Pro Choice vs. Pro Life. You *can* be both, ya know?

[Ghost in the Machine]

This comes from my own experience, judgment, opinion... whatever you want to call it.

First and foremost, I believe it should be every woman's right to do with her body and her reproductive choices as she sees fit, however, I would hope that abortion wouldn't be something she would take lightly, or take for granted. Abortion shouldn't be used as a birth control method.

In instances of incest, rape, severe fetal deformation or where the life of the mother or unborn baby is at stake, there should be no questions asked, period. The only real question any other time would be simply: Have you thought of or tried to exersize any other options? Have you considered the 1000's of childless couples who would gladly give this baby a loving home?

In other words: It's your choice, but if any way humanly possible, please choose life. That makes you pro choice, but at the same time, pro life.

[niyad]

1. however you want to disguise it, you are really saying that, barring

certain circumstances, YOU would prefer that the woman choose what YOU think her choice should be. the REAL question is, "DO YOU want this pregnancy?" PERIOD. END of Discussion. the fact that there are thousands of people who would love to adopt children is totally irrelevant to her decision. Besides, if they are that anxious to adopt, there are THOUSANDS of children waiting for good homes. specious argument.

there is only ONE question to be anwered: Does the WOMAN want an abortion? that is the ONLY consideration, ever.

[Ghost in the Machine]

3. I didn't disguise anything. It says right at the beginning of my post

that this is MY opinion. Luckily, I've never been faced with that choice, although I have been a single father for over 10 years, since my kids were 3 & 4, because their mother decided she's rather be a drunk and a crackwhore than a wife and mother.

Are you saying that the father of the child has NO say so? It's HIS child too, ya know? If I was faced with it, and a woman wanted to abort MY child simply because she "didn't want to get fat" due to the pregnancy and I knew I could raise that child on my own, I'd have her tied up with injunctions and in court so long she'd have the baby before the court case was done. But that's just, again, MY personal issue. My older sister had an abortion 28 years ago. She still wakes up crying sometimes... wondering what could have been...

[niyad]

11. give me a f****** break. you claim to believe in a woman's right to

choose, and then you have the brass cojones to say that if a woman chose to abort for a reason YOU didn't feel appropriate, YOU would "have her tied up with injunctions and in court so long she'd have the baby before the court case was done." what a freaking hypocrite you are. how DARE you pretend to be pro-choice, and then turn around and say you would take a woman to court to stop HER decision? and yes, I don't believe the man has any say in her decision to have an abortion. it's HER body, not his, HER body that will go through nine months of changes, both physically and emotionally. HER body that could turn on her, with gestational diabetes, eclampsia, toxemia, septicemia, even death, so HOW DARE YOU say under ANY circumstances that YOUR wishes should prevail.

quite frankly, if your sister is still waking up crying after 28 years, I think she really has some issues that go far beyond having an abortion.

and you didn't answer my question about the THOUSANDS of children already born waiting to be adopted.

[Ghost in the Machine]

12. you need to read again...

I said "if a woman wanted to abort MY child, I'd fight it. Fathers have rights too, don't they? Or are you a militant feminist that thinks only YOU have rights? That kind of thinking makes me sick! You can try to spin it any way you want to, but it doesn't wash with me.

Are you a psychologist that can analyze my sister over a statement made on a discussion board?? If so, maybe you should team up with Bill Frist, who was able to diagnose Terri Shiavo through pictures. My sister went on to raise 4 other kids, she just mourns for the one she gave up.

As for your question about the 1000's of kids already waiting to be adopted, I can't answer that, although I do know that a lot of people want newborns, as opposed to older children. I can't answer for them, personally. However, I've been raising kids since I was 19 years old, but didn't have one of my own until I was almost 30.

[Lars39]

18. You still would not have the right to force a woman to have your child.

[Quantess]

33. I would listen to the father of the unintended pregnancy.

I did, as a matter of fact. (Sorry, here I go with oversharing, again.)
We had only been dating for a very short time, when I accidentally got pregnant. I felt it was horrible timing, but I was willing to keep it if he wanted it. He also felt it was horrible timing in terms of our relationship. So we both agreed. I think that sort of thing happens frequently.

We are still together.

[niyad]

50. I am one of those women who believe that since it is the WOMAN's body

it is HER decision. it isn't the male who is going to carry the fetus, it isn't the male whose body is going to undergo major changes, it isn't the male who could potentially die of complications, so no, the male doesn't have any rights in the matter. if he wants to be a father, let him find a woman who actually WANTS to conceive, it really is that simple. what YOU are saying is that YOU think YOU have the right to force a woman to be pregnant if she is pregnant by YOU, so all of your claim to "a woman's right to choose" is conditional, and therefore, bogus. If you cannot see the hypocricy of your statements, that is your problem, and if you have problems with your hypocricy being pointed out, that is also your problem.

I didn't, by the way, diagnose your sister, I said I THOUGHT she probably had more issues. In all my decades of dealing with this issue, I have yet to run across another woman grieving like that.

you were the one who brought up the thousands waiting to adopt children, not me. so the ones who only want newborns should be given special consideration by women who are considering abortion?

continue to twist and spin all you like, but your real meaning is very, very clear.

[iverglas]

64. "a militant feminist"

I forget how my friend Eileen put it exactly, but it's kinda like how a feminist has the fool notion that women are equal to men, and a militant feminist says so.

Or are you a militant feminist that thinks only YOU have rights?

Uh ... over what I do, in my own body and my own life? Yeah. Me, I'm obviously crazed.

Fathers have rights too, don't they?

Everybody gots rights. When it comes to their children, parents have the right not to be separated from them without good reason, f'r instance.

When it comes to women's bodies, MEN don't have ANY rights. It's rather odd how you've managed to miss this simple, basic principle of modern civilization in your years on this planet. The idea of human beings as property really hasn't been in vogue in this part of the world for quite some time.

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. You make sense here, but let's look at one little point.

I've read so many times here about a "woman's body" and HER rights, but think about one thing... without a MAN'S sperm, a womans eggs aren't good for anything. You can't even make an omelete with them! :evilgrin: With that being said, and all joking aside (I was just trying to lighten up the tone a little here)... I don't see why a man couldn't, or shouldn't, have a little say so. After all, without him, there wouldn't even be a need for abortions or this discussion.

Thanks for the intelligent and non attacking debate on this though, it's how progress is made. I'm off of here for now, have a busy weekend scheduled out on the lake. Have a great weekend! :hi:

[breakaleg]

17. You imply that her reasons for wanting an abortion are trivial

by saying she "didn't want to get fat".

That statement is more a reflection of your opinion than you may be aware.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. I'm not *implying* anything.. I actually heard this excuse once..

"I don't want to get fat and ruin my figure because I want to be a stripper"...

yes, that is a trivial reason for getting an abortion...

[Lars39]

24. In your eyes, perhaps, but it is not your body.

[breakaleg]

34. that's one person and one reason. by bringing up that reason

as the only one you present, you are basically trivializing any reasons for abortion.

[Quantess]

40. But, if you had a mom like that.......

who could say no?:sarcasm:

Why do you give a shit? She's obviously unfit to carry a baby to term. It's probably a blessing she chose abortion. Seriously.

[Nobody]

66. Injunctions?

You said: Are you saying that the father of the child has NO say so? It's HIS child too, ya know?

That is why I believe that you have the right to make your wishes known. She still has the right to listen to you and decide what's best for her even if that isn't what you would have her do.

You, being the partner, have the right to lobby. But the woman is the senator and is the one whose doing the voting.

You said: If I was faced with it, and a woman wanted to abort MY child simply because she "didn't want to get fat"

Oh my. Is this an assumption or something you've actually heard a woman tell in earnest? Double oh my. If she was in earnest, could it be that she was a competition athlete in training for an even that would take place in 6 months? An actress whose role could not be accomodated to fit a pregnancy? Too poor to afford a new wardrobe? (and just think about her trying to afford medical care!) Or perhaps she was trying to pull your chain.

