(no subject)

[velvetpage]

Sensitive issues are popping up left, right and centre in the current election around here. One conservative candidate's suggestion that women seeking abortions should be referred to a third party for counselling has women's rights groups up in arms, and the amount of pure fear-mongering is incredible. There was a letter in the paper today suggesting that this was the first step to putting limits on a woman's job freedom, since they should be home with the babies, or on her right to vote. I couldn't stay quiet.

Frankly, most of the people who might seek an abortion are doing so because they did not take sufficient precautions to prevent pregnancy. (I realize that's a bit simplistic, and I know there are other reasons for wanting an abortion; but if there are stats to refute the word "most" that anyone has access to, I'd like to see them.) In addition, it's often about fear - of parents, social stygma, poverty, maybe even the baby's father. I would think it perfectly reasonable to have a woman who is considering an abortion given access to third-party counselling. Decisions made in fear and ignorance are not, I think, what pro-choice people want their movement to be about. If it's about choice, let's make it an informed choice by a woman who has thought it through. Who knows, maybe some women who might otherwise have had the abortion will decide, given all the information, to have their babies instead.

I also think the option of giving a baby for adoption has been underrepresented in recent years, as a direct result of the pro-choice movement. THat option requires more dedication on the part of the birth mother, because of the necessity of carrying a baby for nine months. But it seems to me that for many, it would be a more responsible choice. It would certainly improve our declining birth rate, which is also directly attributable to the pro-choice movement.

I realize this journal is rather inflammatory. Please, please do not take anything I've said here as a personal attack, because it is not meant that way. I want to open up the debate and see what other people think.

Comments

[anidada.livejournal.com]

I don't think this is a choice that most women enter into without a LOT of thought. It's not as if (except for those in extreme social isolation or who are abused, either of which is frankly enough reason, IMO, for not going through with a pregnancy) people in this situation don't talk to others about it, either. The vast majority of women will speak to friends or seek counselling if they feel they need to do so, and if it's right for them -- and if it's not, forcing it on them is a violation of their right to choose the kind of health (mental and physical) treatment they want, not just their right to choose to have an abortion.

It's not all about fear (more on that in a second) -- but if there is fear, and that fear is legitimate, then the kind of counselling that makes sense is not chiefly to do with the decision to have an abortion, but rather the root causes of the fear (i.e. of their partner/parents, of the social consequences, etc.). There is a short span of time in which this kind of decision needs to be made, certainly not long enough to resolve the root causes of any actual fear that's contributing to the decision -- and given the emotional state of pregnancy, plus the additional factor of it being unwanted, really, how likely is it that the fear will be resolved within the duration of an entire pregnancy, let alone the short period of time in which it's safe to terminate it?

And giving up a child for adoption is not an option for some people -- there's enough stuff in the media about children who never get adopted (for whatever reason), or about those who are but who have serious emotional issues throughout their lives, as a result, that I think it scares folks off. Silly, yes, but I have heard people say as much.

I am completely pro-choice. I've been in situations where frankly, if I had found myself pregnant, I wouldn't have gone through with it. I couldn't have -- for financial reasons, for health reasons, for emotional and social reasons, it just wouldn't have been reasonable. However, having unexpectedly found myself pregnant with our little girl, at that point in my life, an abortion didn't seem like the right decision (I wasn't on welfare, I wasn't on potentially damaging meds, I wasn't totally alone, the baby wasn't at serious risk of damage either in utero or after birth, etc.) -- but if this had been fifteen years ago, when I was married to an abusive alcoholic, or when I was living on social assistance and was dangerously underweight due to the medication I was on, there would have been far more reason not to have a child, than to have one.

As for taking precautions, sometimes those precautions don't work -- witness a friend of mine who has a child despite a whole whack of barrier methods, or my ex-husband, who was conceived while his mom was on the pill. And me -- the information I had on how to calculate ovulation was seriously messed up, as it turns out, and my experiences with other methods have either been bad for my health (allergies to ingredients, or very bad side effects from medication) or difficult to use properly.

I don't think that imposing counselling on women who, in all likelihood, have either not entered into their decision lightly, or who are mentally unable to resist persuasion in a direction that would probably be more detrimental to them and their child, is necessary, desirable, or, to be honest, legal.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the solution, then, is to make more counselling available and encourage its use, without imposing it? I can certainly understand the medical issues which you mentioned, and there are some women who simply should not have children for medical reasons.

I suppose my main argument here is the people who take few to no precautions and then choose to terminate as a method of birth-control. If you are taking reasonable precautions because of a valid reason not to have children, and get pregnant anyway, there may be some justification. And you'll notice that I did not suggest making abortion illegal; only requiring, or at least facilitating, as much thought as possible before doing it.

