I know better than to write about abortion.
Really, I do. It's not as if I'm going to change anyone's mind on the issue, one way or another.
But I can't help myself today. Maybe it's the phase of the moon, or I need some chocolate or something---but Grace is annoying me over at MadPriest's with her insistence that science has given us a new impetus to revisit Roe v. Wade.
I love Grace. She's relentlessly cheerful and she's about the only evangelical I know who is inclusive of GLBT people. For that, I can forgive her much. (One day, I pray that she will get past her slavish devotion to that obnoxious theory of penal substitutionary atonement, but I'll argue about that with her another day...)
It was the following comment that set me off. I started to answer it over there---but my answer got way too long to post in the comments section of MP's blog, so I decided to answer over here.
So here's my open letter to Grace:
When Roe vs. Wade first became law, our knowledge was not as advanced as it is today. We didn't have 3D ultrasound, the ability to perform surgery on babies still in the womb, the technology to save the lives of infants born at earlier and earlier stages of gestation.
None of those things has changed my opinion about abortion, Grace.
Neither did having two babies and one miscarriage---and I saw all three of those beings on ultrasound. I'm thrilled that two of them made it safely to their birthdays, and I still grieve the loss of the one who didn't.
And I still believe that abortion is not the business of anyone involved except the woman.
The bottom line for me is that the government has no business making my reproductive decisions for me. Full stop.
This is because I believe that, when you give the government the right to prohibit abortion, you implicitly give it the right to mandate abortion---because, once you write reproductive control into law, you have effectively ceded control of women's bodies to that government.
Why doesn't that worry you, Grace? (Or any of the rest of you who want laws against abortion...)
"Can't happen here!" you say?
Au contraire! Think about all those women of color, and women who were deemed insufficiently middle-class by the powers-that-be, who have been involuntarily sterilized by the state. You can read about the shameful history of my adopted state in that area here. Virgina was still doing forced sterilizations as late as 1979.
And look what the Chinese government has done with its power over women's bodies. Forced abortions at 9 months! Is that what you want?
If those examples don't give you pause, Grace, you are either far too trusting or far too sure of your own righteousness. Either way, it means I REALLY don't want you (or the people you would vote for) to have charge over my daughter's reproductive system.
Fortunately, my own system is a moot point--but the tubal ligation I joyfully had would be illegal if the Catholic Church had its way. And whose "morality" on abortion should hold sway, anyway? The Catholic Church considers almost all forms of artificial birth control to be abortifacients (no matter how wrong they are on that subject) and would outlaw them if it could.
When is an abortion not an abortion, Grace? Who decides---you or Pope Benedict?
In the end, I believe that abortion is a moral question between a woman and God (or her conscience if she isn't a believer). No matter who or what you think you are protecting, I contend you have no business getting in the middle of that decision.
Because once you decide that your moral sense is the one to be obeyed, why stop at her uterus? Since you know so much better than the woman in question, you should surely determine what she eats, how much she exercises, who she is allowed to have sex with, etc.
After all, it has become your responsibility to "save" her from making immoral choices--so you must take this responsibility seriously, right? Because God is going to hold YOU responsible for her choices, right?
This last point is what I believe drives so much conservative angst about abortion. They seem to believe that God will hold them personally accountable for women's choice to abort.
In one sense, I do believe that God holds us accountable for taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. I believe we have a responsibility as Christians to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick. I believe that we have a responsibility to fight against prejudice and discrimination against those who are deemed to be "different."
But I do not believe we have a responsibility to insert ourselves in people's most private decisions. If you believe that we do, where does it stop? And what happens to the concept of "free will" when we do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Word up, yo.
I sincerely doubt (and pray) that I never have to make the difficult and painful decision about an abortion... but by God, I want to be the one who makes that decision, not some stranger who's acting 'in my best interest'.
Fortunately the issue is moot with me too (on a personal level) as I am way past menopause. But I agree with Mary Sue in principle. I thought you made some very good points in your essay, Doxy. Especially the one about the government having the right to mandate abortion if they have the right to forbid it.
I'm the choir on this one too, but it was very clearly stated.
