# Abortion debate trivializes rape



## Nomad (May 31, 2011)

I don't (really, honestly don't) want to re-hash any debate on abortion itself, but I agree fully with this editorial on the appalling attitudes of some proponents who happen to be politicians regarding the issues surrounding rape:



> When Rep. Barbara Bollier voiced concern for women who may become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, this exchange followed:
> DeGraaf: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
> Bollier: "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with pregnancy?"
> DeGraaf: "I have a spare tire on my car."
> ...





> When it comes to the topic of abortion, a politician's view is often shaped by his or her religion. What it should not be shaped by is sexism and flat-out lies.
> 
> The notions that rape is a possibility that women should plan for, or that abortions should not be provided to victims of rape or incest because some women might lie about an attack to get their insurance company to pay, reek of misogyny.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 31, 2011)

The appalling assertion that rape is as blameless and natural as getting a flat tire aside, I'm curious what "planning ahead" women are supposed to do in regards to being raped.  Put aside funds for the "unexpected baby" account?  

I don't want to be picky, but the abortion debate itself isn't trivializing rape...if anything, it highlights one of the many consequences of it.  The ones guilty of trivializing rape are the specific politicians; they just used abortion as the launch-point, so to speak.


----------



## granfire (May 31, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> The appalling assertion that rape is as blameless and natural as getting a flat tire aside, I'm curious what "planning ahead" women are supposed to do in regards to being raped.  Put aside funds for the "unexpected baby" account?
> 
> I don't want to be picky, but the abortion debate itself isn't trivializing rape...if anything, it highlights one of the many consequences of it.  The ones guilty of trivializing rape are the specific politicians; they just used abortion as the launch-point, so to speak.



Well, those lovely examples of the human race also trivialize health risks and severe disabilities.
It's more like 'STFU B*tch and get back in the kitchen'


(though from a guy I can halfway understand this position, from a woman? Never!)


----------



## Blade96 (May 31, 2011)

I already heard about the flat tire douche. The other one, no, but both of them are sick.


----------



## Nomad (May 31, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I don't want to be picky, but the abortion debate itself isn't trivializing rape...if anything, it highlights one of the many consequences of it.  The ones guilty of trivializing rape are the specific politicians; they just used abortion as the launch-point, so to speak.



Absolutely agree, and I think that the way they trivialize rape in this context means that they *should* have absolutely no voice in the debate itself, because they obviously have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.  Unfortunately, they're often the ones making or voting on the legislation involved.


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 31, 2011)

Theyre blaming the victim and saying make the most out of a bad situation.

So if your house gets burglarised, its OK because you get new stuff.

If a drunk driver totals your car and puts you in hospital, thats OK too, because you get a new car, AND you get time off work. Now who wouldnt want time off work??!!

If a loved one get murdered, thats OK too, because youre probably in their will, and youll end up getting stuff. At the very least, it one less person you have to buy a gift for at Christmas.

These people are completely clueless..


----------



## Empty Hands (May 31, 2011)

The abortion debate isn't about protecting babies or killing the unborn.  If it was, you would see the pro-life side pushing for sex education, contraception, and pre- and post-natal services like subsidized health care for expectant mothers and their children or subsidized day care.  With a few honorable exceptions, the pro-life side opposes all of these things, sometimes quite vociferously.  They also would allow exceptions for rape and incest, although the pro-life movement does tend to be a little more consistent on this point - although consistency on that point has been associated with extremism.

If abortion is murder of a human child, what _possible _rationale could you provide that makes murder OK if it isn't the mother's "fault" she is pregnant?  Why would that matter in the slightest?  Murder might be necessary, such as if the mother's life was in danger and one life had to be chosen, but it could never be justified by whether or not the mother is at "fault" for being pregnant.  That is what the rape and incest justification is all about deciding.

So if not human life, what is the argument about?  

Instead, if you understand the abortion debate as about punishing women for having sex and making sure they endure the consequences of that act, then everything makes a lot more sense.  Opposing contraception and education makes more sense.  Allowing exceptions for rape and incest makes _much _more sense.  

