influenced stats on this, by any chance? Any credible studies on followup - emotional, etc. ?
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I had never seen "anti-choice" before this thread. I guess I was just very not surprised that the term existed. I agree that it's a battle of words, but using terms this way does have a subtle effect on how you think. It does reduce things to a very bitter political standoff, that is true.

I am strongly opposed to abortion, but I don't put myself in the "pro-life" camp and I am certainly not "anti-choice." I suppose it's as irritating a term for me as "pro-life" is to pro-choice activists.

Edit: Hatrack moves way too dang fast anymore.

[ July 27, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I seriously doubt that more than one in a thousand would be spat upon, but I do think that it provoke many of the same reactions as here.

The privacy issue is interesting. Even if I supported being proud of having an abortion, wearing a t-shirt proclaiming it is tacky. It's proclaiming very personal details of your life. I don't see it as the same thing as a college t-shirt, but going to college is taking from and part of a community. It's like wearing a t-shirt with slogans like "My husband and I had sex last night." or "I've been Saved."

Yes, I know there are t-shirts like that. I think those are pretty tacky too.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I'm sure they do, Trevor I live in the middle of Conservative America and I'm exposed to plenty of t-shirt level politics.

As open-minded as I try to be, it does affect my perceptions. If I run into someone dressed business casual who wants to talk politics, I'm a lot more likely to give their ideas credibility than someone who walks in with an American flag t-shirt and a belt buckle that says "Rush is right."

My point is that there are certain issues that deserve a civilized level of discourse and there are always those who will cheapen them by propaganidizing them. I am just as angry about right-wing political propaganda being disbursed by the t-shirt demographic as I am about this. For me it's a matter of a lack of respect for a very sensitive issue.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It's all a battle of semantics.

And large groups command more resources than small groups, so fine distinctions are often lost in the shuffle. Just look at the American political system.

Sndrake - basically, that's it. Both sides are drawing on specific examples and using them to paint the whole canvas. It serves neither purpose to realize that some women do and some women don't regret their choices.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Fair enough Annie.

And I suppose I should point out I got an email notifying me my "posts to date" hit 666.

Read into that as you will.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
An email from whom?



That's more than a little freeky.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Ah, the joys of being non-descript.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
CT the problem is that here in the US the headscarves normally put you more vividly into memory. (I know you've talked about why you like them before, and that is the bit that has always struck me as incongruous.)

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I do have a t-shirt from RuthAnn's General Store that I wear with pride. Never had any comments, though.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
*have lots of tshirts with lettering, slogans and messages on them*

*none of them have anything to do with abortion*
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I wear a wide array of propaganda on my chest. I have no shame in flaunting shiny letters proclaiming "I Love Nerds." I design t-shirts. I intend to someday make a large-scale business of selling silly slogans.

I do, however, use them all as an expression of the flippant aspect of my sense of humor. Perhaps that's why I'm so sensitive to the medium being taken seriously.
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 
Thanks, CT!

Kat, the difference is intent. A common misconcetion is that most women would choose differently upon being given "it all to do over again" and spend the rest of their lives in depression and regret. Especially now that Roe herself has said that she now opposes the decision.

However, I still don't think this was the way to go about changing that misconception and the shirts make me very uncomfortable. Yet, then again, so did the "Abortion stops a beating heart" ads.

Like CT, I think some more reflection is needed.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
What kind of head scarf? I've got two mental images here: a babushka and a homegirl.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The abortion stops a beating heart ad was, I think, the most effective one I've seen. It's the same reason I wore the feet in college, and probably why those two ads generated more anger from die-hard pro-choice activists than any of the much more offensive pictures of aborted fetuses ever did.

Both the feet and the heart ads show an element of what pro-lifers consider the most important aspect of the debate. Both are true, and neither presents a legal conclusion - it's a presentation of facts for the viewer to integrate into their own opinion.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I dunno Annie - I didn't recognize the email address, so I would have normally deleted it.

But the address in question was a military one, so I didn't think it was going to be bit of cleverly disguised spam.

-Trevor

Edit: I don't wear slogans on my shirts because I dislike the notion of providing free advertising to things I don't use or believe in. Hence I abhor the whole "Nike logo as fashion" trend.

I have, on occasion, worn something snarky - but I don't even like the Izod gator, not that I can afford to or actually spend the money on Izod. I still find it tacky.

[ July 27, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I wonder if that email had anything to do with the hackers?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
And Dag raises an excellent point - the anti-abortion ad he mentions carried an emotional message designed to stir emotions and not legal or analytical debate.

And it is very effective to the specific target audience.

Does it qualify as an effective debate tactic? No. But it does help the propel organization closer to its stated goals.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
If CT's zit theory is true nobody from Jr. High through High School actually knows what I look like. Should make high school reunions interesting. Hmm... maybe they still don't know what I look like.

Anyway, I don't mind wearing brands for things I like supporting. Like my brother's company. Oh who am I kidding, as long as it's clean and in my closet I'll probably wear it.

But I do get annoyed with girls who wear shirts with writing on them who glare at you when your eye gets drawn to it. Unless there's a only other women are allowed to read a girl's shirt rule that I'm not aware of.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Annie - I dunno.

I'm not going to mention names, but it came from an af.mil site.

And if the hackers were bored, I don't see why they'd send such an odd email as opposed to one more obviously inflammatory.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
That used to bother me Bob, but ya know what - waaah.

If you don't want me noticing, don't wear a t-shirt with something eye-catching on it. Nor should you wear a baby-doll t-shirt designed to accentuate.

I'm not saying this is free license to drool, oggle and act like an ape - but c'mon. Cut us some slack here.

And for the record, I do make eye contact when talking to women, thank you very much.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
My technique is to wear buisness casual (button-up type of) shirts tucked into Kahkis, then when you come dressed like a normal person (this is for college) no one recognizes you, but if you go back to your old style people do, so you can choose what you want.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Does it qualify as an effective debate tactic? No. But it does help the propel organization closer to its stated goals.

---

quote:

---

And I like sndrake's shirts.

---

Well, you've only seen the one. Diane and I reluctantly decided against going to a reception for Barack Obama - who still doesn't have a Republican opponent here in the Illinois Senate race.

I would have worn that shirt to the event if we'd gone.

PS - your scarf strategy only works with people who actually remember what people wear - I don't usually, unless there's lettering involved.

[ July 27, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
*currently wearing a t-shirt with "The Itchy and Scratchy Show" on it *

*squick* Can I still say that without very vile imagery coming to mind?

Abortion as birth control bothers me. It's wasteful of life and medical resources. I consider myself morally pro-life and politically pro-choice, and all I can say is that that shirt makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I can imagine circumstances where I would have an abortion and feel I did the right thing, but then I'm fairly imaginative. I used to think I wouldn't do it save my own life, but now I have children and a husband who depend on me... In any case I hope I never have to make that choice.

However, selective abortion (I want a boy, not a girl) or abortion for the sake of convenience (gee, now isn't the best time, and I don't want to go through all that and tthen give the baby up for adoption) just make me profoundly sad.

I think women should be able to make that choice, but I would like to believe that it would be a difficult decision to make for most people.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Does no one else find the very name "Planned Parenthood" disingenuous? That is, for those of you who understand that their main purpose is to terminate unplanned pregnancies? I don't get the impression that PSI understood their mission when she went there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

P.S. I also object to gun marketers waving around "second amendment rights", just to clarify.

[ July 27, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
The Planned Parenthood office closest to the town where I live doesn’t even do abortions. It is, however, a place where women who’ve been sexually assaulted can get confidential exams and treatment for STDs with payment for those services based on income level.

So I have a real problem with statements like “Planned Parenthood is evil” and “their main purpose is to terminate unplanned pregnancies.”
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I always took it to mean their primary intent was to advocate control over when women became pregnant.

Be that birth control, education or abortion.

And some factions may be more vocal than others in certain issues.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It sounds creepy, but I was striving for purest analytical description of "what Planned Parenthood" means to me."

And without the bells and whistles, that is what they do.

However, I was unaware of the treatment offered to men, but it's nice to know it's a well-rounded organization.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
What about a Te-Shirt that proudly proclaims,

quote:

---

I wear a condom

---

quote:

---

And as a matter of fact, I'm wearing one...right now

---

eeeeeuuuwwww.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I dunno - I was curious as to what pet names her husband might use, but not so curious as to ask.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
ssywak.