Hi Doxy,
You write, "This is because I believe that, when you give the government the right to prohibit abortion, you implicitly give it the right to mandate abortion---because, once you write reproductive control into law, you have effectively ceded control of women's bodies to that government."
I've heard this argument before and I just don't get it. If abortion is banned because abortion intentionally kills a human being then why would a law change and make abortion mandated. That's like saying laws against drug use will allow the government to mandate drug use. I don't see how that makes sense. Laws against rape haven't led to mandated rape. Can you site one case where a law banning something led to that something being mandatory?
The only places with forced abortion are places like China which have legal abortion. There's no forced abortion in places where abortion is illegal like Malta, Poland, or Ireland.
Were the laws against abortion the reason for the eugenic sterilizations? I wouldn't think so. That doesn't seem to make sense. I don't see how the fact some places have a horrible history with eugenics leads one to think abortion should remain legal (especially considering eugenicists would be the ones to push abortion on certain women).
Preach it, sister!
Doxy -- there are, I think, quite a few folks like me who are left-leaning and pro-choice, but also are anti-abortion. I agree that no one should make the abortion decision but the woman facing the procedure. Of course, this leaves the man out of the picture, which is a whole other can of worms that I'll put aside for the moment, because typically in these circumstances, the man doesn't want to be in the picture anyway (though not always).
I wish that we could create a world where women wouldn't feel they had to choose abortion. Where it would be safe, legal and rare. Let me emphasize rare. In fact, I wish it would be so rare that it were only done in the most exigent of circumstances. I don't agree with making abortion illegal -- mostly because it won't stop abortions, it will only hurt women more. We need to support women with education, child care resources, health care (including drug addiction assistance if needed), job resources, parenting support systems, domestic violence assistance where needed, etc., etc., so that the choice to have the child would be a cause for joy. Our paternalistic, legalistic, puritanical-values oriented society doesn't seem to want to offer this kind of support on the scale it is needed. And then it wants to punish women for choosing abortion. It makes no sense to me.
Were we to stop treating premarital sex as "sin", unplanned pregnancy as something to be ashamed of, things might change also.
So, I'm pro-choice. But I'm anti-abortion as well. I believe life begins at conception. I believe there is something of God in every human life, that should not be extinguished under all but the most emergent circumstances. But it sometimes is a choice that must be made for many varying and complex reasons, and I would never want that choice to be taken away.
Amen, Doxy! The whole point about separating church and state is that it's better for both parties...
Hi, Doxy,
I can see your concern, but I can't agree. Because we have laws restricting euthanasia, for instance, I can't see either that it automatically follows that the govt. has the right or will surely mandate the practice. Jivin makes some good points as well.
It's a difficult issue, Doxy, and I truly can understand how even sincere, caring people can disagree. But, I really feel that we need some legal protection for even unborn children, really the most helpless, and "least of these" among us.
Are you feeling that there should be any legal restrictions at all relating to abortion?
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that God will hold me accountable for someone else's choice. That's not what is driving my concern.
Concerning the issue of the atonement...I honestly don't feel strongly relating to a specific theory over the other. I think there were different opinions of how the work of the cross redeems us even among the earliest Christians.
The only thing I know is that Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. By His dying and rising we are put right with God, and with each other. Jesus "saves." I'm willing to leave all the specific mechanics of this to God. In part, it's a mystery that we can't totally comprehend or fully explain.
But, to be honest, Doxy, this view that somehow God is this big, sadistic bully in the sky, reluctant to "save," who had to be persuaded by Jesus to let us off the hook, is a terrible caricature.
I don't know of any mature, sane Christian who holds to this blasphemous concept, even among conservative people that I personally know.
Grace.
Suzer states much more clearly than I could what happen to be my views on the subject as well. We live in a broken, hypocritical world and so although I hate that some have to come to the choice to have an abortion, I understand that life is not always peaches and cream. I also understand that society is so NOT helpful to single women and their children. I also am aware of a friend's sister who would have died by the fifth month if she had not had an abortion due to a severe medical problem she has (and also, her pregnancy was due to rape!). So the current laws must stand.