Your comment continues here: due to the pregnancy and I knew I could raise that child on my own, I'd have her tied up with injunctions and in court so long she'd have the baby before the court case was done. But that's just, again, MY personal issue.

Preventing a woman from getting an abortion by hook or by crook is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. Someone tried that once a few years ago in Florida. Thankfully, she miscarried. If anyone ever tries to do that with me, I would find a way to induce a miscarriage by any means possible. NO ONE EVER tells me what stays in my body if I don't want it there.

My body is like a foreign country. You do NOT have jurisdiction. Likewise I have no jurisdiction on what goes into, stay in, or comes out of your body. If I am a trusted friend and you ask me, I may suggest, but I may not dictate.

If you were to tie her up with injunctions and lose, the first term abortion she would have gotten has become a second or third term abortion.

You say: My older sister had an abortion 28 years ago. She still wakes up crying sometimes... wondering what could have been...

I think we all have regrets over things we could have done differently.

[Warpy]

2. Please don't patronize women who choose abortion

because every woman I know who has had an abortion has agonized over the decsion. If there had been a way for them to risk their livs bringing that particular fetus to term, they would have done so. They chose to defend their lives, their health, their social support systems, their careers, and their financial stability and abort. It's not up to you or me to second guess their choices.

As to your crack about using it as birth control, abortion is embarrassing, painful and quite expensive. My friends who had one said they never wanted to go through it again.

In other words, it is a surgical procedure, not a hair appoinment. No woman approaches it lightly and no woman seeks it out for a good time. It is like all other surgical procedures in that it is not 100% risk free, it is accompanied by often severe discomfort, and it can save lives.

Those of us who came of age when it was illegal remember friends who nearly bled to death and some who did and a few who committed suicide rather than endure reproductive slavery. The bottom line is that antiabortion laws will only stop the safe abortions. Antiabortion laws kill women.

And in that case, it is not only possible but ideal to be both prochoice and prolife.

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. I didn't patronize anyone.. and as far as "my crack about using

abortion as birth control".... my ex-stepdaughter, now 22 years old, has had three abortions, because she "doesn't like how condoms feel, doesn't like foam, and doesn't want to take a pill every day".... and yes, I even paid for one of the abortions, so how patronizing is that??

Maybe you should re-read the OP, you just basically said the same thing I did

[Quantess]

49. How do the "kids" like it?

How would those 3 "kids" like having a shitty mom? Oh crap, I tried to abort you but now you're here. All three of you nasty unwanteds!

If the child is unwanted, who cares how it was concieved. I wouldn't want to be an unwanted child.

[Ghost in the Machine]

59. point taken!

I understand what you're saying, and thank you for saying it intelligently. Like I said, I paid for one of her abortions, so no one can say that I'm against abortions as a whole, and yes, it may be hypocritical, but the only thing I'm against would be someone aborting MY child. I don't really care what anyone else does because it doesn't affect ME personally. Fortunately, I don't have that problem to worry about as I can't make any more babies.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. Um...no

"abortion is embarrassing, painful and quite expensive"

1) I'm not embarrassed...nope. Anyone who wants to know can hear my story.

2) Painful? How so? Physically, no. and Versed (aka Midazolam) makes it an experience you don't even remember. Psychologically? For some... :shrug:

3) $400 is nothing compared to raising a kid for 18 years...imho.

I'd do it again, if i felt it were necessary...that's just me...

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. Simple honesty is so refreshing these days, Thanks for sharing

your story. As I said in my OP, it should be every womans personal right to choose. I would never take that away from them, but, as I also stated in a reply here... if I was the father of the baby, I would do everything I could to get her to keep the baby and just give it to me when it was born. Then again, at almost 44 years old, I don't think I could raise another one right now.. I'm still raising a 13 & 14 year old alone...

[bicentennial_baby]

8. It's a personal thing....

Indeed...I won't begrudge any woman her choice, I just can't stand being told what I must have felt...I know me, and I know my experience. They're all different... I did what I felt was right at the time, and I stand by that decision. Easy? No, but not the hardest thing I've done...It's life, in all of it's realness... :shrug:

:pals:

[Quantess]

47. LOL, just like Tom Cruise did to Katie Holmes!

Just kidding, of course!

[WildClarySage]

4. What should we use abortion for?

Cleaning litter boxes? Holding christmas decorations?

It IS birth control. It is used as such. A person's liberty to control her body is not determined by how reliably she uses contraceptives.

I am so tired of these flamebait threads. Why are liberals so reluctant to accept that women are capable of deciding abortion for ourselves? We really and truly are competent to decide because we know our situation best. We don't make decisions like that lightly, without considering options and consequences. And when we choose, we can do so without being emotionally manipulated. By either side of the debate.

[napi21]

10. I hope you meant "it IS birth control" litterally and not actually.

There are many many BC options. It seems foolish and silly to me for anyone to actually use abortion as BC!

[Quantess]

48. who gives a sh*t?

If you can decide that you aren't ready to give a good future to your potential baby, then that's good reason!

[Autumn Colors]

9. just one comment

You wrote:
"Have you considered the 1000's of childless couples who would gladly give this baby a loving home?"

Perhaps those thousands of childless couples should consider adopting the THOUSANDS of already LIVING unwanted children who are CURRENTLY available for adoption.

If they're that desperate to be parents ... tell them to adopt an older child, a non-white child, a child with special needs.

If they turn their noses up at those children then I would say they aren't very desperate to have children. Why force the children already languishing in the system to have to wait longer to be adopted just because those couples will only accept a WHITE INFANT.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. People don't think through the consequences of what they wish.

Assuming that Roe v Wade is overturned, then assuming that what would have been 1.3 million abortions result in say, 1 million live births give or take miscarriages and illegal abortions in a given year: Just how many "loving couples" do they think are available to take in these unwanted infants? Last I checked there are maybe 100K or so adoptions annually. I expect that even if all those poor long-suffering Christian families still on the waiting list got their much-desired Caucasian infant, there would be an awful lot of children languishing in foster care or with mothers who'd prefer they'd never been born.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. I Agree With You And Your Other Comments So Far Here 100% Completely.

And hang in there. It is my experience that there are many claw wielding maniacs that will attempt to tear you to shreds for holding such ideals. But fear them not, and don't let them break you down to their level of animosity. There are many others who can have thoughtful debate on this, and I hope they join you in civil discussion... ...Just keep an eye out for the claw wielding maniacs LOL

In all seriousness though, I have total respect for you sharing your opinion on this that some don't find to be a popular one. I feel the same ways and many others do as well, though they are too scared to come forward because of the animosity that is thrown at them for saying so. But your points are well conceived and I find nothing wrong with the concept of abortion being a woman's choice, but please don't abuse that choice recklessly since it still is a life we're talking about here. I also wholeheartedly agree with your fathers/litigation argument. I've stated it before and the claw brigade marched forth. But I stand behind it and your statement of it 100% as well.

In any case, I'm off to bed. Good luck.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. Thanks for the support...

I know some people are rabid about the issue... on both sides of the fence. I'm not against abortion, I just hope the decision isn't made lightly, like I have known some women to do.

[iverglas]

68. "claw wielding maniacs" (x 2), "claw brigade" ...

... jeeze, use ugly sexist language much?

Maybe we can look forward to you likening MEN to feline animals sometime soon. Eh?

I find nothing wrong with the concept of abortion being a woman's choice, but please don't abuse that choice recklessly since it still is a life we're talking about here.

I, and any minimally rational person, finds that to be such utter bullshit as cannot possibly be taken at face value.

If I demand the right to choose to kill you, will you say I find nothing wrong with the concept of killing me being your choice, but please don't abuse that choice recklessly since it is still a life we're talking about here?

Please do. Then I will see that I am not talking to someone who is not minimally rational ... or not minimally, er, candid. At this point, I will take some serious persuading.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your fathers/litigation argument.

Argument? Argument?? Are you at all aware of what the word means?