I don't know. I edited some training materials for Planned Parenthood a few years ago. Maybe things have changed. I don't remember much specific.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
CT representin for me out here. I'm more pro-life than I am pro-choice, but I have nothing but the highest regard for Planned Parenthood -- it helps a stunning number of my friends use birth control when they otherwise wouldn't (thank you, Catholic Church) and get tested for diseases when they otherwise couldn't. This isn't even going into the rape/trauma counselling aspects they offer.

Yeah. I tend to write off people who declare the organization "evil" as abject idiots.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Irony alert! Irony alert!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Is there a negative stigma associated with giving up one's child for adoption? I wonder what the reactions would be for a T-shirt that says, "I gave up my child for adoption," or something of the sort.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Heh. And Jeff does it again.

Will you ever be capable of handing an argument from me without jumping straight to the lie YOU HATE BUSH HATE YOU THINK HE'S EVIL YOU HATE AND FEAR HIM CUZ YOU THINK HE'S EVIL?

I mean, seriously, dude. Learn a new line or something.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Probably, but not the same negative level.

In fact, it would probably draw more puzzled expressions than anything else.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
One knee-jerk response deserves another, eh Lalo?

[ July 27, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Lalo, I think he meant the eye rolling at the Catholic church. Though I certainly realize that one doesn't have to think an organization is evil to find some of its policies puzzling.

I do know that Planned Parenthood makes a lot more money from BCPs than abortions.

I hope that the "evil" argument is one of those artifacts that sometimes pops up in a debate. I know I didn't say it, though I did say the other thing about "main purpose".
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think that it is more important to lift the negative stigma from mothers who choose to let their child live and give it up for adoption than to lift the negative stigma from women who choose to abort.

Though I do not support jumping to judgemental conclusions in any way, shape, or form. But I do not see how this T-shirt will help with that. I think it would make the problem worse before making it better.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Is there a stigma on mothers who give their child up for adoption?

Why on earth? This is an honest question - what would be the stigma in that?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
That's the point Bev - I don't think there is a stigma in giving up a child for adoption.

So a t-shirt bearing that comment wouldn't draw any particular reaction beyond a casual...huh?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I think before we go about lifting the stigma, the stigma needs to be borne equally by the "fathers".
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Which stigma are we talking about?

Adoption (which I don't believe exists) or abortion?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
There is an unfortunate stigma to a woman who is pregnant and unable to care for herself, be she unmarried or married but already encumbered with two children.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
If a woman gives up her child for adoption, there are those who will look upon her as "not loving her child enough to keep it." Certainly many children who discover they are adopted go through a phase of feeling that, at least on a visceral level.

Edit: Because this issue isn't nearly as controversial, it doesn't get nearly as much press as abortion. As for abortion having a stigma, many feel that the woman who had an abortion did something wrong. From my perception, many look upon a woman who gave up her child for adoption as doing something wrong also.

There is a line of LDS commercials that put forth the phrase, "I didn't give my child up, I have her(him) more." Or something to that effect. The idea is to get people thinking about the idea that giving your child up for adoption does not imply lesser love, but perhaps an even greater love.

[ July 27, 2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
CT, I didn't take it that way. I was all laughing over the "They Fight Crime!" thing.

Ron used to call me the "Fiery Volcano Goddess" before having babies mellowed me a bit. Thus, for years my breasts were referred to as Vesuvius and Pinatubo (sp?)

Um, ON TOPIC-- I think you shouldn't blame the organization for the unbalanced actions of some of its members. Some PP workers may be all about the abortions, but I certainly HOPE it isn't policy to ask some of the questions PSI got hit with.

That said, they really pissed me off when I got a mailer from them shortly after 9/11 that referred to pro-life protesters as "Terrorists." That seemed unnecessarily inflamatory to me, what with the country's new perspective on 'terrorism'.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Beverly, where have you seen that stigma that giving a child up for adoption means less love? I've seriously never seen or heard of it before. Not in my own culture, and not in the culture of other that I've been exposed to.

If I saw a woman with a "I gave my child up for adoption" t-shirt, my first reponse would be to hug her, and then wonder why on earth she's announcing that to the world. I don't think it's a fight that needs to be fought.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kat, I could be completely off my rocker. It is not that I have tons of evidence, just little things here and there.

Just as many families of women who have abortions are upset with them, I have heard of many families who strongly oppose their daughters(or other family memebers) giving up their baby. It seems as though they are less willing to consider it than the mother for whom it is so painful.

Edit: Negative stigma from one's own family is among the most painful.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I remember discussing the stigma thing with my father in law. He couldn't imagine someone giving up a baby for adoption, despite the church policy encouraging that (when the parents can't marry).

Did you know there is 2 an average of 2 unwed pregnancies per ward (LDS congregation) per year? We had a presentation from LDS adoption services about it. A vast majority are kept by the single mom and/or her parents. Very few of these ever get the hoped for family unit. (And these policies do presume that an ideal family unit has a mother and father).

P.S. I think a lot of it is a generational gap, and also the actual age the older generation is, they have baby hunger and you know that old joke about grandchildren being better than having kids of your own.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Pooka, out of curiosity, what are some ways you feel we can put the responsibility more on the shoulders of the man? In my mind, that is difficult to do equally because so much of childbearing happens to the mother's body. It is easy for the man to escape notice if he so desires.

Do you feel that society in general should be more persistant in seeking the fathers out and requiring responsibility of them?
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I would say (from my limited perspective) that any stigma associated with giving a child up for adoption stems from a sense of not being "able" to care for one's own child. The cases I know of where girls felt pressured to keep a baby were ones in which they feared being seen as unfit or incapable.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 

quote:

---

Do you feel that society in general should be more persistant in seeking the fathers out and requiring responsibility of them?

---

Our society is very good at seeking out the father, but usually for economic reasons. It seems that as much as we crack down on deadbeat dads, we sure don't do much in encouraging to do much else than write a check.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
If that were the source of the stigma, stigma against pre-marital sex, it would be easier for them to give up the child than to keep it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Annie and pooka, what more can we do, then?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I honestly don't know how widespread it is. It may be that it is mostly within families, with a particular tendancy amongst cultures with close-knit families. This would be true for the Philippines, probably some Latin-americans, and from what Pooka said, the Chinese also.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I don't know - I've always seen giving up a kid for adoption by a family as an incredibly generous and kind thing to do.

My wonder at why she would share that is not because of the stigma attached to pre-marital sex. Honestly, in this age, I don't think there is one. There certainly is in some cultures, but is there in the general public?

My wondering is because it seems so intensely personal and somewhat painful. Announcing it on your shirt seems like either exploiting it to get sympathy or a cry for help in understanding what just happened, like me wearing a t-shirt that says "My Mom died."

[ July 27, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
The only experiences I've had with such a stigma are in small-town Montana. This is why I see it as a stigma against the inability to care for one's own.

Of course, this comes from a society in which more than one of my peers in high school told me that after school they were planning on getting pregnant so they could get on welfare.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Interesting. Because that is how I viewed the Abortion T-shirts. But I guess it is such a big, controversial issue, that it has strong undertones of "stirring up trouble". Either that, or being very callous. Like cavalierly saying, "I eat babies for lunch" and meaning it.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Bev- I know it's not ever possible to force men to bear equal stigma. The fact that a woman's stigma is visible mitigates, for me, her personal/social stigma. I'm just talking about how I wish things were.

N.B. My father in Law is White, born in Iowa, dutch last name. I think it is mainly an older-person thing.

At least there's the movie "Alfie". It's about a rogue (played by young Michael Caine) who has his way with the ladies and in the end he confronts the horror of his choices.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oops, I saw "father" and automatically thought of your Chinese father. My bad.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thanks, CT. I guess I am not *completely* off my rocker.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
A lot of the changes in adoption are market-driven. There is a combination of people waiting longer to have a child, then finding they can't, or just being infertile to begin with or whatever reason, there are a lot more adoptive parents particularly for infants.

(I hope someday to adopt either handicapped children or minority sibling groups- the ones that aren't snapped up by the usual couple- when my bio kids are older).

Anyway, this demand for newborns means women considering adoptions have a lot more choices, and who are you going to choose- the agency that offers you an Openness arrangement with letters and pictures, or the agency that treats you as a "woman in trouble" best forgotten?

P.S. The LDS system lets people interview with each other and the degree of openness is a large part of that sorting process.