Another thought. I watch lots of old (1930's) movies. In them, I have noted a trend--when a single female gets pregnant, she tries to kill herself and often suceeds. Do we want to go back to that? Abortion by suicide? Hmmm.
Jivin J--thanks for your comments. I have a lot to say on that subject, but I'm on deadline today. I'll try to respond more fully ASAP.
Suzer--I agree totally. I find it instructive that the countries that offer high-quality sex education and access to contraceptives have much lower teen pregnancy AND abortion rates.
It is our cultural unwillingness to address the issue of sexuality (outside of its ability to sell beer, cars, and movies) that is the major problem here.
Abortion, in most cases, is the tragic consequence of our refusal to tackle issues that make us uncomfortable (i.e., sexuality, contraception, power in relationships).
HIV is the same. People don't discuss it because they don't want their partners to think they don't trust them, or they are afraid their partners will think they have been unfaithful. People have unsafe sex because their partners don't want to take precautions and they are afraid to insist or don't have the power to insist.
There will always be contraceptive failures, and that is why abortion will always be necessary. But, IMV, the biggest reason abortion occurs now is because of ignorance and/or the inability of individuals to discuss sex openly, honestly, and fully with their partners.
Maybe I'll blog another day on my conversations on this issue with my 11-year-old son....
I'm a guy, as you well know, so I'm not sure that what I have to say counts. I didn't read Grace's post to suggest she thought the law should be overturned, but re-thought. I'd have to say I feel the same way. The way it is written it seems to allow a callous indifference toward to life of the child.
Who am I to judge? Yeah, but abortion can and sometimes is used merely as birth control. In a society like ours the individual becomes the supreme arbiter of so much. To have the individual become the arbiter of whether a child (I'm takling here about later in pregnancy) lives or not seems dangerous territory.
"David" over at Madpriest said he would like Grace if he heard her reply. I'm trusting others are willing at least to listen.
Been there, done that. It is nobody's business. Abortion can be far more humane than carrying a child to term. Especially for the already living.
But too many people in the US want to punish others for stupidity or mistakes or careless behavior which God has long since forgiven.
We are a sick society and abortion is far from the worst illness. To me pro-life means pre-birth - period. Whatever happens after birth is nobody's concern except to judge, exclude, etc. Pshaw.
Jivin J---The best way I can answer your objection to my mandate argument is to say this:
Governments cannot be trusted with women’s reproductive systems—--ever.
That is why I bring up the stories of forced sterilization. They are Exhibit A for my contention that no government, anywhere, at any time, should be given control over women’s reproductive systems.
You ask if there has been any society that outlawed abortion and then turned around and mandated it. And I respond by asking you: do you really think that the Federal government—--which has gone to great lengths to limit access to abortion in the last 7 years—--doesn’t “mandate” abortions already, at least in a practical way?
By cutting family planning and contraceptive services for women and social services for them and their children, the Clinton and Bush Administrations have encouraged abortions among poor women (note that I am an equal opportunity blamer...). Abortion rates among middle-class women have been falling, but they are rising among poor women. (Check Guttmacher for data on that.)
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why---without access to affordable contraceptives and without a safety net for their children, abortion may be the only option available to poor women.
So abortion may not be mandated by law, but the effect is the same---poor and minority women get railroaded into abortions by Federal government policy and white, middle class women don’t. (And don’t kid yourself that policymakers aren’t aware of this…) I could write a long diatribe about the racist dimensions of all of this, but this is already too long.
So...the Federal government has severely restricted the rights of many American women to safe, legal abortion, while cutting funding for contraceptives and social services. Sounds like outlawing on the one hand and mandating on the other to me...
Grace---I think the trimester system as outlined in Roe v. Wade is about the best we can do in terms of restrictions on abortion. No restrictions in the first trimester. Restrictions to protect the life of the mother in the second. Restrictions to protect the fetus in the third.
That schema isn't perfect, but it's turned out to be a decent framework. (Especially since 88% of abortions are done in the first 13 weeks...and an increasing number are done at fewer than 6 weeks gestation.)
I think we need legal protection for women--to keep the government out of their vaginas.