It doesn't actually encompass I want what I want and I don't care what you want. That isn't argument. It's a tantrum. And when it goes on to include and I'm going to do everything I can think of to you to make sure I get what I want at your expense, it's a threat, a threat to attempt to have someone's fundamental human rights violated, in this instance. ARGUMENT?? OPINION IS NOT ARGUMENT. If someone wants to persuade someone else to adopt his/her opinion, s/he would indeed do well to offer some argument.

Argument for the opinion that men should be able to control women has been sadly lacking, forever. But y'all should feel free to offer some.

But I stand behind it and your statement of it 100% as well.

Well, if you are going to trot it out in public, it's a flimsy damn thing to be standing behind. A single swipe of the claw and it's gone, and the would-be emperors are standing there in all their naked nastiness.

In all seriousness though, I have total respect for you sharing your opinion on this that some don't find to be a popular one. I feel the same ways and many others do as well, though they are too scared to come forward because of the animosity that is thrown at them for saying so.

Listen. Why don't you and your little like-minded chummies go find somewhere nice and safe to play, where you can spew your ugly opinions about women in peace and nobody will be so unspeakably bold as to say nay?

I wonder when the opinion that men are entitled to enslave women became an "ideal" ...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. That Was A Brilliant Illustration Of My Point. Thanx So Much For The Help!

Wow. That was an amazing display that really brought out the essence of my point by providing such a thorough and real life example. That was truly art. I couldn't have come up with a better display on my own to illustrate the point like that in a million years. Thanks so much for the help! :hi:

Oh, and P.S., it's gonna happen often in life where many people don't see things exactly as you do. Try not to be so vengeful towards them and instead open your mind to the possibility that there are other worthy perspectives than yours.

Bye now.

[iverglas]

83. you're welcome, any time

For your next act, you could try trotting out an ugly opinion of people of colour, or GLBT people, or heck, why not people with disabilities? I'm sure they're all equally incompetent to know what choices are in their best interests (oops, I forgot: and equally lacking in moral sense), and equally undeserving of the right to make their own decisions.

And I'll bet you can even think of some animals to portray those who disagree with you as.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. Out Of Innocent Curiosity, Do You Live On Or Near A Farm?

It seems you must have access to huge stockpiles of hay in order to keep throwing so many strawmen out there. Figured that meant you had to live on or in the vicinity of a farm. Am I right?

[Mushroom]

78. No Laughing Matter

Serious people, who dare to change America's sexually abusive systems, cultivate their good characters by their daily good deeds. You could emulate these people instead of seeing them as your personal squeak toys and sin eaters.

[cynatnite]

15. Many people I know are against abortion...

but they don't believe the government has any place in the decision. They do call themselves pro-life, but don't think the government has a right to take the decision out of the woman's hands.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. That's Definitely Accurate.

As passionate as I am in some of my positions on abortion, they are just personal opinions. Those opinions should never be legislated to a point of being forced on others and I am in 100% agreement that the government is the last place that should stick their noses in the legitimacy of the decision and I would never condone any action that sought to give the government control over it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. I'm not against abortion, I just hope that all considerations have been

resolved before making the decision. For most women, it's not an easy choice, but for some, it's no big deal... screw around, get knocked up, go have an abortion... and be right back out in a few weeks screwing around again... like my ex stepdaughter I mentioned in another reply... she's 22, has had 3 abortions that I know of, one I paid for... and she has 3 kids ranging from 4 years old to 3 weeks old...

[Lars39]

20. Is that your store listed in your profile?

'Cause if it is, you have possibly "outed" your relatives that have had abortions. It is a very personal medical decision and for you post such information that could identify your relatives is one of the shittiest things I've seen here in a while.

[Ghost in the Machine]

26. Right now, it belongs to a friend of mine.... I built and maintain the

website, and I'll be starting negotiations to buy the shop next week. The owner just made an offer last night to sell it to me. It's amazing what can happen when you sign papers for a 6 figure insurance settlement after being permanantly disabled due to an accident. It's been a long 3 years, but if I can swing it, at least I'll be able to work and have something for the rest of my life...

[Quantess]

25. So, apparently, in your opinion, it would be better if

she had 6 kids. At age 22.

How excellent would that be for each of her children?

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. if I thought it would be better, would I have paid for one of her

abortions? No, I wouldn't have, would I? It's my opinion that if you don't want kids, use contraception or, girls, keep your legs closed and guys, keep your pecker in your pants.

[Quantess]

46. Tell us your solution

for brainiacs of the future.

Obviously, "ABSTINENCE ONLY" is helping!

[cynatnite]

29. I think he's showing how irresponsible his ex-stepdaughter is...

She continued to get pregnant when birth control is so easy to get. Three abortions and she's 22? Plus three other kids on top of it? Sorry, that smacks of total irresponsibility to me.

The girl needs a brain and since a transplant isn't possible, she sounds like a prime candidate for a tubal ligation.

[Quantess]

35. self edited

[cynatnite]

27. Has she considered tubal ligation?

Sounds like something she should seriously consider.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. I think she had it done when she had the last baby a couple weeks

ago. I hope she did, anyways. A lot of doctors wont tie tubes on someone so young, no matter how many kids they have... but that's a whole other issue..

[cynatnite]

32. The state laws get weird about that...

I don't understand it. Some have age limits...no matter how many kids. Some have to have the spouse's permission. In Oregon, a man can't have a vasectomy without his wife's permission.

This seems patently unfair, IMO.

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. "In Oregon, a man can't have a vasectomey without his wife's

permission".... but can the wife have an abortion without the husband's consent?? Very very unfair!

[cynatnite]

41. abortion is not the same as sterility...

so they would be treated differently. I do think these kinds of restrictions are unfair and I do not understand the reason behind them.

[Quantess]

45. that's right! LOL!

Here in Orreegun the menfolk get whipped with apron strings!:spank:

Whatever!

[iverglas]

54. medieval

This is a paper specifically on female sterilization, but I doubt very much that the authors would not apply the statement mutatis mutandis to male sterilization:

http://www.maqweb.org/techbriefs/tb6fsterilization.pdf
(emphasis added)

Female sterilization must be provided by well-trained and motivated providers in properly equipped health facilities where full attention is given to good surgical technique, infection prevention, and counseling. There should not be any unjustified policy or practice barriers to provision of these services, including legal restrictions, age and parity restrictions, marriage requirements, spousal or parental consent requirements, and provider bias.

The idea that the medical profession, or the state, may control access to a medical procedure that is desired by a competent individual, is not medically contra-indicated and is a standard treatment for the reason for which it is sought is ... well, inconceivable.

"In Oregon, a man can't have a vasectomy without his wife's permission" ... but can the wife have an abortion without the husband's consent?? Very very unfair!

You might as well say:

In Oregon, a man can't have a vasectomey without his wife's permission ... but can the wife have an ice cream cone without the husband's consent?? Very very unfair!

The two issues are 100% unrelated. It is wrong for a woman to be subject to her husband's (or anyone else's) control in matters relating to her own body, and it is wrong for a man to be subject to his wife's (or anyone else's) control in matters relating to his own body. Whether either one should be subject to the other's control in such matters does not depend on whether the other is.

The Oregon situation:

http://www.oradvocacy.org/pubs/sterilization.htm

Who can agree to be sterilized?

A person who is at least 15, is capable of giving informed consent, and who does consent may be sterilized. Sterilization may not be legally performed on a person who is not yet 15.

A parent, guardian or conservator may not give consent for sterilization of his or her minor child or protected person.

What if a person's doctor thinks the person may not be able to agree to sterilization?

A petition may be filed in state court asking for a determination of the person's ability to consent. The petition may be filed by the person seeking sterilization, the attending physician, or anyone concerned with the health and well-being of the person. The petition may be filed in the Circuit Court of the county in which the person for whom sterilization is sought lives.

Now, this might look problematic:

At least fourteen days before the hearing date, the court must serve a copy of the petition and hearing notice on:

The person for whom sterilization is sought;
The person's parents, legal guardian or conservator, if any;
If there are no living parents, then to the person's sibling, if any;
The person's spouse, if any;
The Oregon Advocacy Center; and
Others whom the court determines to have an interest in the person.