It explains the comments here, it explains comments like that made by State Senator Bill Napoli, who when asked for exceptions to the abortion ban responded "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped,  savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on  saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and  raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated."

What does _any _of that have to do with protecting unborn life?  If that is the goal, why the focus on the virginity or religious persuasion of the mother?  *Those things only matter if fault and punishment are the goal, not protecting life*.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 31, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The abortion debate isn't about protecting babies or killing the unborn.  If it was, you would see the pro-life side pushing for sex education, contraception, and pre- and post-natal services like subsidized health care for expectant mothers and their children or subsidized day care.



Agreed


----------



## Blade96 (May 31, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Agreed



I third that.


----------



## Flea (May 31, 2011)

I escorted patients through the crowd of protesters at my local clinic for a couple years.  It was really astonishing to talk to some of the protesters sometimes - most of them had this phenomenal tunnel vision.  Very few of the patients would engage them on their way in, but several times I'd see this interaction:

Protester: You don't have to make this choice ...

Patient: I didn't have a choice.  I was raped.

Protester: (not skipping a beat) Well, two wrongs don't make a right.  Here, take this brochure ...

Unbelievable!  Meantime, I'd be walking alongside the patient, expressing sympathy, offering her information on the local rape crisis center.  Usually the patient was so overwhelmed she didn't hear me, and who could blame her.  

The protesters were often vindictive and blatantly harassing.  Some were fond of shouting _*whore*_ as the patients walked by.  There was one guy who liked to stand right by the door and yell "_Stop right there!_" With Bible in hand, open to his verse of choice.  Protesters deliberately hogged parking spaces, took pictures, blocked patient's paths.  I don't ask this as a religious statement, but because they universally used Christian imagery themselves: is this _really_ how Christ would have His unconditional love represented?

:soapbox:  Sorry, I guess I ranted a bit.  I felt strongly enough about reproductive freedom to put my life on the line for it, and I'm proud.  But it does get me rambling a bit.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 31, 2011)

Flea said:


> The protesters were often vindictive and blatantly harassing.  Some were fond of shouting _*whore*_ as the patients walked by.



Another point I forgot to make.  If the pro-life movement were only concerned with saving babies, they wouldn't be so consumed with the sexual morality and activity of the pro-choice.

Well done Flea.  That's a very hard job to take on.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 31, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Another point I forgot to make.  If the pro-life movement were only concerned with saving babies, they wouldn't be so consumed with the sexual morality and activity of the pro-choice.



Like many of the wedge issues in the US, I can't fault the protesters too much. If I honestly, in my heart, was _certain_ that abortion was the *murder of children* it's possible I'd be taking direct action. The folks on the line aren't much different from Flea (and I mean you no offense)....they are taking a stand for what they believe in.

The trouble is why they believe it. For the most part, they believe it because somebody who wanted power decided to manipulate their strong religious beliefs. Those people should be horse-whipped.


----------



## granfire (May 31, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Like many of the wedge issues in the US, I can't fault the protesters too much. If I honestly, in my heart, was _certain_ that abortion was the *murder of children* it's possible I'd be taking direct action. The folks on the line aren't much different from Flea (and I mean you no offense)....they are taking a stand for what they believe in.
> 
> The trouble is why they believe it. For the most part, they believe it because somebody who wanted power decided to manipulate their strong religious beliefs. Those people should be horse-whipped.



Then again, if their agenda was pure, they'd have a houseful of adopted kids and fosters. Plus raising money for scholar ship for kids of single moms. 
Last I heard, the county was looking for foster homes in a very bad way!


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 31, 2011)

granfire said:


> Then again, if their agenda was pure, they'd have a houseful of adopted kids and fosters. Plus raising money for scholar ship for kids of single moms.
> Last I heard, the county was looking for foster homes in a very bad way!



That's a fair point, but none of us are innocent and pure on that front. We all have a cause we're not doing all we can for. Not saying I agree with them, but at least they've drawn their line and stood on it.


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 31, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> That's a fair point, but none of us are innocent and pure on that front. We all have a cause we're not doing all we can for. Not saying I agree with them, but at least they've drawn their line and stood on it.