I think we need legal protection for children---like health insurance for every single one. (The Federal government just blew that too...)
I think we need legal protection for people who are already here.
I'll talk to you about legal protections for fetuses when--and ONLY when:
There is not a single child in foster care in this nation
There is a good, solid support network (including affordable, quality daycare and affordable health insurance) for every mother and child in the United States
Every public school offers a high-quality education to EVERY existing child
Women have easy access to reliable, affordable contraceptives
Men are as invested in using contraceptives as their female parters
As you can see, there's a lot of work to be done before we can have that conversation...
Last one for the night, I promise! ;-)
Yeah, but abortion can and sometimes is used merely as birth control.
Davis, I hear this a lot---and my answer is "So what?"
Abortion IS birth control. Plain and simple. It is not the best form, we all agree---but that is what it is. It is the birth control of choice for those whose contraceptive methods failed, or who forgot to use them, or whose partner refused to wear the condom.
It is not my job to judge why someone got pregnant. Whether she tried to contracept and her method failed (thus making her "more responsible" in the eyes of many) or she didn't do a thing, the end result is the same. She is pregnant and doesn't want to be.
Making false distinctions about abortion-as-response-to-contraceptive-failure and abortion-as-result-of-bad-decisionmaking doesn't change a thing about the outcome and serves only to demonize women and treat them as if they have no brains or morals.
God knows their hearts and their circumstances. Neither you, nor I---and certainly not the Federal government!--can say the same with any truth. I trust God to sort it all out---but She's the only one I *do* trust on that issue.
So please keep trying to persuade people to adopt rather than abort, and please keep lobbying your legislatures and Congress to provide affordable contraceptives and comprehensive family planning and other social services. We can all agree that those are necessary to lessen the number of abortions and support women as parents, right?
Where I will fight you is when you try to give legal control over my daughter's ovaries and uterus to people like Tom Coburn or Sam Brownback.
As man I'm kind of fond of my testicles: over the years we've had a bit of fun together, and grown quite attached to each other. We like to think we act as a fairly responsible team, and I'd be as mad as a salt-water croc in a Steve Irwin show if some government felt they had a right to make laws about our relationship.
What's more I don't think I'm too different to the way most blokes feel in this regard - including the ones who in the past have made laws controlling women and their reproductive bits.
The only words to describe this are "unjust hipocrisy", and since this hipocrisy has lead to so much misery, suicide and needless death, it seems pretty appropriate to add the word "evil" in there somewhere.
Yes, in a perfect world every baby would be born, every mother supported, and every child raised in an environment of love and opportunity. But we don't have that perfect world, and as a result all people - women and mothers included - have to cope the best they can, which can involve making choices which are theirs alone to make.
No man can ever face the choices which lead to a woman deciding to abort: therefore I'll never understand how any legislature (which let's face it, is still generally controlled by a male majority) can claim a mandate to decide on women's behalf.
Would it not be far, far better if these men to whom power has been entrusted concentrated on doing something which they can accomplish: producing fairer, more supportive societies, in which effective birth control (and the knowledge to use it) were freely available? Seems to me if that were the case much of the problem would be resolved without the need for anyone to take control of anyone's body.
Thanks for listening. I get what you're saying. I'd have emphasized the word "merely" . I guess it's too complex an issue for me to wrap my dumb male brain around...
Adoption seems the obvious solution to many situations, but it's frankly so prohibitively expensive and for many people - read GLBT - impossible in some states. Outrageous.
I heartily agree I don't want politicians making these personal decisions.
Alcibiades---thank you for raising the unequal treatment issue. It's that much more effective coming from a man and his testicles... ;-)
Davis--Alcibiades has just proven that the "dumb male brain" is not universal. ;-)
As for adoption--You rightly point out the inequity of forbidding gays and lesbians to adopt. And the truth is that there are plenty of kids available for adoption--as long as you are willing to adopt a African American child or a child with special needs.
The "problem" is that there is a dearth of white, blond-haired, blue-eyed babies for adoption. There is no dearth of CHILDREN for adoption. Racism is an ugly, unstated part of this whole adoption v. abortion issue.