-- but it seems plain that the spouse is served as a person expected to act in the best interests of the person for whom sterilization is being sought, since the procedure only occurs "if a person's doctor thinks the person may not be able to agree to sterilization".

Undoubtedly in Oregon, as most everywhere else, spousal consent was required in the past for either spouse to be sterilized. It really is just inconceivable that such laws would still exist, let alone be enforced, in this century.

[Quantess]

37. Yes, that's EXTREMELY irresponsible. Agreed.

However, tubal ligation (is that correct?) smacks of eugenics, which is un P.C.

[cynatnite]

42. Tubal ligation is tying the tubes...making a woman sterile...

Eugenics it is not.

[Quantess]

43. Sorry. I didn't complete my thought.

For some reason, tubal ligation is considered "eugenics" if the person is coerced. At all.

[cynatnite]

44. I agree when it comes to forced sterilization n/t

[Quantess]

22. Have you ever visited the Choice forum?

I predict you will.

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. You're psychic!! LOL... I have now...

:hi:

[omega minimo]

36. bullshit. playing bullshit games with slogans does nothing

but cause trouble here. :evilfrown:


"Pro-Life" is the anti-choice movement's slogan. Why would "Pro-Choice" people use it if they are sincere? (rhetorical, no answer needed)


This bullshit has the same predictable effect every time it is trotted out on DU. :thumbsdown:

[Quantess]

39. predictably re-routed to the Choice forum.

Choice arguments are so....the same old, same old.

[Nobody]

51. Most women have thought about this for years

Kind of hard not to unless you've had your head stuck in the sand.

Going by conversations with friends, we've all discussed abortion, discussed what we personally would do versus what other people want and what we want for other people. These discussions have been going on for years. I've been asking myself "What-If" questions since I was in HS and that was over 20 years ago. I know exactly what I'll do if I become pregnant and I'm not actively planning a child.

No questions should EVER be asked by any authority figure. No woman should EVER feel she must satisfy others that her reasons are acceptable to the majority of the citizens of her state.
Assume that each woman has ALREADY been thinking about what to do BEFORE the unplanned pregnancy arises.

My point is that if there are any women who do take abortion lightly, they are very few. Abortion is a major topic of conversation, and for society in general to assume that women are wandering down to the local abortion clinic on the spur of the moment is highly insulting.

We may not know all of the choices available, just like some other medical issues. We hear about diabetes all the time, and if we test positive, it is always helpful to hear from the doctor about all the things modern science can do for you. The difference is, it's your doctor, not some busybody poking their nose into your life.

[Ghost in the Machine]

57. No questions should EVER be asked by any authority figure.

I didn't mean that the question should be asked by an authority figure, maybe I didn't state it right. I meant that it should be a question that you have asked yourself. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

[Nobody]

67. No problem

I get my back up when the suggestion of a personal decision is up for grabs for any stranger who has no clue about you. They don't have access to your medical records, police reports, etc. nor should they.

I do believe most women have asked themselves a good many of these questions, and certainly those who are close friends or family have a right to take an interest, but the final decision is and should be hers.

[iverglas]

52. so, you have a question

In instances of incest, rape, severe fetal deformation or where the life of the mother or unborn baby is at stake, there should be no questions asked, period. The only real question any other time would be simply: Have you thought of or tried to exersize any other options? Have you considered the 1000's of childless couples who would gladly give this baby a loving home?

And now my question is: who asks it? And what effect do the answers have?

Have you thought of or tried to exersise any other options? Fuck off.

Have you considered the 1000's of childless couples who would gladly give this baby a loving home? Fuck off.

If you're the one asking the question, that's what I'd expect any sensible woman to say to you. Of course, she could always be gentle and follow one of Miss Manners' protocols, and respond to your questions by saying: "How kind of you to take an interest", and walk away; or "Why do you ask?", and let you dig yourself a real deep one.

Now the problem comes if it's the state asking the questions. One might assume that if the state asks one a question, the state wants an answer. One might even imagine that one's ability to exercise a right might depend on that answer. You know -- you go to vote, and the poll clerk asks your name, and you say "fuck off" ... and, well, you just might not be voting.

In other words: It's your choice, but if any way humanly possible, please choose life. That makes you pro choice, but at the same time, pro life.

Nah, that makes "YOU" a meddling control freak.

And it didn't take long for it to become obvious:

As I said in my OP, it should be every womans personal right to choose. I would never take that away from them, but, as I also stated in a reply here... if I was the father of the baby, I would do everything I could to get her to keep the baby and just give it to me when it was born.

You'd never take choice away from women (of course, you'd do everything you could to shame them into not exercising the choice as they believe is in their best interests) ... but if the woman were one whom you thought you could control, you'd pull out all the stops to do it. You would try to force someone to continue a pregnancy to term and delivery ... or to die or be seriously harmed in the process. Ya never know when that might happen. Ya figure you'd have committed homicide, if it did?

You mentioned injunctions. You might want to look into that, and how nobody's ever been successful in making one stick. And how courts take a dim view of people using their process, as you suggested you would, to tie someone up long enough that s/he is unable to do something s/he has a perfect right to do. As do decent people everywhere.

Interesting, though, how you reconsidered that notion when it occurred to you how inconvenient it might be to have to actually rear the child. So much for "choose life", eh?

Abortion shouldn't be used as a birth control method.

And a diet of fast food shouldn't be used as a method of nourishing one's self. Only stupid, irresponsible people consume nothing but fast food. There are so many stupid, irresponsible people in the world who need controlling. You'd better get busy.

[Ghost in the Machine]

56. Interesting, though, how you reconsidered that notion when it occurred

to you how inconvenient it might be to have to actually rear the child. So much for "choose life", eh?"

If you bothered to read some of my other replies, you would see that I have been a single father for over 10 years, with 2 kids who are now 13 and 14. What I said was "at my age now, almost 44, I would have to give it some thought. It's not the inconvenience of raising a child that comes into question, it's my current age, and my health situation after being disabled in an accident 3 years ago. It wouldn't be an inconvenience, it would be a physical impossibility, and besides, I don't have to worry about it because I can't make any more babies.

The point I was trying to make about trying to stop someone from having an abortion with MY child was simply the fact that I could raise the child... by myself... just don't kill MY child. Women can say "it's MY body" all day long, but in the end, it took both of us to MAKE that baby, it should be part my decision too, that baby has just as much of me in it as it does her. Anyone else, I couldn't care less what they do, it doesn't affect MY life one bit, and I don't have to live with their decision, but to know that someone aborted MY child, without me having tried everything I could to save that child, I don't know if I could live with it. But that's just me.

[iverglas]

58. that was a point?

Not so as it would be felt if one were poked with it, I'd say.

You came up with all sorts of reasons why YOU wouldn't want to be lumbered with a kid -- absolutely none of which, by the way, involved the fact that having that "choice" imposed on you would put your life at risk.

And about women, you said:

In instances of incest, rape, severe fetal deformation or where the life of the mother or unborn baby is at stake, there should be no questions asked, period. The only real question any other time would be simply: Have you thought of or tried to exersize any other options? Have you considered the 1000's of childless couples who would gladly give this baby a loving home?

Well hey, bub, how's about you? How's about YOU consider some other options? You want to CHOOSE LIFE, don't you?

It's too bleeding obvious that you want control, and don't give a shit about "life".

Women can say "it's MY body" all day long, but in the end, it took both of us to MAKE that baby, it should be part my decision too, that baby has just as much of me in it as it does her.

So? When you donate blood (as I have to assume you do, being all this concerned about life), do you then demand control over what the person who gets your blood does with it? When you cook someone dinner, do you get to decide what s/he does for the next nine months?

What is it that you're not grasping here? The person whose body and entire life is affected by the pregnancy is the WOMAN. Not YOU, around whom the universe does not revolve.