P.P.S. I will admit that in the Chinese culture, they are much more likely to abort a female baby.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
On a side note, I am just about to mail a letter of recommendation for some good friends of ours giving glowing recommendations for them to be able to adopt their second child. It must be difficult giving up your baby and wondering how the adoptive parents will raise and treat the child of your womb/loins. What a leap of faith!

But this couple is one of the best out there, and I want to make sure they are given every opportunity to adopt.

CT: Thanks Edit: I think this is something difficult to find empirical evidence for. One of those prejudices that many people do not admit even to themselves much less are openly vocal about. But it does seem to me that the stigma exists enough to be a concern.

Pooka: I guess that is why there is a rising generation of many more men than women. Not something that has often happened in the history of our planet.

[ July 27, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Interesting, CT. Perhaps if it is a possibility and you address it, they might be willing to talk, get their feelings out in the open. I dunno.

What are some of your thoughts, Hatrack? Why do women get abortions who could healthily carry a healthy baby to full term and give it up for adoption? Is the second more painful for the mother? Is it the pain of giving up a fully formed, deeply loved baby? Is it the pain of going through pregnancy and childbirth? Is it stigma on the child or stigma on themselves for giving up that child?

How often are these the reasons? I have no idea. Have there been any surveys or studies done on this?

I am definitely someone who deeply supports women carrying their babies to term and adopting out. I am wondering what are the real reasons why it doesn't happen more often.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's what is so confusing to me. Why would having the baby and giving to a family be harder than not letting the baby live at all?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kat, it doesn't seem too hard for me. Especially if you do not think abortion is morally wrong. It is easier, more convenient. I personally can't imagine going through pregnancy and childbirth and not getting a wonderous baby to keep at the end. I can't imagine the pain of miscarriage, still-birth, and the like.

I also can't conceive of the terrible pain involved in giving up that beautiful, cherubic, child of my flesh. I have the deepest admiration and respect for those who are strong enough to make that choice.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Part of the family shame from having to live with grandma or an aunt and uncle for a few months.

Which is what drove young women to use coat hangers and visit back alley butchers in order to avoid that social shame rather than try to carry a pregnancy to term on their own.

If the same pressure exists today or not I couldn't tell you - my uncle the gynecologist still has teen pregnancies showing up in his office so I'm going to guess not.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That unabidable shame probably exists in some families, at least. But hopefully it is being replaced by understanding and compassion.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
One can certainly hope - I know of no studies based on evaluating the rise or fall of this social and familial shame as a factor in young people's lives.

I do find it amusing that we seem to have gone to the other end of the spectrum with bored teens emulating sex acts on tv to the point of causing a massive STD outbreak.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, my feelings about mother's choosing to give their child up for adoption rather than abort: I think they all deserve a medal. I think they deserve our honor and recognition. That is why *I* would support a T-shirt that says, "I gave up my child for adoption".

It wouldn't have to say, "I chose not to abort my child," or anything like that that would cause undue offense to pro-choicers, but the implied message would still be there. I think it would be a wonderful thing.

quote:

---

I do find it amusing that we seem to have gone to the other end of the spectrum with bored teens emulating sex acts on tv to the point of causing a massive STD outbreak.

---

I wish for society a middle-ground where sex is held sacred without the undue persecution of those who bear children out of wedlock.

[ July 27, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That is a shame. If pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike care about too many abortions happening needlessly, then it is something that really ought to be better understood.

*Plans to read the articles soon*
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*hug* Only when you have too kind of a heart to say "I can't" to the world.

[ July 27, 2004, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I guess being a stay-at-home-mom means I don't have to deal with "the world" on the same level as most people. I think it would suck me dry pretty fast.

I did get to talk to a charming young Czech boy today who came to my front door selling children's educational books.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
They looked *awesome*. Too expensive though. But I was inspired to look into getting some similar "beautifully illustrated children's encyclopedias" on the internet. Poor kid.

I don't do door-to-door salesmen. Some of them sucker me in to letting them talk to me, but I almost always send them away empty handed. I don't recall him saying "swell", but I did enjoy his accent.

Certainly has its own set of skills. But I think that I am able to control my environment more. If I choose, I can remove myself from much of the less plesant aspects of the world. Hatrack is a breath of fresh air for me.

[ July 27, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't do door-to-door salesmen.

---

Commendable, Bev Real ladies hold out for the appliance serviceman. j/k

I was just going to add that teen pregnancies have gone down a lot in the last decade. (On the teen/tween mother question) I researched it for a thread a while back. And for the last abortion thread it seems 88% of abortions are first trimester. For most women, that means avoiding visible pregnancy.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

Which is what drove young women to use coat hangers

---

quote:

---

about 30 women each year continue to die [from legal abortions] in the U.S. and about 2 in Canada. (The number is certainly higher, as abortion related deaths and post abortion complications are frequently not reported by medical staff and institutions as having resulted from an abortion.) That small number of maternal deaths is not attributable to legalization but solely to technology which has made abortion, both illegal and legal, a relatively safe procedure for mothers. Were abortion to be banned tomorrow, the same simple techniques would still be used, not coat hangers, and society would not witness a significant increased in maternal death related to illegal abortions.

What is currently being described as back-alley abortions were in fact nothing more than back-office abortions. They were executed in back offices of doctors. This has been admitted by no less than Mary Calderone, a former president of Planned Parenthood. The July 1960 American Journal of Health quotes her as saying that "90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians." So on the admission itself of the world`s largest private provider of abortions, when abortion became legal, back-office abortions became front-office abortions. It would logically follow, therefore, that legalizing abortion brought no significant improvement in safety for women.

---

 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 


*hopes not to see the OOC thread rear its ugly head*
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

What if someone you loved and cared about had an abortion but the whole family denies/ignores it?

---

quote:

---

If abortions became illegal, sure doctors would know how to do the procedure next month. But in 10 years? 20 years? The desire to have abortions will still be there

---

The desire to have abortions hasn't always been around. Isn't it a bit presumptious to assume that if we all of a sudden made it illegal that no progress would be made in either reliability of contraceptives or willingness of humans to engage in responsible sex? Just because we're in an era in which we desire sex without responsibility doesn't mean we're doomed to such views indefinitely.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*strokes mean fibres of frisco*

"shush"
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
mean ole fricasee,

glad you post.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'm sorry for that ordeal, Romanylass, and for its outcome

quote:

---

Just because we're in an era in which we desire sex without responsibility doesn't mean we're doomed to such views indefinitely.

---

quote:

---

I don't think criminalizing abortion makes sense until it becomes a crime for a man to father an unwanted pregnancy. That is what I would like to see happen. And that is something we now have the technology to enforce.

---

quote:

---

I do, however, think that criminalizing abortion simply would not work in the short-term. What I mean is, there would be lots of illegal abortions performed for quite awhile, since so many people are used to it and would resent the new law.

---

quote:

---

If you're saying that it should be illegal to abandon a woman you've gotten pregnant and only pay child support, I'd agree to that if abortion were no longer legal. While I don't like that trend now, I think it'd be hypocritical of me to fight for the removal of the man's choice while the woman still has the choice to kill the fetus if she doesn't want it.

---

quote:

---

But it goes along the lines of wearing a shirt that says "I was raped" or "I euthanize stray animals".

---

"I was date-raped"? What would be your response to me?

---

Shirts stating you got raped say "something awful happened to me", which is very different. It would be more like wearing a shirt that said "I comitted date-rape".

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
having an abortion is not like committing date rape, IMHO, if that is what you were saying, Hobbes.

P.S. To elaborate, I think abortion is something women are guided into by a support structure that tells them "This will be best for you." CT mentioned that most abortions are the first for that woman. I take that as an indication that few women want it done again. I think women who wind up with an unwanted pregnancy tend to be women who are susceptible to the influence of others to do something not in their own best interest. Sure there are condom failures and so forth. But I don't know how many women would abort if it weren't for strong advocacy from professionals. (To engages my Moore-esque deniability persuasion )

[ July 28, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I could see it both ways.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
No, I don't think there's any sort of moral equilvelancy, and date-rape is something that is universally recognizied as being a very bad thing (though actually I was under the impression before this that almost everyone at least said something similar about abortion ). My point wasn't that they're the same but that there's difference between declaring that you were the victim in something, and that you were the purpetrator.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Pook - I use the term "mother" as a collective short-hand reference for "pregnant woman." Although you are right in noting the title puts an unfair assumption on the part of the woman. I can't presume to know if the woman in question wants to have the pregnancy come to term or not.