(Google "African American" and "adoption" and you will see what I mean. Some adoption agencies won't even accept black infants because they acknowledge that they can't find homes for them...)
On another adoption note----I have to be honest here. I would NEVER have given up a child for adoption. I greatly admire those who do, but I could not.
I have a friend who was adopted, and she lived a nightmare of abuse from her father. Once I knew her story, the idea of adoption was forever out of bounds to me. The idea of sending my child into an unknown situation where I could never be sure that s/he would be safe and well-loved was a nightmare.
I recognize that her situation was unusual, and I guess it sounds horrible to say that I would have aborted rather than given up a baby for adoption---but it is the truth. I could not have lived with the not knowing. I suspect that is the reason most women do not consider adoption.
I know that the move to "open adoptions" might alleviate that worry somewhat---but even then, what recourse would you have if you thought your child was being ill-treated? Or even raised to believe things you found untenable?
Bottom line in all of this---an unplanned pregnancy is a nightmare. The choices are all fraught with difficulty and pain.
I heard a clinic director say once that the "choice" all the women she counseled REALLY wanted was never to have become pregnant in the first place. We have to do more to ensure that women have that choice.
Doxy,
You assert, "Governments cannot be trusted with women’s reproductive systems—--ever. "
That's an assertion not an argument. Someone can just as easily assert "Governments cannot allow women to legal kill their unborn children without proper justification - ever."
Assertions by themselves simply aren't that convincing.
You ask, "-which has gone to great lengths to limit access to abortion in the last 7 years—--doesn’t “mandate” abortions already, at least in a practical way?"
No. Not at all. Finding oneself in difficult circumstances while pregnant is nowhere even close to the government mandating abortions.
That's like me saying the government is mandating someone to rob a liquor store because they've cut some welfare programs. Being poor is not a proper justification for killing innocent human beings.
You'd never argue that a woman was justified in killing her newborn because the government cut her food stamps, right? So the only way you can use this justification is if the unborn aren't human.
The "only option?" I thought abortion was a "choice?"
Thanks for stopping by Jivin J.
It would clearly be a waste of my time and yours to keep arguing. You already know what I'm going to say, and I've heard every objection you've raised a thousand times.
You see abortion as murder---I don't. I see the government's getting into my vagina as the worst possible assault on my personhood--you don't.
Irreconcilable differences, I guess---the only distinguishing factor is that I'm not trying to force you (or your wife/daughter/sister) to have an abortion, while you would use the power of the state to take control over my body. Not cool---and expect me to fight you every step of the way.
I've got to earn a living today, so I think we're done.
Pax,
Doxy
Suzer---if you are still reading, I left a comment to you in that thread at MP's. Just FYI...
Doxy,
To my knowledge, abortion can be performed into the 2nd. trimester of pregancy for reasons far less serious than to literally save the life of the mother.
I was just reading an info. piece published by an abortion clinic letting women knew that there is a possibility that the fetus can experience pain by the 20-22nd. wk. of gestation, so they administer pain-killing meds. to be as "humane" as possible during the abortion procedure.
God help us. May the Lord have mercy!
Grace.
To my knowledge, abortion can be performed into the 2nd. trimester of pregnancy for reasons far less serious than to literally save the life of the mother.
Grace--2nd trimester restrictions are generally medical ones (i.e., the procedure has to be performed in a facility that can handle medical emergencies). That's what I meant when I said they protect the life of the mother.
Most 2nd trimester abortions are done for fetal abnormalities inconsistent with life. Anencephaly (lack of a functioning brain) is a common one---I have several friends who have had this happen. All of those were wanted pregnancies, btw. Each of them was a tragedy--yet those abortions also preserved the fertility and health of the mothers, who went on to have healthy children afterwards.
As far as pain goes---I honestly don't mean to sound callous here, but I'm not sure that is something we should be overly concerned with. Being born is painful too. Being an unwanted child means a lifetime of *conscious* pain (ask me about my non-relationship with my father sometime...).
The pain of abortion may be real---but it is over very quickly. Nancy P has a really good comment about that in the thread at MP's that started this. I encourage you to check it out.