Anyone else, I couldn't care less what they do, it doesn't affect MY life one bit, and I don't have to live with their decision, but to know that someone aborted MY child, without me having tried everything I could to save that child, I don't know if I could live with it. But that's just me.

Yup, it is. And why you imagine that anyone else would care, I don't know. But thanks for making your motives clear. It's all about you, isn't it?

I trust you recognize the rhetorical nature of the question.

[noamnety]

74. Then here's what I would suggest

Tell any women up front that you sleep with that if they get pregnant and want an abortion, you'd prefer they didn't tell you about any part of it. That way you don't have to live with the knowledge that you weren't successfully able to force a woman into using her body against her will to incubate a kid for you.

Problem solved.

If you're all that determined to raise a kid, adopt one. Adopted kids are still YOUR kids.

Another problem solved.

This is surprisingly easy. Anyone else got any problems they need solved tonight?

[Ghost in the Machine]

81. Excellent idea!

That goes without saying.. what I don't know can't hurt me. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about making babies any more. I still think, although the poin is moot with me, it's still a valid point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. .

:applause:

[Scout]

82. I, me, mine, my; I, me, mine, my ..... my goodness

someone who is apparently so worried about his sperm should be more careful where he leaves it.

[novalib]

53. IT"S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!

Keep your snotty little nose out of other people's business!!

You sanctimoniously say, "Abortion shouldn't be used as a birth control method."

Why not? Because you say so? What gives you the right to tell anyone what a medical procedure should or should not be used for???

Why do people like you take such an unhealthy interest in the choices that other people make? Why do people like you want to set the boundaries of what other people should or should not do????!!!!

IT's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

60. someone needs some lessons

Manners would be a good beginning.

First, you presume to criticize the actions and decisions of people you have never even met, in public, knowing full well that there is a very high probability that some of the people you are addressing are members of the group you are criticizing: women who have had abortions for reasons you don't approve.

Then, you get all nasty at someone who objects to your rudeness.

If you are a woman, and you ever get pregnant, please DO choose abortion!

My, my, my. All that concern for "life" sure goes out the window quick, doesn't it?

"Why do people like you take such an unhealthy interest in the choices that other people make? Why do people like you want to set the boundaries of what other people should or should not do????!!!!"
Why do you make the unhealthy choice of telling me how to think or feel?

Uh, that made sense. Not. Not least of all because nobody seems to have done that.

I think a time out is in order.

Recognizing other people as the subjects of their own lives, and not objects to be manipulated for fun and profit as means to one's own ends, is a component of personality that ordinarily develops at a young age. Some people just need to go back and start over.

[Ghost in the Machine]

61. you need to learn how to read.... and think

I've never criticized anyone here, except for someone who attacked first and had to resort to cussing. You're lost somewhere... go see if you can find yourself, then get back to me. Better yet, don't get back to me... you seem to be trolling for a fight and I'm not biting. I'm done with you!

[omega minimo]

62. See this is why these bullshit games are a problem

Now you're being gamed

[iverglas]

63. oh, I reads real good

And I read your opening post, and I knew exactly what you were saying.

And if you really don't think that offering unsolicited advice to people you don't know, which is based on the assumption that they are stupid and immoral, isn't bad manners ... well, like I said.

You know perfectly well that there are women at DU -- many, many of them, as you also cannot help but know -- who have had abortions, and who will have abortions, for reasons other than those fine, pure ones you cited in your first post, and so you were addressing those women, and you were expressing negative opinions of them and their choices about things that are none of your business, and that is the height of rudeness.

Do you actually walk up to chubby strangers on the street (who may, in fact, have just lost 100 pounds, or be on steroid therapy, or heavens, may have just given birth -- or may just be perfectly happy as they are and not the least bit interested in your opinion of them) and tell them they need to stop and think before they shove that next doughnut into their mouth, and then tell everyone in the vicinity how irresponsible those people are? Do you wander the internet dispensing opinion and advice to strangers about any other aspect of their private lives about which you know nothing?

From your second post:

Luckily, I've never been faced with that choice, although I have been a single father for over 10 years, since my kids were 3 & 4, because their mother decided she's rather be a drunk and a crackwhore than a wife and mother.

Perhaps someone should start a thread in GD about men who make stupid choices in wives and how they should stop and think carefully about all their other options ... including relinquishing their children to strangers ... before they divorce the women they stupidly and irresponsibly married. Some men even do it more than once, y'know?

you seem to be trolling for a fight and I'm not biting.

Yeah, that's entertaining, coming from someone whom I didn't even know existed before he decided to smear his opinions about total strangers and unsolicited advice to them around the internet.

I'm done with you!

Oh dear. I'm so disappointed.

[novalib]

65. Did I Hurt Your Feelings?

Did I hurt your feelings? Did I make you feel bad? Did I upset you with my "foul" language?

TOO FUCKING BAD!!

I react REAL NEGATIVELY when someone wants to restrict the rights of an entire group of people!!!!

And I have no problem -- NO PROBLEM AT ALL -- telling people like that (THIS MEANS YOU!!) what I think of them.

So your precious little feelings got hurt? Why in the hell should I care, and why should I be bothered by that AT ALL??!!

You are the one who started this nasty thread with your hateful and hate-filled rant trying to DICTATE to women that abortions are bad.

YOU TRIED TO MAKE WOMEN WHO HAD HAD ABORTIONS FEEL BAD -- REAL BAD!!!

You wanna keep coming here and pontificating about how wonderful it is to be "pro-life", then you better expect to get your feelings hurt.

You can't even be consistent with your advice. You tell me that if I am a woman, I should have an abortion! WHAT A FUCKING JOKE!!!

I guess as long as the women are women who are just like you, they should remain little incubators for your totalitarian world. But if anyone disagrees with you, and tells you what you really are, you want people like that to kill those precious little "babies" YOU keep trying to save.

[Ghost in the Machine]

69. No, showing YOUR ignorance doesn't hurt my feelings. I DEFY you

to show anywhere on this discussion where I tried to restrict the rights of a whole group of people, or where I said I was against ALL abortions. You can't do it. The ONLY place I've said I would oppose an abortion is if it involved me personally, if it was MY child also. What's so hard to understand about that? Is that SO wrong? I guess a man that actually WANTS to have and raise a child is beyond your scope of comprehension? It's my guess that you would have turned just as rabid if I had posted "my girlfriend is pregnant, and I want her to have an abortion because I don't want to raise a kid, but she won't do it". You'd be on the bandwagon calling me all kinds of names and advocationg that the woman have the baby, then hit ME for child support for the next 18 years. Whatever fits your feminazi agenda at the time, I guess.

Now let's drop down a notch to your level: The only hate filled rant seems to be coming from YOU, and your feminazi bullshit stance doesn't wash with me. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and take a look around and see what's REALLY happening? I don't really give a damn what you do, it doesn't affect me. I'm willing to bet that if you told your boyfriend or husband that you were pregnant, and the first thing to come out of his mouth was "oh no! we have to fix this! we have to go get an abortion!", you'd have a shit fit about that too, huh?

If you've read my post and replies, you'd know that I had paid for my ex stepdaughter to have one of her THREE abortions. I also drove her to 2 of the three. Where does that make me against all abortions? Show me, dammit! Make some sense, woman!

Ya know, I've never been to this "Choice" forum before. This was my first... and last... post on this subject. I've never given much thought before, because like I said, I've never been faced with it before, where it affected ME personally. The only thing that got me thinking about it was while I was reading up on our Democratic candidate for Tennessee's 3rd District for Congress, Mr. Brent Benedict, he stated on his website http://www.brentbenedict.com/issues.php that he was "Pro Life".... and I'm trying to think of how I can get behind him to support him. Any suggestions? I'll gladly listen if YOU can stop the flameouts and actually add something intelligent to the conversation.

Thanks, and have a nice weekend! :hi:

[novalib]

72. Your LAST Post??!! As IF!

If only your latest little screed were your LAST post on this subject!

Somehow, I think you'll be posting on this subject again...and again.

Folks like you -- folks who love sticking their snotty little noses into other people's business -- love to pontificate and bloviate about how wonderful life is and how we should all just "choose life".