 
Yeah, but I dont see people from the diabetes society yelling at people as they enter McDonalds, or members of MADD  calling people names as they enter the liquor store. 
Demeaning people, threatening people and acting like a general all round ***, will hurt your cause more than benefit it.


----------



## WC_lun (May 31, 2011)

I don't have issue with anti-abortion activist that are honest about it. I do have issue with the anti-abortion activist that says they believe abortion is murder unless this or that. As stated earlier, it isn't intellectually honest. I also have issue with the chuckleheads that want to preach morality, yet don't understand the very thing they preach.

Empty Hands, very good post and I would rep you if I could. 

Flea, thank you for some women very close to me that have had to make that walk. While they may not have heard a word you said to them, having someone walk beside them in such terrible circumstances is a comfort I'm not sure many people can understand.


----------



## Carol (May 31, 2011)

Nor do I see the shame of violating a practice of "abstinence" directed towards the assaulters.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 31, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Yeah, but I dont see people from the diabetes society yelling at people as they enter McDonalds, or members of MADD  calling people names as they enter the liquor store.



True enough, and although you can make as strong a case that McD's etc are murdering children (right along with the lunch program at many school districts)...it's not as direct. Honestly, I wonder why abortion demonstrators aren't _more_ violent. I know what I'd do if I knew somebody within my arm's reach was going to kill a child...



> Demeaning people, threatening people and acting like a general all round ***, will hurt your cause more than benefit it.



Absolutely agree. Wish more folks on these fora felt the same.


----------



## Flea (May 31, 2011)

No offense taken Bushido, but I think you misunderstand the dynamic at the "Gates of Hell." (Yeah, they actually call it that.)  

At least when I was there, the majority of protesters were quiet reasonable people.  They came, they said the Rosary on the sidewalk, and they left.  It's mildly harassing, but they don't address the patients directly or impede their paths.  And I have no problem with prayer at all.  The problem with a setting like that is that it attracts wingnuts like flies to a turd.  They're the ones who constitute the problem, and the reason most of us escort. It's never okay to scream in a stranger's face that they're going to hell, especially at a vulnerable time like that.

So yes, it's okay to have strong feelings about something.  But we escorted to protect patients from those who didn't understand the line between having strong feelings and resorting to intimidation and threats.  All of us escorts would have been much happier sleeping in on a Saturday if only there weren't a need for us.


----------



## granfire (May 31, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> That's a fair point, but none of us are innocent and pure on that front. We all have a cause we're not doing all we can for. Not saying I agree with them, but at least they've drawn their line and stood on it.



Well, my causes do not put undue hardship on somebody else if I give less than all I have.

It's that stone throwing concept.....


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 31, 2011)

Flea said:


> No offense taken Bushido, but I think you misunderstand the dynamic at the "Gates of Hell." (Yeah, they actually call it that.)
> 
> At least when I was there, the majority of protesters were quiet reasonable people. They came, they said the Rosary on the sidewalk, and they left. It's mildly harassing, but they don't address the patients directly or impede their paths. And I have no problem with prayer at all. The problem with a setting like that is that it attracts wingnuts like flies to a turd. They're the ones who constitute the problem, and the reason most of us escort. It's never okay to scream in a stranger's face that they're going to hell, especially at a vulnerable time like that.
> 
> So yes, it's okay to have strong feelings about something. But we escorted to protect patients from those who didn't understand the line between having strong feelings and resorting to intimidation and threats. All of us escorts would have been much happier sleeping in on a Saturday if only there weren't a need for us.


 
:asian:


----------



## Flea (May 31, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Honestly, I wonder why abortion demonstrators aren't _more_ violent. I know what I'd do if I knew somebody within my arm's reach was going to kill a child...



Bushido, what are you saying here?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 31, 2011)

Actually, Flea...I've done what you did. In New Mexico, Washington and Oregon. As you saw, I found most of the people to be quiet and reasonable..along with a few yahoos. As you said, we all wished there was no need for us. 