But I agree with you, Grace. Despite how hard some of my words look on the screen, I hate abortion too. Hate that women are forced to make a choice that causes so much pain and distress---and then are so roundly vilified and condemned for it. Hate that we live in a society where having children at the wrong time (or at all) can ruin your chances in life. Hate that the wider community feels it has no responsibility to the weakest among us---that as long as each of our own children has food, shelter, and a decent education, our responsibility has been fulfilled.
So I echo your prayer. May God help us and have mercy on us. May He give us the wisdom to find ways to make this choice unnecessary. May He give us the heart to provide resources and support to women and their families so they don't have to make this decision. May He help us to suspend our judgment of others and love and care for them as Christ would.
Pax,
Doxy
...once you write reproductive control into law, you have effectively ceded control of women's bodies to that government.
Agreed. And it surprises me that, given this, Grace can still argue from an anti-abortion stance. After all, Grace has made many stmts in the past that I interpreted as coming from at least a quasi-Libertarian political position.
And Libertarianism combined with wanting more control over women's bodies by the gov't are two things which just don't jibe for me...
(Of course, if you wanna talk "don't jibe" we can always go with the political conservatives' mind-bendingly weirdass Pro-Life/Pro-Death stance. You know - no abortions, but no money for living children's health care, welfare, etc... + pro-war, pro-death penalty, and such. Boggles the mind.)
Doxy,
Thanks for having me.
You write, "I see the government's getting into my vagina as the worst possible assault on my personhood--you don't. "
I don't see the government making abortion illegal as being equivalent to the government "getting into (your) vagina." That, like many of your other arguments, doesn't seem to make a whole ton of sense. Are you opposed to laws against the use of illegal substances because "the government is getting into your mouth, nose or arms?" You might have heard my objections before but you haven't really provided very good reasons for your position.
You write to Grace, "Most 2nd trimester abortions are done for fetal abnormalities inconsistent with life."
That is simply not true and I doubt you could provide evidence to show that it is. The majority of 2nd trimester abortion are down for similar reasons as first trimester abortions.
Jivin J---what part of "we're done" did you fail to understand?
But I will say this---the fact that you want to compare pregnancy to drug abuse and robbery in your examples is telling. (And, quite frankly, I do oppose most of the ridiculous drug laws in this country---not because I take any myself, but because they don't work and they send thousands of people to prison who need medical help, not incarceration.)
Of course my arguments are based on assertions---as are yours. You assert that an embryo has an absolute right to life--but there is nothing to make that so. Scientists estimate that one-third to one-half of all embryos are aborted spontaneously---so even God/Mother Nature/whatever doesn't support the idea that an embryo has a "right to life." You are making an argument based on principle--not fact. Nothing wrong with that---but it's dishonest for you to pretend otherwise.
Finally, my assertion that most 2nd trimester abortions are done for fetal abnormalities came from discussions with clinicians over many years. It may well be that this was their locally-specific reality and is not reflected in the larger population.
So---my blog, I get the last word. ;-)
Pax,
Doxy
((Doxy)))
David, this is a controversial issue among many libertarians. I definitely agree that we need to see a change in these drug laws. Why is there a difference between alchohol and marijuana in terms of the law? Oh well, this is another concern, and I don't want to go off on a rant.
I think the issue for me in this, speaking now as a libertarian, and I've mentioned it before, is that I can't just see an unborn child as merely an extension of a woman's body. I believe we are talking about another developing human being.
In a way, slavery is more an appropriate analogy for me. Do we own our kids, in the same way that folks once owned other human beings? Or, do they belong to themselves, and to God?
Why is this issue seen so differently just because the child is no longer connected to mom via the placenta, and has made a few inches trip down the birth canal? I can't see it.
Of course, I think the age of gestation is significant, too. I would allow, although not encourage, abortion for any reason in the very early stages of pregnancy, when there really is just a clump of cells present, or a totally undeveloped embryo. I would extend the window somewhat longer in the case of rape and incest.
But, later in the 2nd. and third trimester of pregnancy, I feel abortion should only be permitted to save the life of the mother, and in cases of severe handicapping conditions, not compatible with life.