Hell, you're even looking for a way to justify supporting someone who announces to the world that he is "pro-life"!!!

And what the hell do I care that you paid for some abortions and drove some women to abortions????!!!!!

The REAL question for me is whether the women you drove to abortions or who had abortions that you paid for did so of THEIR own free will, or whether someone stuck his (or her) nose into their business, and MADE them have an abortion.

Your little approach to this subject -- announcing that you are "pro-life" and then backing off and saying, "But I PAID for two abortions" -- just doesn't work with me! You showed to everyone your true disgusting desire to control women in your very first post to this thread. And you keep showing more and more of your hatred for women who FREELY choose abortion, and who, in so doing, refuse to submit to your over-inflated male ego!

[Ghost in the Machine]

79. Your comments are disgustingly laughable.

"And what the hell do I care that you paid for some abortions and drove some women to abortions????!!!!!

The REAL question for me is whether the women you drove to abortions or who had abortions that you paid for did so of THEIR own free will, or whether someone stuck his (or her) nose into their business, and MADE them have an abortion."

In one breath you state that I am pro life, then proceed to imply that becaude I paid for one abortion, and drove her to two of them, that somehow I may have FORCED her to have an abortion???
That's the dumbest comment I've ever read in my life! You're nothing but a TOOL with an agenda of disruption and disinformation, and you've just been exposed. NOTHING you say from here on will carry ANY credibility with me, or probably anyone else either.

You seem to have a problem separating my overall view (yes, abortion should legal and every woman's choice) with my personal view (personal, meaning affecting ME directly... that no, I wouldn't want you to abort MY child when I am perfectly capable and able to raise it myself if YOU don't want it). That's like saying "everyone has a right to own and drive any kind of vehicle they want, but as for me personally, I choose to (pick any that apply) drive a car that is fuel efficient; american made; a certain color; or, I choose to ride a bicycle to help the environment."
Hopefully, you can understand where I'm coming from here... but I won't hold my breath.

[iverglas]

85. my my

You seem to have a problem separating my overall view (yes, abortion should legal and every woman's choice) with my personal view (personal, meaning affecting ME directly... that no, I wouldn't want you to abort MY child when I am perfectly capable and able to raise it myself if YOU don't want it). That's like saying "everyone has a right to own and drive any kind of vehicle they want, but as for me personally, I choose to (pick any that apply) drive a car that is fuel efficient; american made; a certain color; or, I choose to ride a bicycle to help the environment."

Yes, indeed.

YOU making a decision about what OBJECT YOU will choose to PURCHASE is just exactly like YOU making a decision about what ANOTHER HUMAN BEING will be COMPELLED to do with his/her own BODY.

Hopefully, you can understand where I'm coming from here...

Yes, indeed.

I'm seeing it all so clearly now. I'll bet we all are.

[omega minimo]

73. That ain't a woman

"Whatever fits your feminazi agenda at the time, I guess....The only hate filled rant seems to be coming from YOU, and your feminazi bullshit stance doesn't wash with me.....Make some sense, woman!"

and that is not representative of women on DU, that is a parody of women on DU. Someone has cobbled together a bunch of statements into a bizarre barrage of bumpersticker bullshit. You're right-- it as much "feminazi bullshit" as any other demented construct from the sweaty one-handed keyboard of any Dittohead wanker.

And look at your own hair-trigger responses, threatening a woman would be "tied up" in court, jumping down the throat of this "woman, "Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and take a look around and see what's REALLY happening?"

And the posters showing up to "support" you and warn you about the "claw wielding maniacs." :evilfrown:

"Ya know, I've never been to this "Choice" forum before. This was my first... and last... post on this subject. I've never given much thought before, because like I said, I've never been faced with it before, where it affected ME personally."

If sounds like it has affected your family.... and your personal experience colors your perception of the issue. If you are a single father who's ex-wife would "rather be a drunk and crack whore than a mother" and know people who don't want a pregnancy because it will "make them fat" and have a step-daughter of 22 with three babies and three terminated pregnancies............... those are some EXTREME examples.

So if all that's true and common to people you know, maybe you do need some reassurance, as in the OP, that women aren't ALL mindless, drunk, crack whore, child abandoning, baby factory slatterns.

:think:

Rest assured, protecting the rights of American women to reproductive health and privacy will not result in every block of the U.S. turning into an episode of "C.O.P.S."

Your concerns bring up a good point about TRULY being for Life-- not warring against women and their civil rights and their very bodies, but providing more equality in education, opportunities and incomes for American women.

THAT is what people who want to see abortion be "safe, legal and rare" ougtta be working on.

:hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

80. Touche'!

Thanks for a well thought out response. I know this isn't indicative of all DU women, and I can see that in some replies here. Yes, I've made some bad choices in women in my life, but with the 2 beautiful kids I have, I wouldn't change it for the world.

The reason for my "hair trigger responses" was a reaction to being attacked and cursed. I prefer to treat women with respect, but sometimes they just don't deserve it, and I felt this was one of those times.

"Your concerns bring up a good point about TRULY being for Life-- not warring against women and their civil rights and their very bodies, but providing more equality in education, opportunities and incomes for American women. THAT is what people who want to see abortion be "safe, legal and rare" ougtta be working on." <~ I couldn't have said it better. Thank you! Some people have a hard time distinguishing the overall broad view from the very nearsighted personal view.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

89. Thank you for taking it in the sense intended

"Thanks for a well thought out response."

I re-read the OP and the whole thread and did think about it, put your initial proposition in the context of the community of people you are describing.

"Yes, I've made some bad choices in women in my life, but with the 2 beautiful kids I have, I wouldn't change it for the world."

And you feel strongly about it. So when you talk about your personal opinion and then shift to threatening a woman being "tied up" in legal action (I don't have the exact quote here) that IS going to raise some hackles here. And consider the number of jerks, boneheads and disruptors that DU women have to deal with (and be accused of being "claw wielding maniacs" on top of it) and yeah, sometimes tempers flare both ways.

"The reason for my "hair trigger responses" was a reaction to being attacked and cursed." "I know this isn't indicative of all DU women, and I can see that in some replies here."

Like I said, that wasn't a woman, that was a parody. Like you said, that was a tool with an agenda.

"I prefer to treat women with respect, but sometimes they just don't deserve it, and I felt this was one of those times."

Those are fighting words, too, friend. Men have the upper hand on DU and women are nearly invisible-- if you come into women's issues forums and start throwing balls around and act like it's up to you to say "sometimes they just don't deserve it" you is gonna get a little crispy around the edges. :evilgrin:

As for respect, some of the biggest troublemakers here will playact at "respect" and "we're all in this together" til Hell Freezes Over, meanwhile twisting everything around to acheive the exact opposite (again-- with the parody).

We all deserve respect. If brothers come in here and stomp around with sharp elbows and get pissed off when they're pushed back, unless they INTENDED to make trouble they could back off. If sisters are hearing something that SOUNDS obnoxious and ignorant but might be looked at a second time and slow down in responding, maybe more guys won't OVERreact out of fear.

"Thank you! Some people have a hard time distinguishing the overall broad view from the very nearsighted personal view."

Well that's what my OP in Choice forum was about-- the need to distinguish and quit agonizing over the minutae of our little lives and attitudes as it relates to the "broad view." Quit mixing 'em up. AS IF we have some say in how other people live.

Abortion is legal and the answer to the problems in your community your described is not making abortion illegal but making education, health care and LIVING available and affordable for more of us.

And yes, proposing that women justify their decision-making for a legally protected private health matter, and do so by trying to relate to the abortion clinic bomber "religious" woman hating party's term "Pro-Life" may be considered insulting or out of line. It doesn't help that Democratic party leaders are trying this same tactic of appeasing and even using the terminology and concepts of anti-abortion people. Women in the real world (and on DU) never forget the long history of these same "Pro-Life" "religious" bigot types advocating and/or killing us, killing our doctors, destroying our health clinics, demonizing women, reinforcing our second class status, using our bodies to propel their regressive anti-populist, political agenda with male dominant wedge issues...........