Abstinence:

Woo-hoo. Go for it. Preach in from the halls, sing it from the rafters. Never mind pregnancies, it's the only way to be 100% percent sure you won't contract AIDS or an STD of some sort.

But nobody is preaching it. Nobody is saying it and the audience isn't listening. Why? Because sex is fun. And we are driven to it.

Best case scenario - you don't have sex until you're ready for kids, married or not.

Reality - yeah, right. People make mistakes - we do it all the damned time. If we can't handle financial responsibility, why do you think people are intelligent enough to handle sexual activity responsibly?

Birth control pills, condoms - whatever you use, it's not going to be 100%. But getting people to use that is a lot easier than telling them not to do "it" at all.

Abortion is not fun, easy or cheap. And yet women opt for it. Why? The answers to that question are many and varied. And frankly there are scenarios when abstinence isn't an issue and the woman doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term.

The woman in question should not be subjected to your particular viewpoints on morality.

Sorry, I'm ranting and I'm in mid-irl crisis. I'll try and be more coherent next time.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Perhaps another t-shirt example, more applicable to the situation: "I spread an STD".

Or, "I pulled my grandma's plug"
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
If you wore that Jenny I would be very, very surprised.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

"I pulled my grandma's plug"

---

quote:

---

Students who rejected adoption as an option for themselves were mainly concerned about abandoning the infant. However, a different standard was applied to the evaluation of a friend placing an infant; here, students focused on positive indicators such as a lack of maturity to parent, the importance of providing a child with two parents, and financial hardships. 56% and 62% felt that friends and parents, respectively, would be supportive of a friend placing a child, but 41% and 31% could not predict the response of friends and parents, respectively.

---

This is from the second one. I think it's interesting that people consistently view their own situation as different from people that they know.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I don't know that I'm really trying to make a strong point. I'm just trying to figure out what I really think by examining different perspectives and asking questions.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I'm sorry I wasn't clear before Pook - my Abstinence rant was directed at the earlier poster who brought up the subject of Abstinence as the best course of action.

As for letting other people do their thinking for them - sounds good. I've always thought socialism got a bad rap. Of course, we have to figure out when and where we draw the line at living other people's lives for them. Do you think we could mandate all pregnant women turn themselves in for a mandatory 9 month lockdown in a hospital? That way we can ensure they do things properly and the fetus isn't harmed in any fashion by either the mother's recklessness or unforseen outside forces.

I'm sure the AMA would scream at the massive socializing of mainstream medicine, but it would certainly pay for the costs involved.

Oooh...and then we need to ensure the children are raised properly by enrolling them in State-sponsored schools and we can ensure they only get the best of information driven into their little heads.

Wow, we have a plan here. Pretty soon we can just lump everyone into giant power coccoons so they never, ever have to make a decision for themselves and we can just avoid all the possible bad things that accompany free will which, let's face it, is so overrated.

-Trevor

Edit: Bah, I've resorted to extremist arguments. Feel free to ignore my tirade.

[ July 28, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
CT, I think I find it a better analogy (and it is only better than any others that have been posted, not necessarily good on it's own) because it is a procedure that if backed by a medical opinion, can actually be a good thing.

I think the shirt that will come out in response to this is "My mom didn't have an abortion". Some nitwit will put it on Onesies.

[ July 28, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
You should open a shock-t-shirt store, Jenny. You're very good at those slogans.

quote:

---

CT mentioned that most abortions are the first for that woman. I take that as an indication that few women want it done again.

---

"Most" is only 52%. 48% (about 650,000 in the U.S.) are performed on women who've had one or more previously.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Link, MOF?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
What about "I turned off my grandmother's life support."? That's less slangy, but it also leaves clear exactly what happened.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I was also addressing the board in general, CT. You're just the first to step up to the plate!
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

The desire to have abortions hasn't always been around.

---

quote:

---

You're right in that while abortion has always been around, it has not always been something any but a tiny minority turns to.

---

I don't think it's possible to know the numbers for either of these.

edit: I meant to say, can't know the numbers on the second, and the first is just silly.

[ July 28, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
(referring to tshirt about terminating grandma's life support)

Actually, Kat, that doesn't make anything clear.

Does it mean:

Grandma suffered massive trauma and was "brain dead" and I shut off her ventilator?

Grandma had alzheimers and when she couldn't eat by mouth we withheld a feeding tube?

Grandma went into a coma and we withheld tube-feeding without waiting to see how things came out?

*familiar with this territory*

[ July 28, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
Linkage for Pooka

quote:

---

my Abstinence rant was directed at the earlier poster who brought up the subject of Abstinence as the best course of action.

---

I missed this poster. Quote them, maybe?
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
sndrake, the abortion t-shirt is just as fuzzy

Was the woman's life in danger? Was the child genetically defective? Was it unwanted? Was she forced to have an abortion by her family?

You don't know her situation either.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
Forgive me Stormy. I was a bit tipsy when I made the comment.

Surely every idea crosses a few minds. I meant to imply that it has, in the past, been much less rampant an idea.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Actually, it was you who said:

quote:

---

I think a combination of education on birth control, abstinence, and responsibility is needed. And neither political party is getting it right. I just think Planned Parenthood has it more wrong than anyone else, promoting irresponsibility and ignoring abstinence.

---

I take exception to the idea of Planned Parenthood is promoting irresponsibility. It is offering solutions and allowing people to pick what solution is best for them.

I don't believe any PP literature has ever mentioned any birth control or contraceptive as being 100% effective and obviously better than not having sexual activity at all.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Herbal Abortificants

I argue that abortion through herbal means has been found historically and will continue through into the future if medical abortion procedures are lost.

Knowledge becomes harder and harder to contain in countries with modern technology.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
How come no one ever says good ol' Storm Saxon is right? I mentioned the broad interpretations of the abortion t-shirt way before Stephen did.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
And it was you who said:

quote:

---

I'm sorry I wasn't clear before Pook - my Abstinence rant was directed at the earlier poster who brought up the subject of Abstinence as the best course of action

---

quote:

---

You can blame a lot of folks, from media bigwigs to bishops, if we lose our reproductive rights, but it's the women who shrink from acknowledging their own abortions who really irk me. Increasingly, for example, the possibility of abortion is built right into the process of prenatal care. Testing for fetal defects can now detect over 450 conditions, many potentially fatal or debilitating. Doctors may advise the screening tests, insurance companies often pay for them, and many couples (no hard numbers exist) are deciding to abort their imperfect fetuses.

The trouble is, not all of the women who are exercising their right to choose in these cases are willing to admit that that's what they are doing. Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."

Or go to the Web site for A Heartbreaking Choice, a group that provides support for women whose fetuses are deemed defective, and you find "Mom" complaining of having to have her abortion in an ordinary abortion clinic: "I resented the fact that I had to be there with all these girls that did not want their babies."

Kate and Mom: You've been through a hellish experience, but unless I'm missing something, you didn't want your babies either. A baby, yes, but not the particular baby you happened to be carrying.

---

quote:

---

How come no one ever says good ol' Storm Saxon is right? I mentioned the broad interpretations of the abortion t-shirt way before Stephen did.

---

Hey, Storm - you were right!

(I just happened to throw out some examples in a context I know CT relates to.)
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
If you're interested, this book looks into the history behind herbal abortions.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I'm always interested in hearing how other people respond to strong statements. You have to be careful. I grew up hearing (in this case) religious people making broad statements that were very harsh toward people who had abortions, among others. It was all about the sin. But it was never considerate of that person. Sometimes, I look at people and realize that their situation could have been mine. I could have been the teenager faced with an unwanted pregnancy. What would I have done? And how would I feel if abortion was the path I chose and heard all this condemnation? How would I be able to relate to those people?

And how do I relate to someone who has chosen a path I would not? When my sister-in-law went through a divorce, I found myself being just as judgmental as people who had hurt me in the past. So, I wonder what it takes to learn compassion. And I encourage its development.

I just wonder what it is like to be the person making different choices from myself, and if I can love her.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 

quote:

---

how about a vasectomy? *curious

---

quote:

---

At least 30 million American women have had abortions since the procedure was legalized, mostly for the kind of reasons that anti-abortion people dismiss as "convenience" - a number that amounts to about 40 percent of American women.

---

Forty percent of ALL American women have had an abortion of convenience. I have a VERY hard time believing that number.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I am loved!
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Or at least humored! Which is good, too!
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Heh. Since you opted to tubal ligation as a more responsible means of behavior than abortion, I think we'll draw the rant to a close here.