I was at the point, not long ago, where if one of my students were to come to me and say she was pregnant, scared, and was considering an abortion, I would have offered to adopt the baby or find someone for her who would. I would still do the second, in a heartbeat, and you know who I'd consider first.

Oh, and can a decision be more detrimental to the child than to terminate its life before birth? I'm still of the camp which believes all life has value.

I think I'm at the point of abortion-as-a-last-resort. But many abortions do not fit that category, and my heart cries for those babies, and for their mothers who have to live with themselves afterward. No matter how good the reasons, it's a horrible thing to live with.

[anidada.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a horrible thing for some people. For others, it's merely a medical procedure. I can't see how anyone who thinks it's horrible, especially, and who is at all in touch with reality, wouldn't even consider other options. Having made the decision to terminate a pregnancy, obviously some women will go through emotional turmoil. People who are aware that they're going to have difficulty with this in advance will more than likely seek help, in advance, or at least after the fact. I realize that it's the people who aren't aware that are the bulk of the issue, but they don't justify mandatory counselling across the board. Certainly there are some people who are irresponsible and who don't seem to be able to get their wits about them, who wind up having repeated abortions as "birth control" -- but even if they get counselling, preferably far in advance of them risking pregnancy again, how will it help if they still don't have the reasoning ability to look objectively at their actions?

Painful medical procedures that more than likely also involve one's deepest emotions are not things that rational people just jump into. Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see evidence of this. Irrational people, perhaps, but all the irrational girls I used to know (we had a VERY high pregnancy rate in my high school) actually went through with their pregnancies and kept the babies, much to the detriment of the children. I could go into a laundry list of horror stories, here, but I'll spare you.

In any event, counselling beforehand doesn't necessarily prevent post-event turmoil, predict the likelihood of it, or change the factors that are leading the woman in question to seriously consider abortion -- and forcing anyone to undergo counselling of any kind is only legally permissable when they're considered a danger to self and/or others. If one considers the fetus another human being right from the start, or a part of the self that is vital to the continued existence of the person (self) carrying it, then the counselling would be legal -- but that's not how the law sees it. The only way to legally make mandatory counselling stick is to change how the law sees the fetus, which essentially changes the current legality of abortion itself.

I think a lot of us -- particularly those who have been on the business end of bad counselling experiences, esp. in this regard -- fear that this is the thin edge of the wedge, particularly as it's being proposed by a party with a strong anti-choice membership. I would much rather see greater funding for hassle-free non-partisan birth control clinics, free birth control for women in poverty/teenagers/etc., and a revamp of the adoption system in this country, which is clearly flawed. Every child should be a wanted child, and sadly, that's just not the case -- not when there are still kids going unadopted in this country, while folks have to go overseas and spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring a child into their lives.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

At the moment, the laws about abortion, here and in the U.S., have been defined by the Supreme Courts rather than by parliament or congress. As I mentioned in my letter to the editor, abortion currently exists in a legal vacuum with pretty much no regulation. The only thing standing between a seven-month fetus and abortion is the right of the doctor to refuse to perform the surgery. We need a legal definition of when a fetus becomes entitled to the rights of a child; "at birth" is simply not good enough, since most babies born at seven months could survive without a lot of issues - in fact, doctors can save babies by about 28 weeks with a high rate of success (seven lunar months, but only six by the calendar, for those who haven't been through this recently enough to know the jargon.) At what point does this procedure legally become murder? I would venture to suggest that if a pregnancy is within six weeks of the time when a baby could likely survive outside the womb, it is already too late for an abortion.

In short, you're right about the legal issues. We need a law about abortion expressly to define these issues, because right now, they are way too vague.

I have known several people who had multiple abortions because they weren't prepared. I saw what it did to the girl in question (while I knew her, she had abortion #3, and the first two had caused depression serious enough to land her in hospital.) I also saw what it did to the father of two of those fetuses, who begged her to keep the third baby, since he was in his final year of university and had good job prospects for before the baby would have been born. (From what I've been told, the first abortion was the only one which met the criteria for serious-issues-in-mom's-life to make it something other than birth control.) When the same woman got pregnant again (by him - I still haven't figured out that relationship) a few years ago, he managed to convince her to keep the baby. Since then he has received full custody and is a great parent of a happy, healthy preschooler.

I don't think, btw, that any of this should happen in a vacuum - that's what got us into this mess. I also would support greater efforts at birth control and a much-revamped adoption system.

Oh, and when it comes to vocabulary - anti-choice is someone like James Kopp, who promotes violence to stop abortion. The rest of us are pro-life; a small difference, but an important one.

[anidada.livejournal.com]

Re: vocabulary: fair enough. I think it's possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice, in that sense -- however, I suspect that a lot of folks would have trouble with that alignment... (Even though to a large extent, that's probably the best way to define how I feel about the whole thing, come to think of it.)