That's what "Pro-Life" means.



:toast:

[iverglas]

90. "We all deserve respect."

Like I said, that wasn't a woman, that was a parody. Like you said, that was a tool with an agenda.

Well, you've said it again, pretty clearly this time. So I guess I was reading it right the first time.

So -- where's the respect?

For that matter -- where's the compliance with rules?

[omega minimo]

94. "For that matter...."

where's novalib?



An aggressive, content-free screed of bumpersticker slogans makes us all look ridiculous. I have never seen anyone on DU just load up a post with various (aggressive) phrases that we may use from time to time, with, ya know, like context and stuff? :hi:

Even more bizarre if you are trying to fight with me because I am having some sort of discussion with the OP, when you and I seem to be on the same "side." :evilfrown:

I don't really believe that women come to the DU Choice forum to just say "IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS."

[omega minimo]

86. Weird. I edited "for ALL women" but it didn't post.........

on edit:

"Your concerns bring up a good point about TRULY being for Life-- not warring against women and their civil rights and their very bodies, but providing more equality in education, opportunities and incomes for women."

[iverglas]

88. if I'm understanding what you're saying

That ain't a woman

then I'm finding it quite incredibly offensive. Are you actually saying, of another poster in this forum, that she is not a woman? What can you possibly mean by that?

and that is not representative of women on DU, that is a parody of women on DU. Someone has cobbled together a bunch of statements into a bizarre barrage of bumpersticker bullshit. You're right-- it as much "feminazi bullshit" as any other demented construct from the sweaty one-handed keyboard of any Dittohead wanker.

I'm gobsmacked, truly. Gobsmacked. Maybe you were being sarcastic? If so, please forgive me for not getting the joke right off.

So if all that's true and common to people you know, maybe you do need some reassurance, as in the OP, that women aren't ALL mindless, drunk, crack whore, child abandoning, baby factory slatterns.

I'm afraid that I can't think of how anyone could possibly think that women ARE ALL mindless, drunk, crack whore, child abandoning, baby factory slatterns ... unless s/he were a brainless vicious lump of sludge ... and even then I wouldn't believe that s/he actually thinks that ... but in any event I would really hope that you aren't suggesting that's what the poster in question is.

And by the way, people who say in public that they want to see abortion be "safe, legal and rare" need to either get a clue or grow a spine. The public policy advocated by people who are pro-choice is that abortion must be LEGAL. Nobody's hopes and dreams about the number of women who choose to have abortions have anything to do with public policy.

I wonder what the GLBT community would think if someone claiming to support same-sex marriage being legal expressed the opinion that it should be "safe, legal and rare". And how an individual who had chosen to marry a partner of the same sex might feel when hearing it.

Anyone who so chooses is entirely at liberty to think that abortion is icky. If s/he chooses to say so out loud, s/he is NOT advancing the cause of women's rights, s/he is dragging it down.

[iverglas]

84. WWKS?

So, what would old Immanuel (Kant, that is) have to say about this? --

I DEFY you to show anywhere on this discussion where I tried to restrict the rights of a whole group of people, or where I said I was against ALL abortions. You can't do it. The ONLY place I've said I would oppose an abortion is if it involved me personally, if it was MY child also. What's so hard to understand about that? Is that SO wrong?

What you're saying is: I believe I am entitled to control what another person does with his/her body, and if placed in a situation where another person sought to do something with his/her body that I did not wish that person to do, I would take every measure available to me to stop that person from doing it.

To be very succint about it, Kant said:

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

We don't need Kant for this, really, though. It's pretty obvious that for every pregnant woman, there is a man somewhere. And that if every man acted by your rule -- a man is entitled to control what the woman whose pregnancy his sperm was a party to does about that pregnancy -- there would be a lot of women unable to carry out their own choices.

I mean really; how obvious is this?

If you are entitled to prevent a woman whose pregnancy your sperm was a party to from terminating the pregnancy, is there some reason why every other man would not be entitled to do the same thing?

And is there any reason to think that there are not a whole lot of men in the world who are just as self-absorbed and self-centred and self-seeking as you have portrayed yourself to be?

I'm willing to bet that if you told your boyfriend or husband that you were pregnant, and the first thing to come out of his mouth was "oh no! we have to fix this! we have to go get an abortion!", you'd have a shit fit about that too, huh?

You sure are an expert on people you don't know, aren't you?

Whatever. If someone has an idea what point you thought you were making when you said that, maybe s/he will enlighten me.

I've never given much thought before

That's the fun thing about internet discussion boards. One gets to sit and watch while people who have never given much thought to something voluntarily put finger to keyboard and spew forth their opinions about it ... and then throw shitfits when the people about whom they're spewing opinions say something back. I've always said: it's just like Jerry Springer, only without the noise.

Where does that make me against all abortions? Show me, dammit! Make some sense, woman!

If only you could show us where your interlocutor said what you seem to be saying she said. Not seeing it, myself.

What we all did see you say, in the very first place, was:

It's your choice, but if any way humanly possible, please choose life.

Me, I just can't think why anyone would say such a thing if s/he weren't against abortion. Obviously, since you did also say:

In instances of incest, rape, severe fetal deformation or where the life of the mother or unborn baby is at stake, there should be no questions asked, period.

you can't be described as against all abortions. But then nobody seems to have said you were.

What has been said is that you have said nasty things about women, both in particular and in general. But hey, you're a man, and what you say is supposed to go, so it's no wonder you're so distressed at finding women who take exception and say so.

[omega minimo]

71. This is a cobbled together parody

Where you comin from novalib :evilfrown:

[iverglas]

87. I'm failing to take your point

And your post to the originator of this thread didn't clarify it for me.

So he's had some bad times, and met some bad women. So? He made choices. He chose a wife who turned out to be something he didn't like. Whose problem is that? Not the problem of the few billion other women in the world. Not their fault, either.

Maybe he should go find a forum where people who don't know him will berate him for his irresponsibility, and tell him that it should be someone else's decision whether he gets to divorce that bad wife -- like maybe the wife's decision.

Why should he just get to unilaterally divorce someone he voluntarily married, I ask you? He should "choose marriage" ... because we sez so.

Now, we don't want divorce to be illegal, nooo. We don't give a shit what other people do ... even though marriage is good and divorce is bad. We just say that if he were our husband, we'd be the ones deciding whether he gets to divorce us or not.

Novalib is coming from the world in which people who choose to say vile things about other people in public that decent, rational people do not even think, let alone say in public, and specifically to say them to groups of strangers who include members of the group that they are saying the vile things about, just really don't get to spew forth further insult upon the insult they have chosen to spew at strangers in the first place, when those people speak back.

That's the world in which people respect other people, the one some of us like to think we live in, deluded though we may be.

There are lots of people in the world who think that women who have abortions are stupid and evil. There are also lots of places in the world where people who think that can go and say it and be sure that no one will say nay. There is no reason for anyone to do it in the Choice forum of Democratic Underground.

Perhaps someone might choose to do that in the hope of changing minds and garnering support for his/her opinion. Perhaps such a person really thinks that everyone who finds that opinion vile will just click on by. Perhaps such a person needs to lift his/her gaze from his/her navel occasionally.

I don't spend a lot of time coddling people who express the opinion that women are stupid and evil, these days. I stopped worrying about what they think about me a long time ago; after all, they already think I'm stupid and evil, so what's to lose?

People who are genuinely interested in learning and understanding don't spew an opinion, get all uppity about others objecting to it, and (threaten to) stomp off in a huff. I've had real discussions with anti-choice individuals on the internet ... and y'know what? I've got a few notches on my belt. A few who are no longer anti-choice.

I didn't coddle them. I stuck with them, talking and listening, until their real issues came clear, but I didn't coddle them. If their issues were personal, if their anti-choice position arose out of experiences they had had or things they had done, they had to realize that, and realize that they had an inner conflict that they couldn't resolve by trying to control other people, or projecting their own poor image of themselves, or resentment of people in their lives, onto other people.