At least you're equally critical of irresponsible men.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
Maybe 30 million (over the last 30 years) equals 40% of the current female American 15-44 population.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Hay Frisco, I'm disagreeing with you (your comment on page 4 that abortions haven't always been around).
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
I've already retracted that statement, dabbler. See the top of this page.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
If only there were an easier way to disable men's power to procreate that was simple to administer and reversable. In a society that put more and more responsibility on men who father unwanted children, men might be more and more willing to use such a thing.

And what is up with this irrational reluctance of men to get a vasectomy? Seems to me that beyond hesitancies about cost and the invasiveness of the proceedure, they feel like it is removing their masculinity somehow.

I think that developing more systems of male birth control would do much to even things out between the sexes, get the men to take more responsibility.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Sorry Bev - it's an innately psychological reaction.

As you say, we feel like our masculinity has been diminished or reduced somehow.

I'm not even going to pretend it's a mature, intelligent response.

-Trevor

Edit: Although, as a man, unwanted pregnancies are a concern. But so is AIDS and other STDs. Which means I still use condoms.

[ July 28, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
And yet women are doing a very similar thing to themselves when they take pills and whatnot. They are willing to because they have to suffer the effects of pregnancy. Seems like a double-standard that needs to be done away with right-quick.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Ah, Frisco. Wasn't a clear retraction so I missed it.

Just wanted you to know. Cause I really don't think that a law making abortions illegal is going to stop all the abortions. Or even most of the abortions. Medical abortions now, herbal abortions later. The internet, at least, isn't going to let people forget that there have always been ways. But a lot of people will get hurt experimenting.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I didn't say it was fair Bev - I'm simply telling you how men view it.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I know, Trevor, but is it OK for me to still be mad about it?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

At least 30 million American women have had abortions since the procedure was legalized, mostly for the kind of reasons that anti-abortion people dismiss as "convenience" - a number that amounts to about 40 percent of American women. Yet in a 2003 survey conducted by a pro-choice group, only 30 percent of women were unambivalently pro-choice

---

quote:

---

But a lot of people will get hurt experimenting.

---

quote:

---

I am bothered by the assumption that all abortions are from unintended pregnancies. That would seem to disinclude all the birth defect related abortions.

---

While the site doesn't differentiate between unwanted pregnancies and pregnancies that became unwanted at the sign of birth defects, it does show that 3% of women listed that as one of the reasons they chose to abort. I think birth defect abortions are included in the numbers. It's a Pro-Choice site, and I doubt they'd try to make themselves look worse.

[ July 28, 2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Mean Old Frisco ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Go for it Bev - I'm quite often angry about things that don't make sense and that I have no control over.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
I guess that since we seem to have a full blown abortion thread going, I'll get people's opinions on this

It's a Finnish (legal abortion and socialized health care system) study that shows that due to suicide and medical complications, the maternal mortality rate after one year for women who've had abortions is higher than both women who've given birth and women who've had no pregnancy at all.

If given weight, this sort of negates the argument that abortion is a safer route than pregnancy.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
page 7: Declining rates of teen pregnancy reflect improved contraceptive technology (implants and injections) and secondarily decreased sexual activity (abstinence). (a 1999 study is cited).

Abstinence teaching is having some effect. That many who sign abstinence promises eventually have sex doesn't mean they don't have it later or in a more committed relationship than they otherwise would have.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Frisco: Confounding variables. I didn't look up the actual study, but it looks like a retrospective study, looking at all deaths and going backwards from there.

Don't you think that the general population of women who had an abortion is not identical to the general population of women who didn't? You'd have to account for economic, cultural, regional, age, religious, etc variables in order to better strengthen the causality.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
*grins at CT*
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
I didn't give it much weight, either, but it does bring up the legitimate point that there are complications to abortion, beyond the purely medical ones, that I think go a ways in defusing the "abortion is 10 times safer than pregnancy" position.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
But it doesn't prove that suicide is a complication of abortion. Do you understand/agree to that?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
According to Frisco's link, minorities and low income are over-represented (occur at higher rates) in the unintended pregnancy and abortion numbers (I've switched computers, sorry if I'm messing this up) so yeah, the cohort of women who have abortions is likely to include higher mortality as well for socioeconomic reasons. At least, this is the case in the U.S.

Remember that thread about pregnant women being twice as likely to be murdered last year? :goes off to look: P.S. Couldn't find it. There is a pregnant woman missing here in SLC, and the media at least is growing increasingly suspicious of her husband.

[ July 28, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Edit: This is a random rant. Take it for what you will.

I am a pragmatist. I believe in abstainence and will preach it to my dying breath. I hope that I can have some influence for good in that area. But for people that have decided not to practice abstainence I believe they need to know about and use responsible birth control and protection.

So while I am not against teaching birth control and so called "safe sex", I am angered by those who will not teach abstainence or only gloss over it, giving it grudging lip service. What is to be gained by that?

[ July 28, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 
I wasn't led down the path, CT. I certainly don't believe that women are 250% more likely to die after having an abortion than women who complete the pregnancy. It's just difficult finding any studies that acknowledge anything beyond the .007% and .0006% death rates.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Actually the study looks pretty rock solid, lots of good data. It's the analysis that's ridiculousl but don't discount the numbers just because someone spun them. If I have time, I'm going to delve a little deeper into this.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Beverly, i think the key lesson is that going to extremes is rarely the correct answer.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 

quote:

---

But it doesn't prove that suicide is a complication of abortion. Do you understand/agree to that?

---

quote:

---

Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."

---

I know the conversation's moved on, but I just wanted to add that this passage made me want to vomit far more than the T-shirt did.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Uh, Hobbes, that data's trash at least as far as conclusions in the area the entire article is about are concerned.

All data is good data, in the "world context", but the world context is not humanly considerable, we can only look at little slices of it. They're looking at one slice and trying to talk about a different one, which makes it bad data in context.

Now, most bad data is more obviously troubled than this data -- for instance, by not even being an accurate overview of any part of the world context, just random data points from many different places and subcontexts, and considered in the wrong contexts.

[ July 28, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
It is sooooo hard to glean empirical data out of human populations where social issues are concerned. It certainly isn't a "hard science".
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Mine was more of a semantical argument Fugu, I didn't look that hard but it looks like most of the data that would be relevant to a discussion like this was collected (age, economic status, etc), so all that data is there, it just takes someone to go through and make concluesions about what it says that's lacking, or rather someone who goes through and makes reasonable concluesions. So I agree, bad context for this data, at best incredibly bad representation of context, I'm just saying, look a little harder at the number themeselves, they could be meaningful, the fact that the guy/girl who wrote the article isn't knolwedgable about it doesn't prove the study is worthless.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Dag- That article says there are no hard numbers, but we do know 3% times over a million. So that's about 30,000 abortions of children with suspected birth defects annually. And I'll stick my uneducated (in statistics) foot in my mouth by saying I bet a disproportionate number of those are insured with good prenatal care, the opposite spectrum of the "average" abortion patient.

Abortion is only ethical where the mother does not see the fetus as a human. Whether due to defect or because she can't afford to take care of it, I still think it's a bad reason.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Hobbes, taking a pile of numbers and trying to form a conclusion from them is nightmare. You really do have to start with your hypothesis and design a data set that will allow you to answer your question. If someone dumps a mittful of data in my lap and asks me what it means, dollars to doughnuts I'm going to tell them it's crap.
 

---

Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
 

quote:

---

and it seems that you believe that suicide is a complication of abortion.

---

quote:

---

That might be because those are the accurate numbers.

---

From the actual surgical process, yes. I don't dispute those. I just think there's more to it than that.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
You're right, I mis-spoke, these "results" from the article indicate that either the article made it's own concluesions, or the whole study was bad, I don't remember what I said exactly but if I used the word "study" I was wrong, the study was bad. But it looks like there's some very good numbers there, a semi-decent study will publish readable numbers without spin (suicide percentage for those who had an abortion, average economic status of same group, so on), and if those numbers are there then it doesn't take an expert, just not a fool to get something meaningful. It's my pet-peeve to ignore numbers because the spin on them is bad, ignore the spin, pay attention to the numbers. Now of course if there was something wrong with the way the numbers were gathered then absolutley throw the number out with the spin.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know the conversation's moved on, but I just wanted to add that this passage made me want to vomit far more than the T-shirt did.