Also, though, I definitely want to come down on the side of providing more suppport to women facing crisis pregnancies, greater information concerning bc., help with free and reduced birth control for those in poverty, etc.
It's not just about opposing abortion. We need also to be providing the support, and alternatives.
I guess in this Doxy, we can find common ground. Thanks so much for providing this forum, and also for loving me through our differences.
Praise God for your life, and witness for our Lord.
I'll give you the last word.
Pax back atcha!
Grace.
Well Doxy, you asked for it. ;)
The right to legal abortion is accepted almost without question in most of western Europe.
Note that these same Western European countries have no qualms about providing affordable health care for all of their citizens, both children and adults, no questions asked.
It's obvious to me where children and family are truly valued (and it ain't here in "Prolife" country.)
Doxy,
I once heard a woman minister say of a young woman, "I told her I wouldn't help her out until she had an abortion."
Shocked, I blurted out, "But isn't it supposed to be the woman's choice?"
"Yes," the minister snapped back, "but she's making the WRONG CHOICE!"
So yes, I do believe that abortion could be coerced and even mandated by law, as it is in China.
I think abortion is always a tragedy. I believe the systematic abortion of children with condition like Down Syndrome is genocide. I hope to help start a crisis pregnancy center in my remote rural area. And I believe abortion should not be a matter for law--for the reason you give. Safe, legal, and rare is my hope.
I'm with safe, legal and rare. Since I always take the personal story approach... I spontaneously aborted a tubal pregancy right after my first divorce, but I would probably have had an abortion if that had not happened. The father, my ex, was a drug addict who had taken gene altering drugs. He was going to prison and could not help support the child. I was suffering from severe depression and struggling with a low-paying job - living with my Mother. I could not have cared for a healthy child, much less one that might have had disabilities. I could barely care for myself.
So, I support a woman' right to have a safe and legal abortion, while I pray that they become rare as we care for ourselves and our children better and better.
(((Grace))) Thanks for your kind heart and your gracious words. I, too, believe we agree on far more than we don't, and I'm happy to find common ground.
Nina--that's evil, pure and simple. I don't care who's doing it---putting conditions on helping someone who's in trouble is not Christian. I have good reason to know that clergy are as human as anyone else, but, IMNSHO, they DO have a responsibility not to make people's anguish worse. What that woman did was unconscionable.
Sharecropper--Amen.
Excellent discussion all around--I think Suzer put it quite well.
It seems to me when we made abortion legal in the US it was done for reasons of compassion that have gotten lost through the ensuing decades.
By TRACI CARL, Associated Press Writer Mon Nov 5, 12:05 PM ET
MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Two weeks after Olga Reyes danced at her wedding, her bloated and disfigured body was laid to rest in an open coffin — the victim, her husband and some experts say, of Nicaragua's new no-exceptions ban on abortion.
Reyes, a 22-year-old law student, suffered an ectopic pregnancy. The fetus develops outside the uterus, cannot survive and causes bleeding that endangers the mother. But doctors seemed afraid to treat her because of the anti-abortion law, said husband Agustin Perez. By the time they took action, it was too late.
Nicaragua last year became one of 35 countries that ban all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York. The ban has been strictly followed, leaving the country torn between a strong tradition of women's rights and a growing religious conservatism. Abortion rights groups have stormed Congress in recent weeks demanding change, but President Daniel Ortega, a former leftist revolutionary and a Roman Catholic, has refused to oppose the church-supported ban.
Evangelical groups and the church say abortion is never needed now because medical advances solve the complications that might otherwise put a pregnant mother's life at risk.
But at least three women have died because of the ban, and another 12 reported cases will be examined, said gynecologist and university researcher Eliette Valladares, who is working with the Pan American Health Organization to analyze deaths of pregnant women recorded by Nicaragua's Health Ministry.
Before the ban took effect on Nov. 18, 2006, fewer than a dozen legal abortions were recorded per year in Nicaragua. They were performed only when three doctors agreed a woman's life was in danger. However, the Roman Catholic Church estimates that doctors and other medical staff carried out about 36,000 "secret" abortions a year, because under the old law they had little fear of government reprisals.