Becoming pro-choice was a liberating experience for them, and I was gratified to have been part of the process. But it was their responsibility to engage in it.

And anyone who begins by vilifying people who don't agree with him/her, and responds to their objection by vilifying them further, just ain't engaging.

So will I vilify them? You betcha. I'll call misogynists (and racists, and religious bigots, and any other sort of hateful person) exactly what they are. Some day, some of them might get it.

And we're both perfectly entitled to do that, eh? Maybe they're right and I'm wrong, but that's a chance I'll take. I just don't see much likelihood that misogyny and racism and bigotry are going to turn out to be right.

[omega minimo]

91. "Vilify" is in the eye of the beholder

"WWKS"? :rofl: Think that's called "karma" or "universal law."

"People who are genuinely interested in learning and understanding don't spew an opinion, get all uppity about others objecting to it, and (threaten to) stomp off in a huff. I've had real discussions with anti-choice individuals on the internet ... "

Could be you overdramatizing the way GITM presented? :shrug:

"I didn't coddle them. I stuck with them, talking and listening, until their real issues came clear, but I didn't coddle them. If their issues were personal, if their anti-choice position arose out of experiences they had had or things they had done, they had to realize that, and realize that they had an inner conflict that they couldn't resolve by trying to control other people, or projecting their own poor image of themselves, or resentment of people in their lives, onto other people."

So how does antagonism help do that?

Call it coddling, I read the thread and thought I'd give the OP the benefit of the doubt.

And why are you speaking for "novalib"?

[iverglas]

93. hmm

Could be you overdramatizing the way GITM presented?

Nope. It's pretty much either/or. Either you believe that as human beings, women have rights, and also have the intelligence and moral sense to make good decisions ... or you don't. I think the evidence is pretty clear that our friend doesn't.

So how does antagonism help do that?

As compared to ...? What exactly is the correct way to respond to someone -- not a child, a middle-aged adult, someone who has had many years of opportunity to get a clue -- who chooses to stand up in a public forum and state that he is in favour of violating the rights of women and to make it plain that he regards women as too stupid and/or immoral to make "good" choices?

He's wrong. Wrong on all counts. And not nice. Would a pat on the back be appropriate? All his talk about IRRESPONSIBILITY -- why doesn't it apply to HIM? Is HE not responsible for his thoughts and words? I'm sure not. Nobody else is. He's not twelve years old. I can't see any excuse for him thinking what he thinks, let alone saying what he said. And I don't think for a moment that all the subsequent insults were some forgivable I was provoked beyond reason "hair-trigger" response. I think they were truth outing.

So what exactly is the correct response to a mature adult announcing in public that one should be treated as sub-human and that one is of sub-human intelligence and sub-human morals?

And why are you speaking for "novalib"?

Oh, I just guessed that novalib and I both imagine that we live in the world of decency and rationality and get peeved when someone stands up and proves us wrong.

I don't share a lot of novalib's theories about things as expressed elsewhere on DU, and I don't have any basis for thinking that s/he was speaking from the heart in the post you have taken such objection to. I just didn't see the slightest thing to object to in the words:

IT"S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!

Keep your snotty little nose out of other people's business!!

You sanctimoniously say, "Abortion shouldn't be used as a birth control method."

Why not? Because you say so? What gives you the right to tell anyone what a medical procedure should or should not be used for???

Why do people like you take such an unhealthy interest in the choices that other people make? Why do people like you want to set the boundaries of what other people should or should not do????!!!!

IT's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!

Not a single thing. And it's still beyond me what you object to in that. Do you actually disagree with what was said??

[REP]

77. Women Are Not Vending Machines; Babies Are Not Consumer Items

Poor young women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy are not vending machines for the desires of weathy, infertile couples (or the bay-buying industry, which makes $10K - $100K per healthy white baby adopted). Just because someone wants something - in this case, a living, helpless newborn - doesnt mean they are entitled to it, no matter how babdly they want it, especially when it means immense suffering for the poor young woman who relinquished her newborn (see studies that follow this post). A young (or any age, but it is young, poor women who are targeted by the adoptin industry) should choose life - her own - and terminate the pregnancy if that is what she wishes, or have the baby and raise it herself (if she desires).

Even when abortion was illegal, women relinquished their children to adoption only 2% of the time. Why could that be? Well, think to your own over-the-top reaction to the thought of a theoretical woman wanting to remove a zygote or fetus that was genetically related to you from her uterus. Now imagine your children when they were infants. Imagine giving them to strangers and never, ever seeing them again, or knowing if they were well, or even alive. Imagine that for the rest of your life. That's just a tiny fraction of what relinquishing mothers go through. You really wish that on young women you've never met?

Really?

Studies:

Adoption:

J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1999 Jul-Aug;28(4):395-400.
Related Articles, Links

Postadoptive reactions of the relinquishing mother: a review.

Askren HA, Bloom KC.

Deer Valley OB/GYN, Mesa, AZ, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature addressing the process of relinquishment as it relates to the birth mother. DATA SOURCES: Computerized searches in CINAHL; Article 1 st, PsycFIRST, and SocioAbs databases, using the keywords adoption and relinquishment; and ancestral bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Articles from indexed journals in the English language relevant to the keywords were evaluated. No studies were located before 1978. Studies that sampled only an adolescent population were excluded. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted and information was organized under the following headings: grief reaction, long-term effects, efforts to resolve, and influences on the relinquishment experience. DATA SYNTHESIS: A grief reaction unique to the relinquishing mother was identified. Although this reaction consists of features characteristic of the normal grief reaction, these features persist and often lead to chronic, unresolved grief. CONCLUSIONS: The relinquishing mother is at risk for long-term physical, psychologic, and social repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions.

Med J Aust. 1986 Feb 3;144(3):117-9.
Related Articles, Links

Psychological disability in women who relinquish a baby for adoption.

Condon JT.

During 1986, approximately 2000 women in Australia are likely to relinquish a baby for adoption. A study is presented of 20 relinquishing mothers that demonstrates a very high incidence of pathological grief reactions which have failed to resolve although many years have elapsed since the relinquishment. This group had abnormally high scores for depression and psychosomatic symptoms on the Middlesex Hospital questionnaire. Factors that militate against the resolution of grief after relinquishment are discussed. Guidelines for the medical profession that are aimed at preventing psychological disability in relinquishing mothers are outlined.

Community Health Stud. 1990;14(2):180-9.
Related Articles, Links

Erratum in:
• Community Health Stud 1990;14(3):314.

Social factors associated with the decision to relinquish a baby for adoption.

Najman JM, Morrison J, Keeping JD, Andersen MJ, Williams GM.

Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Queensland.

Little is known about the characteristics, social circumstances and mental health of women who give a child up for adoption. This paper reports data from a longitudinal study of 8556 women interviewed initially at their first obstetrical visit. In total, 7668 proceeded to give birth to a live singleton baby, of which 64 then relinquished the baby for adoption. Relinquishing mothers were predominantly 18 years of age or younger, in the lowest family income group, single, having an unplanned and/or unwanted baby and reported that they were not living with a partner. These women were somewhat more likely to manifest symptoms of anxiety and depression both prior, and subsequent to, the adoption, but the majority of relinquishing mothers were of 'normal' mental health. The decision to relinquish a baby appears to be a consequence of an unwanted pregnancy experienced by an economically deprived single mother rather than the result of emotional or psychological/psychiatric considerations. These findings document a particular dimension of the impact of poverty on health.


Abortion:

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31

Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.


RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_research5.asp
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)

This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem




Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



   The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=24751

The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed

PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/5/578


Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.

Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.

Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8):761-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16026402&dopt=Citation


Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?

Koop CE.

What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.

PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10294679&query_hl=2

Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.

Romans-Clarkson SE.

Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.

This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.

PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2692552&query_hl=2

Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.

Handy JA.

The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7126943&query_hl=2

[Broken_Hero]

95. Locking

The level of flamefilled rhetoric has reached an impasse.