---

quote:

---

Abortion is only ethical where the mother does not see the fetus as a human.

---

quote:

---

I am grateful the author of the op-ed blew the whistle on the the absurdity of the logic in the statement about the fetus/whatever with DS being a "wanted" one.

---

quote:

---

They miss their little angels, their children who have predeceased them and gone to heaven. So they construct web pages in memory of these angel babies. Each little one is listed by name, with a sweet saying from Mom, the diagnosed condition which precipitated their death, and the date they were aborted.

---

quote:

---

For that matter, is there such a thing as intrinsic value?

---

quote:

---

This will be our second pregnancy. Our first ended September 13th, 1996 when I was 20.5 weeks pregnant and we recieved a diagnosis of Down Syndrome (Trisomy 21). It was a girl - Kaylee Shawn. Now she's our angel.

---

Oh my stars. I had to read that a couple times. She had an abortion when she found out her daughter would have Down's Syndrome.

It's right there! That's it's better to be dead than alive with that condition. You have to stumble past the euphamisms to get at what she was actually saying.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Kat -

Welcome to my nightmare.

I suspect, although I haven't parsed it out thoroughly, that these women are actually being encouraged to frame these abortions as acts of compassion rather than acts of "simple" self-determination. Months ago, I linked to a site that specializes in these kinds of abortions. There's a lot about "grieving" in the literature on the site. And they use the terms "delivery" and "stillbirth" instead of "abortion."

*saying, in my best Haley Osmond voice: "I see social workers!"

Like I said, it's one thing to stick with private lies to maintain equilibrium. There's an effort here to convince the public to embrace the lie.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
What is the difference between killing a 20 week old fetus because it has Downs Syndrome and killing a newly born baby because it has Downs Syndrome?

I just got an email from a good friend on the subject of abortion. This is how she started her email:

quote:

---

A small puppy found its way to our doorstep. I don't want the puppy but I don't want to go through the trouble of finding it a different home. I've seriously been thinking of killing it then just disposing of the body or just blending up the pieces so I can add it to my compost pile. I mean, it's just a dog. And right now, my life plans don't include a dog.

---

She only made mention of this because the rest of her email was about abortion, not because she was planning on killing a puppy. Just so you know. She cannot have children of her own and is waiting to adopt her second child. She recently advised a good friend to consider adopting out the child in her womb that she plans to abort. She has very strong feelings on this issue.

[ July 28, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
sndrake:

I am glad, glad, glad that there are people like you fighting this. It really is appalling - the purpose of having that happy, bubbly blog posted was to reassure people that it's okay to have an abortion to avoid having a baby with Down syndrome, because if they do, they could get TWINS! So much better!

AAAAA!!!!
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Sorry to disappoint you Kat, but I don't work
on abortion issues at all. I've said more about the topic here on Hatrack than I've said in public for at least 8 years.

The organization I work for is strictly limited to dealing with life and death issues after birth - which, I'm sorry to say, keeps my plate very full.

But one can see how these websites lay out - at the very least - an emotional foundation for outright infanticide.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bev, did you mean 20 weeks?

I have a harder time reading people trying to explain why this is a good thing than I do about the grisly details of D&E procedures, for exactly the reasons sndrake gave - it's an attempt to spread evil. "My little angel."

OK, now I've worked myself into a state. Once again, you have my respect, drakester.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Dag,

in case I haven't said it clearly enough. In both matters in which we agree and matters in which we disagree...

You have my respect as well.

(As a matter of fact, you now come to mind when I hear the term "conservative." The name that used to come to mind was "Rush Limbaugh" - how's that for progress? )
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ooops, I better edit that!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That is progress. We're no longer pill-popping, overweight, balding men in your eyes.

Now we're overweight law students.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I'll add my nausea to Stephen's link.

Back on the T-shirts, I guess I could wear the one about discontinuing Grandma’s life support. In fact, I could wear two. The decision wasn’t mine in either case, but I supported both of my grandmothers’ decisions not to use feeding tubes or IV fluids, even though they might have prolonged their lives.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
See, Dana, you've hit on the fuzziness of the "pulling the plug" thing. Supporting someone else's expressed wishes wasn't even on my original list.

How about this one?

"Euthanized my cat because she was peeing on the rug"

(which, btw, is a very common reason for cats being put down, along with:)

"Euthanized my cat because it cost too much to treat her illness"
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I’m having a hard time with how to draw lines, or at least how to phrase them. I heard recently that an anti-abortion bill being presented to some state legislature (Utah, I think) was so strict that it would prohibit terminating a pregnancy even if the fetus had already died. That’s too tight.

I know two women whose babies died in-utero. In both cases they had to wait several days (a week?) after the doctor was pretty sure the baby was dead in order to be absolutely sure. Once an ultrasound showed that the bones were decomposing labor was induced. I don’t think this was less moral/ethical than to wait until their bodies went into labor on their own. I guess technically these might have been abortions – the pregnancy (though not the life of the fetus) was artificially terminated.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
dk, did the anti-abortion bill that was presented pass, then? I'm confused about the connection between the two paragraghs. I haven't heard of any anti-abortion bill anything close to that strict passing, so if the women had to wait, it couldn't have been for that reason.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
No no, these were both years ago, and they didn't have to wait past the one week to be sure.

What I was told (and I haven't read the bill myself, so this is all hearsay) is that pregnancies could not be legally terminated at all, which would mean that in those cases, rather than having to wait a week and induce, they would have had to carry the dead baby until labor occurred naturally.

Edit: The connection between the paragraphs is my thinking about the agony they went through during the one week, and imagining that continuing for weeks or months. Not that "getting it over with" ends the agony, but it does at least let you move to the next stage of it.

[ July 28, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I'm confused as to why they had to wait at all - was this before Roe versus Wade?
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
That sounds strange - I'm pretty sure (hopefully CT will pop up soon) that a dead fetus is a significant threat to the life of the mother. The dead tissue is bound to become a source of infection, isn't it?

("mother" in this context doesn't seem weird somehow)

[ July 28, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Pooka - you mean the Lori Hacking case.

I couldn't tell you if it's actually an increasing trend or if we are simply hearing more about it in the news.

I'm inclined to suspect these women married bad men and becoming pregnant was just happenstance. If not the pregnancy, something else would have happened to set them off.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Dana, that's the kind of law that gets drafted by someone who's not thinking from first principles. Or is just plain nuts. I can't decide which.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Kat, Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with it. They waited because neither they nor their doctors wanted to make a mistake. Even if there was only a one in a million chance that the earlier test might have been wrong, they would have jumped at it.

sndrake, I suspect you're right. I also suspect a lot of the people campaigning for super-super-strict no-exception abortion laws aren’t looking at those types of nuances.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Didn't that happen to Anne Boleyn? She was pregnant, and then ten months later was still pregnant, and she ended up having the stillborn baby taken out from her.

I think I was sensitive to it because it was attributed to Utah - which has obvious connotations.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
My sister's baby died at about 18 weeks. As soon as they could schedule an induction, she was induced into labor. (This in Utah)

Yes, dead fetal tissue in the mother is a health risk, and someone would have to be daft to draft law like that let alone pass it.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Sorry. I was afraid the fact that I think it was from Utah would be touchy. I'm almost positive it was something Bob read in the paper when he was in SLC. But it might have been somewhere else. (I tend to get drowsy when he reads stuff over the phone at night, and sometimes the conversations blend together.) And he's been traveling so stinking much in the last two months that it's hard to keep track.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I would think that such a bill passed in any state, let alone any country, would elicit much outcry and press. Perhaps it was a bill being proposed? I honestly can't imagine such a bill being passed.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I can't either, but the possibility still scares me, if only as an example of people who are so pig-headed determined on this issue that they leave all common sense and rational discourse behind.

edit: and yes, it was proposed, not passed.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think all sorts of crazy things get proposed. This is really extreme, though - I don't think it's fair to use it as an example of what would happen if anything at all about abortion is restricted.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
And just when did I use it as an example of that?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Dana, did the bill specifically exclude termination of pregnancy with a dead fetus, or was this an opponent of the bill's interpretation of the effects of the law?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, I can imagine that such a bill was proposed. It certainly does seem to be extreme, though.

I am all for finding middle ground. Most of all, I want to do whatever I can to encourage women to choose adopting out a child rather than aborting.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Huh. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that my sister's life was at risk the longer the dead baby remained within her.