See, when I read your anecdote above, I couldn't help but wonder: what the heck was the GUY doing? Three abortions is, IMO, a sign that neither of them were getting their acts together with regard to birth control and probably shouldn't have been in bed in the first place. *sigh* That's what I mean when I talk about people who don't have their wits about them. It may be naive, but I can't imagine folks who do, still winding up having three abortions out of four unplanned pregnancies, whether with the same person or not. It's mindboggling, and sad, and angering all at once. :(

It is incredibly rare for a late-term abortion to occur, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a venue (esp. in Canada) that would take on such a case except under extreme (read: danger to the mother or if the fetus was in very bad shape) circumstances. I wasn't aware that elective abortion after the first trimester was even an option -- I should read up on that some more, I suppose. The last I heard about the goings-on in the States is that the stats simply don't support the need for a law banning third-trimester abortions, and certainly I'd expect that to be true here, as well. So if there's no reason to have the law, why are they proposing it? The theory is that it's to get some leverage to ban all abortions, eventually. I don't think that's too much of a stretch, but then, I don't trust the right side of the political spectrum in any regard, so... :P

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I would imagine that on the pro-life-choice continuum, you and I fall just to opposite sides of centre; I want regulation without control, and a healthy helping of think-it-through; you want less regulation, no one being forced to think it through according to a formula, but similar ideas regarding birth control and adoption.

There are a fair percentage (I believe recent stats in the U.S. suggested 10%, but don't quote me on that) of abortions that happen between 12 and 26 weeks, after which most doctors will refuse to perform them. Some will refuse before that; each doctor, as I understand it, has their own opinion. And in actual fact, the Conservatives have stated that they will not bring forth a bill on election as a government bill. The reason this has become an issue at all is that Harper believes private members' bills should get a fair hearing and a free vote; this will only be an issue if there are enough stringently pro-life people elected that a free vote would result in passing the law, and if the law were constitutional to begin with. Without a conservative majority, we'll never hear of it again, and that's not likely.

[kesmun.livejournal.com]

I pretty much completely agree with you. I know how much emotional turmoil I went through after an ectopic pregnancy. I've talked to women who've gone through that turmoil and much, much more, after an abortion.

I honestly think that anidada is wrong about how much thought goes into the decision. The specific situations she set out are actually fairly rare.

I don't think that making abortion illegal is a solution at all. I do, however, believe that a mandatory waiting period would be advisable - even as little as 24 hours. I realize that there are situations (abusive boyfriends/husbands being the main ones) where this could be dangerous, but in those cases, a womens' shelter should be made available. Often, when abused women find out they're pregnant, especially if it's a first pregnancy, they're more likely to do what it takes to get out of the abusive situation.

Counselling should be offered and strongly encouraged during those twenty-four hours. And the counsellors should be women who will simply ask the woman considering the abortion to think through and outline her reasons, NOT encourage one way or the other. Sometimes the act of telling another person your reasons can either solidify your decision or help you realize that those reasons are foolish and prompt you to reverse it. But you should do it on your own, not at the prompting of anyone else.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I like the waiting period idea. It is reasonable that people do not go into an operation of any kind while worked up and feeling alone. And I agree that the counselling should be non-partisan, for everyone's sake. I know how many teenagers are able to think through a pro/con sheet with any clarity, and most need help or at least guidance with it.

[anidada.livejournal.com]

Before I forget, I'd like to mention that this is the first time in I don't know how long that I've felt comfortable talking about this subject at all. Years and years, at least. It's great stretching these particular muscles and having a rational discussion with a rational person, and I want to thank you for that.

I probably shut up about a lot of things because the only person in my life who really starts topics about anything controversial, anymore, is my father, and there's no rationality involved in those conversations. *sigh* Also, having been turfed as a friend on LJ and in real life by people who asked for general theories on a phenomenon, were given them, and then for some reason I can't fathom took them as personal statements of belief, my wariness about talking about anything other than babies and the weather (and sometimes even then) has increased exponentially in the past couple of years. I never expected that it would result in a feeling of being mentally caged, but in retrospect, that pretty much sums it up. Nice not to feel that right now. :)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. My opinion, generally, is that I am prepared to engage in discussion about my beliefs, because blind faith in anything has never really worked for me. I have had people decide not to be my friend because of these beliefs, and I've never understood why, since I will accept my friends on whatever terms they come to me and not expect them to change or agree with me.

I avoid certain discussions with my dad, too, but it's not because of a lack of rationality, it's because of an overabundance of it. I end up feeling steamrolled, and that's just not my idea of a fun way to debate.

I worried a bit about opening up this discussion, for exactly that reason. I don't like alienating friends, but I don't like tiptoeing around them and measuring every opinion, either. I don't see any compromise there; people get to realize that I'm both outspoken and tolerant, or they'll see one side but not the other. Their choice.