This year the Health Ministry has recorded 84 deaths of pregnant women between January and October, compared with 89 for all of last year and 88 the year before. It listed hemorrhaging as the most common cause, with 27 cases reported. The ministry refused to comment further on the ban.
Abortion rights groups have disrupted Congress several times, demanding that lawmakers lift the ban. On Oct. 25, unable to get past increased security, they held up signs at Congress' front door that read: "Women assassins" and "They want to keep us quiet and dead." A minority of lawmakers are still trying to lift the ban, but don't have enough votes.
The Roman Catholic Church mobilized nearly 300,000 people to march and sign petitions in support of the ban.
"A child is not a sickness," said Henry Romero, a priest who helped lead the campaign. "When two lives are in danger, you must try to save both the woman and the child. It's difficult to say now that it isn't possible to save both."
Law student Reyes was one of the three confirmed fatalities. She knew something was horribly wrong, and went with her husband to their small town's medical center. They were sent to Bertha Calderon maternity hospital, more than an hour away in Managua. There, Perez said, Reyes was given a cursory exam, sent home and told to return the next day.
By that time, the bleeding and cramping were worse. Perez said he rushed her to a hospital in nearby Leon, but after she had an ultrasound that confirmed her condition, they left her bent over and in agony for hours in a waiting room. When a doctor at a shift change saw her condition, she was rushed into surgery. She suffered three heart attacks and an exploratory surgery.
Valladares said doctors should have acted quicker.
"They knew she had a limited amount of time before she bled out. The whole world knows that with an ectopic pregnancy," Valladares said. "They didn't treat her, out of fear."
The hospital director, Olga Maria de Chavez, said Reyes arrived late at night, and was told to return the next morning when specialists were available. The doctors who handled her case in Leon refused to talk to The Associated Press.
Walter Mendiata, president of Nicaragua's Association of Gynecologists and a supporter of the abortion ban, said doctors are taking the new law too far. He argues that surgery for an ectopic pregnancy isn't the same as carrying out an abortion.
"There's no discussion in a case like that," he said. "It's urgent, and you operate."
But he acknowledged that many doctors fear they will be accused of performing an abortion, which could mean a license suspension and several years in prison, even though no one has yet been prosecuted.
Some doctors privately admit to carrying out what they believe are illegal procedures, while others say they won't jeopardize their careers.
"Many are thinking that instead of taking the risk, it is better to let a woman die," said Dr. Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine.
Doctors frequently see women coming in with infections, many likely brought on by illegal abortions that they refuse to disclose for fear they might be punished, said Dr. Carla Cerrato. Because the people with some medical training who used to do illegal abortions have disappeared, Cerrato said, women more frequently take drugs or pull the fetus out on their own using wires or other crude objects.
"What we are seeing are complications that before we never saw," Cerrato said, sitting in the dingy pre-labor room at a crowded public hospital in Managua.
She added that she sees hysterectomies and severe infections that leave women sterile or dead because obstetricians can't take any action that might harm a living fetus.
"We have to wait until the fetus dies," she said. "But often, for the woman, it's too late."
That appears to be what happened with Reyes. Her aunt, Gioconda Reyes, a devoted Catholic dressed in a worn T-shirt in which Jesus promises eternal life, said the sudden death has changed her views.
"I don't support abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, but in cases like that of Olga's, it is necessary," she said, adding: "How could they let four days pass when every minute was precious? They denied her the right to medical care, to a life."
IT
Brava!
Brava!
Brava!
Very well said.
Lindy
Whereas, Doxy, I agree with your concern for free will, I don't believe it means it is a personal matter between God and the woman. That is wishful thinking for the feminist, yet stunningly inaccurate. Abortion is a moral issue, yet morals are not personal issues as you so expressed them to be. That is relativistic, and I oppose such thought. Abortion is Evil, and the Christian Church must remain united upon this matter. If we were to follow your thought, it would end with people asking each other, "But the rape was MY business? Oughtn't you to stick to yours?"
Post a Comment