On the other hand, I am thinking of a girl who was pregnant with twins. One of them wasn't getting good blood flow through the umbilical chord. After doing all they could to give this little one every chance at life, it died. They never did anything invasive with her, just let it disolve back into her body. Perhaps it was the lesser of two evils, the idea being that if they did something invasive, it would endanger the remaining twin.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Ah, I think I see the miscommunication -- I’m not arguing against abortion restrictions here. I’m sharing my own difficulty in how to phrase things most clearly in tricky situations, and gave this as an example of less than perfect phrasing having hideous consequences.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I realize my brother could have written something very like the Paeon to Eugenics article, but I think our acrimony should not be directed at the parents. I think that when the diagnosis of Down Syndrome is made, the parents are under extreme pressure from caregivers to abort. A critical shift occurs -- the fetus ceases to be a co-patient with the mother, and becomes a disease to be removed.

(in reference to the law dkw mentions, and I'd appreciate a link because I've never heard of it, the fetus is assumed to be a patient of sorts and it must be dead before they proceed. Awful as it is to walk around with a dead fetus for a few days, I think that's less horrible than if one were mistaken about it being dead.)

Utah is also where they conducted a study to see if Down Syndrome could be detected by Ultrasound as early as 14 weeks into the pregnancy. That way the parents would have a whole 6 weeks to decide whether to abort "with a clear conscience" (as most folks assume that abortion before 20 weeks is better than after).

Edit: somehow I managed to forget my point, that most parents get an ultrasound at 18-20 weeks, and if the baby is found to be defective they are under pressure to decide whether to abort it right away. And it is presented as the medically indicated thing to do. I imagine a lot of these parents really do feel remorse. They perhaps go too far in the collusive psychosis of denial created by that online community. But I do feel bad for them. There are time in my life when I would have made that choice. If it happened to me right now, I might not see eye to eye on it with my husband.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I participated in that study, twice, in fact, for the free ultrasound. I didn't think of it as propegating a technology that would make it easier to abort Downs babies. *shudder*

Since I would never consider such a thing, for me it would just be being mentally and in all other ways prepared to deal with a child with special needs.

At the same time, this technology never claimed to be able to predict Downs with accuracy, just show where the child is more likely to be Downs. Further testing would be necessary to confirm. (I am still hoping this couldn't be used as an excuse for more abortions.)

[ July 28, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Ah, I think I see the miscommunication -- I’m not arguing against abortion restrictions here. I’m sharing my own difficulty in how to phrase things most clearly in tricky situations, and gave this as an example of less than perfect phrasing having hideous consequences.

---

No worries. That's how I took it from the start.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That makes sense, CT. In fact, I think I remember her talking about being monitored regularly for something like that.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I guess the weirdness of "heartbreakingchoice.com" is their need to still be able to condemn elective abortions without condemning themselves. Yeah, that is weird.

Bev- I missed the start of that study by a less than a month, and I might have done it too except I'm a little paranoid about extra medical interventions. Still, talking with a friend about it later who did the study as well, we pondered the irony of them doing the study in Utah. Maybe they did it here because more women would carry to term and they could be surer of the diagnosis.

I turned down the AFP (spina-bifida detection) screen that pregnancy. They really really wanted me to have it done. My fourth pregnancy they didn't have me sign a release, they just did it.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

I realize my brother could have written something very like the Paeon to Eugenics article, but I think our acrimony should not be directed at the parents. I think that when the diagnosis of Down Syndrome is made, the parents are under extreme pressure from caregivers to abort. A critical shift occurs -- the fetus ceases to be a co-patient with the mother, and becomes a disease to be removed.

---

pooka, I don't get where anyone but the people maintaining these webpages and writing these "memorials" deserve acrimony. While I agree the professionals are probably involved in helping them frame the abortions this way, this is a project run by the people who ended those pregnancies.

Strangely, I don't have real acrimony for people who admit that they had an abortion just because they didn't want a kid with a disability - it's honest.

Remember - these websites are specifically asking for affirmation that these abortions were acts of compassion and love. They are asking for affirmation. That's where they cross the line - and it's a big one.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Pooka, thanks for sharing a more compassionate view on women who have aborted for those reasons. There have been a couple of occasions when I followed a doctor's advice against my own instincts and later regretted it. It is easy to think, "They know what they are talking about. Maybe it is I who is wrong."

I would hope that most women would listen to their own hearts on such an important issue, but many women have been subject to the opinions of authority figures for so long, they have forgotten how to think for themselves. There was a time in my life when I was like that. I do not wish to judge another before considering their situation.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

I participated in that study, twice, in fact, for the free ultrasound. I didn't think of it as propegating a technology that would make it easier to abort Downs babies.

---

quote:

---

I guess the weirdness of "heartbreakingchoice.com" is their need to still be able to condemn elective abortions without condemning themselves.

---

quote:

---

I do not wish to judge another before considering their situation.

---

quote:

---

We don't "mercy kill" living people with Downs.

---

Exactly. Which is why I think the disability card is irrelevant to the legality of abortion debate. Either the fetus has some rights, or it doesn't.
If the fetus has no rights, then abortion is permitted at the discretion of the mother up to whatever point those rights attach.

If it does have rights, then those rights are weighed against the mother's in determining if an abortion is permissible. The fact that the baby would have a disability is irrelevent to that balancing test.

Would we let a mother kill a 1-day old with Down's (pretending they're not left to die in hospitals)? No. So the fact that the child has Down's is irrelevant to whether an abortion should be permitted. Either the mother has the right to terminate or she doesn't.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
No, the doctor sibling and the DS parent sibling have a lifelong rivalry thing going- probably the worst one in the family. And I live on the other side of the country which is why I have no clear recollection of how Dr. sibling treats the niece. I'm sure she is nice to her though and would buy her a present if her visit coincided with her birthday. It was just an odd void in my understanding that I didn't recognize until I was posting about it.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
bev,

we don't "mercy kill" (interesting term in and of itself) people with Down syndrome anymore - or at least not openly, anyway.

Or are you unfamiliar with the Indiana Baby Doe case? It was a baby with Down syndrome who was denied corrective surgery, then starved and dehydrated to death. This was just a case that became public. Quite a depressing amount of journal article written throughout the 1970s and into the early 80s by physicians doing things like this as standard practice.

[ July 28, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 


Nope. Was not aware. Completely oblivious.


 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

I keep thinking of the Nazi paradigm of killing of the sick, weak, or otherwise unproductive members of society.

---

As mentioned previously, abortion is used more by minorities and the poor.

P.S. I guess the shirt could read "I had an abortion, and I'm one of the 79% who did so for reasons other than financial hardship." That way one doesn't have to wonder where they got money to buy a t shirt online.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Perhaps we have uncovered a conspiracy plot of doctors across our country in giving abortion "advice", eh?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't think this is new, Beverly.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
No, it's just the natural result of the lack of legal clarity we have on the start of life. Even if we had legal clarity, I doubt it would satisfy hardliners like me. But because the start of life is a gray area, like everything else in life if weighs against the unfortunate.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I doubt it.

Would a rich minority be more inclined to have an abortion than a poor minority?

Instead of "poor and minorities," it might be closer to say "the poor are more inclined to have an abortion."

As long as having children is an expensive proposition - welfare rants notwithstanding, it is an expensive proposition, there will still be women and families who opt for an abortion rather than having the child and giving it up for adoption.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sorry, I forgot that you couldn't hear the smirk in my voice over the internet forum. I do *not* think there is a country-wide doctor conspiracy to weed out minorities and poor through abortion.

I do, however, think there are doctors who enjoy the monetary benefits of performing numerous abortions.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Although the 9 months of stress and demand on a woman's body may still sway a number of women even if the costs of carrying and giving birth to a child were completely covered.

Being pregnant can be quite an obstacle in daily life - now imagine if you had to try and work a 9-5 job, hike miles to and from the bus stop, etc.

While I'm sure some of you may have, I would hazard a guess that kind of character and determination is the exception rather than the rule.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Sorry for the repeated posts, but I'm not sure using the edit button would suffice.

There may not be a conspiracy per se, but financial considerations can and often do sway healthcare providers.

I seem to recall the number of c-sections going up because that's cheaper than vaginal births?

And I'm going to assume just about everyone here has heard some HMO horror story.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think if more women viewed the life in their womb as sacred, even if they had no intention of keeping the baby, they would be more willing to go through the riggors of pregnancy in honor of giving that little human a chance at life--and hopefully a good life at that.

But then thinking of the fetus as a human makes it harder to give it up. Just as it is harder on a human conscience to kill a newborn baby than a fetus, it is easier to abort (ignore that the fetus ever had any humanity to begin with) than hand over that baby to another parent.

It is easier. But it is a philosophy I think is damaging and dangerous. I would like to return, as a whole society, to a view of life in the womb as sacred--something to protect.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

I seem to recall the number of c-sections going up because that's cheaper than vaginal births?

---

I think the deal there is that it is more *expensive*. More money goes into the pocket of the doctor. Also, the situation is more "controlled". The doctor can choose to do a c-section at three in the afternoon after his golf game rather than at 3 am interrupting his good night's sleep.

I think that doctors who have these things as motivations are evil, personally.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Okay, it turns out that I was mixing up unintended pregnancy with abortion. Reading further in Frisco's report, only 26% of abortions are received by women living below the poverty line. Half are received by those either at up to 3 times the federal poverty income, and the remainin 24 % are 3 times or more federal poverty.

Minorities make up 58.1% of abortion cases. But at 40.9%, whites are the biggest racial group in the pie chart. There's also a religion chart. More Catholics than no religion have abortions, though protestants are the most. Again, depends on what the overall population is, what these numbers mean.

Below the pie chart it explains that proportional to the \ number of women childbearing age in that religion, protestants have the fewest abortions, then catholics. No religion is 22% of abortions and only 16% of the same age/sex group in the population. So it means they are much more likely to have abortion.

[ July 28, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Heh - I knew it was financially motivated, but as I am unlikely to ever give birth or be party to one, my own knowledge was a little unsure.

I trusted the wise minds here to correct my tenative idea.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
What a fascinating thread...you'd think it was a whole different forum from the last abortion thread. No offense intended to anyone--I'm just amazed. It's actually civil.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
What was the last one titled? You click on the title for this one and you have to know things can't get any worse. Oh yeah, that was the "Abort This!". It's because it had the Pro Life message up front. It kind of ran amok from the original content, whereas we do actually keep coming back to the T-shirt and the planned parenthood issue this time.

I was saying earlier that 20 weeks is a lot of people's concept of the latest an abortion should occur, but in the "Frisco Link" it says after 16 weeks. Is there a difference in how the procedure can be done at that point? 16 weeks is also the point at which most women will have felt the fetus move, or "quickening". I seem to remember that in Jewish law, as well as Mormon tradition, the quickening is when the soul enters the fetal body.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

I seem to remember that in Jewish law . . . the quickening is when the soul enters the fetal body.

---

quote:

---

Quite often both, which makes for a rare combination, especially in dealing with such a sensitive topic.

---

No argument there. I have trouble being civil myself. It's just...unnatural somehow.



->Mabus
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Whew...what a long thread! I'm interested in the hostility towards parents that have aborted due to birth defects. I read several of the personal stories in the links, and never got the impression that these parents didn't love their children. I would never abort a child with Down's, but reading some of the other combinations of birth defects I really have to wonder. To be honest, I don't know if I would want to bring a child into the world to do nothing but suffer.

space opera
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 

quote:

---

I read several of the personal stories in the links, and never got the impression that these parents didn't love their children.

---

quote:

---

See, I feel like you still have that choice to make after they're born, assuming they are on life support and can't form words or thoughts.

---

quote:

---

And for some people, quality of live takes precedence over life itself.

---

See, this is where terminology gets misused. What we're really talking about is not the idea of "quality of life" - it's the "quality of this particular child."

Clearly, to some, a child with Down syndrome is kind of damaged goods and that's not the quality they will accept in a child.

It has nothing to do with the quality as perceived by the individual whose life is on the line.

And none of this really erases the absurdity of saying "This was a wanted child. This was an aborted child." (and one I'm going to replace with someone more acceptable to me)
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Sndrake: I should point out that I'm pretty much against stopping any child's life for any reason other than extreme pain and inability to ever get out of it. Let me rephrase that.....it would be a cold day in heck before I would pull the plug on my child.

BUT I have never been there and can't possibly begin to tell a parent when the right time to end their child's life would be. I do think it's wrong to abort the child before they even get a chance.

It's sticky and I'm pretty unwilling to go there because my thoughts aren't well-formed. I just don't see why it would be necessary to abort a child with an extreme disability...you have a chance to reevaluate the situation. It's not an emergency or anything.

(And I was referring to brain activity. I'm not an expert in this area...do infants have very low brain activity?)

[ July 29, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I also get very angered with the practice of aborting Downs children. They're people, for crying out loud! They have thoughts and feelings just like anyone else, they're just behind in their development. So, they are forever innocent. OH NO. How terrible.

It's very obvious to me that aborting a child with Downs is meant to make life easier on the parent, and has nothing to do with "unconditional love" for the child. Please.

There are different levels of Downs and some are more life-threatening than others. But if having a perfect life was more important than having a life at all, you wouldn't see those children fighting for their lives. Why doesn't anyone say, "You know, your life is going to be hard. I think it would be best if we just ended it now."
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Actually, I disagree -

Are they making a decision based on the quality of the child

-or-

The quality of this child's life?

Is the child going to have a chance at a life or will (s)he be confined to ICU, requiring constant and expensive attention that is beyond the means of the parents to provide?

I'll grant you, some parents did consider the quality of the child, but I don't see how we can assume every last parent used that belief structure rather than trying to consider what was best for the child.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Quality of this child's life? That's saying that something with Down Syndrome would be better off dead - not existing at all.

That is the justification for eugenics.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
I don't think anyone is saying it's okay to abort a child with Down's. The examples that I brought up, and I think what Trevor is talking about, are defects waaaaay more serious than Down's.

space opera
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think I'm still arguing with the web site and not with Hatrackers.

The two stories that I read were from women who had aborted because of Down's Syndrome, and the sugary relief that they didn't have to deal with it and could instead picture a baby peaking over the clouds, just so darn happy that her parents got healthy kids instead made me want to throw something very pointy.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
I don't blame you there. However, I think if you read more of the site (if you can stomach the wading though process) there are some stories that are far different and very heartbreaking. These are the stories that truly made me wonder what I would do.

space opera
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Ack that website talks about a baby being aborted that had hydrocephalus, exact same thing sndrake had.
We really do need a vomiting smiley.
will have to do

AJ
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Thanks Opera.

I'm not talking about Down's or even my "gee, wanted blue eyes instead of brown" scenario.

I'm talking about worst case scenarios that would literally leave the child incapacitated and unable to function at all.

As for the other, s'all good Kat - I can only imagine how this idea might offend mothers.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
It doesn't matter to me what the condition is - at the point in gestation most of these are detectable, we're talking about a choice between being dismembered while alive or dying of a natural disease.

Dagonee

[ July 29, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
I'd like to remind folks that I am not necessarily arguing against abortion here. Just ranting against the idea that the abortions for reasons of expected disability are somehow more "moral."

Trevor, one of the problems of what you are trying to argue is that you're pretty much putting words in the mouths of the women on these websites.

Let's get back to a concrete example, shall we?

From the NY Times:

quote:

---

Kate Hoffman, for example, who aborted a fetus with Down syndrome, was quoted in The Times on June 20 as saying: "I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."

---

quote:

---

would there ever be a scenario where you might consider it an act of kindness to abort the fetus?

---

quote:

---

Why do you think that's more humane, Dag? Forgive my bluntness, but I would much rather my brain be punctured and have a quick death rather than slowly suffocate to death because breathing assistance is withheld. I'm not being snarky, I promise - I'm truly interested. Is it just the connotation of abortion?

---

quote:

---

Dag, I don’t even think it’s less than ideal.

---

quote:

---

The only way this can be true, given the stage these things are detectable, is if it would sometimes be an act of kindness to kill a newborn baby with a similar condition.

---

YES!!! Exactly the point here. If it is OK to "mercy kill" fetuses, then it *must* be acceptable to "mercy kill" newborns and other human beings. It is acceptable in some circumstances to "turn off life support" and let someone die, but what about killing them? Who was that doctor that used to help people commit suicide when they had some horrible, terminal illness? Is he in jail now?

Euthenasia. That is what we are talkin' 'bout here, folks. Is it OK or isn't it?

New T-shirt slogan: "I euthenized my baby/child"

I think being euthenized is probably far more humane than most abortions.

[ July 29, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---