What I'm "saying here" is, honestly, I find many abortion detractors cowardly.  If I knew..._knew_, not believed (I realize this is by nature theoretical)... my next door neighbor was going to get in his car tomorrow and kill a baby child...my neighbor would not live through the night. 

Since the objection to abortion is that it's "murdering a child" I'm surprised more people don't take stronger action than scaring already terrified 17-year-olds.


----------



## Flea (May 31, 2011)

Ah.  My bad.  I apologize. The way you worded it, I came away with approval for violence against providers.  Thanks for escorting.  It's hard work, and something I never want to have to do again.  Sadly, there will probably always be a call for it.


----------



## WC_lun (May 31, 2011)

The obvious answer is they do not believe it is murder.  They do believe it is the escape of the consequences of having sex.


----------



## Carol (May 31, 2011)

My sister is a fundamentalist Protestant...too much so for my taste. But, I admire her deeply.  Because not only did she raise two of her own, after they left the house she adopted a sibling unit of four (ages 6 to 14) at age 50.  

That's courage, character, bravery, faith, and a desire to actually live one's values instead of merely talking about them.

I disagree with her on many matters...but I still admire her greatly.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2011)

{In response to post#25 above} But don't believe in taking circumstances into consideration?

I do have to say tho', that I am much more in favour of 'birth control' before conception than after; it' s just that I cannot 'walk' in the shoes of women who have to make this hard choice, so I find it very difficult to criticise their decision ... especially when it is sometimes a choice that they have no realistic alternative but elect to take.


----------



## Blade96 (May 31, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Honestly, I wonder why abortion demonstrators aren't _more_ violent.



I am very glad that they aren't!


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 1, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> I am very glad that they aren't!



Damn straight.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 1, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> The obvious answer is they do not believe it is murder.  They do believe it is the escape of the consequences of having sex.



Or more to the point...they've been told so by people who's only sincere belief is that by painting it as murder, they'll get the political support of those who think it's wrong to escape the consequences of having sex.


----------



## cdunn (Jun 1, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> {In response to post#25 above} But don't believe in taking circumstances into consideration?
> 
> I do have to say tho', that I am much more in favour of 'birth control' before conception than after; it' s just that I cannot 'walk' in the shoes of women who have to make this hard choice, so I find it very difficult to criticise their decision ... especially when it is sometimes a choice that they have no realistic alternative but elect to take.


 
Things happen. Short of a hysterectomy, birth control fails. Sometimes, the child-to-be is wanted, but the biological development fails. The path from zygote to human is not trivial. Fetuses may be lacking entire systems of organs, may threaten the mother's life, and may, on occasion, be better described as lumps of cancerous flesh than as fetuses. 

As usual, it is a great melange of greys - no black and no white, no matter how much some people may wish otherwise.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Like many of the wedge issues in the US, I can't fault the protesters too much. If I honestly, in my heart, was _certain_ that abortion was the *murder of children* it's possible I'd be taking direct action.



I would agree if that were the case, but I don't think it is for the reasons I outlined.  Even if the protestors firmly believe that abortion is murder, their actions don't really back it up.  If children were being murdered, I wouldn't accept it if the murderer was a Christian virgin.  I wouldn't be too concerned about the sexual activities or morality of the murderer.  Nor would I try to deny the murderer other means to prevent the murder in the first place.  Nor would I not want the murderer to stand trial or go to jail for murder, which _very few _pro-life movement followers endorse.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I would agree if that were the case, but I don't think it is for the reasons I outlined.  Even if the protestors firmly believe that abortion is murder, their actions don't really back it up.  If children were being murdered, I wouldn't accept it if the murderer was a Christian virgin.  I wouldn't be too concerned about the sexual activities or morality of the murderer.  Nor would I try to deny the murderer other means to prevent the murder in the first place.  Nor would I not want the murderer to stand trial or go to jail for murder, which _very few _pro-life movement followers endorse.



That's sort of my point.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 1, 2011)

What pro abortion people seek to do is trivialize abortion. That is, to make it just one more medical procedure, that has nothing to do with morals. As far as the rape or incest question, its a bunch of crap. When incidents of rape and incest come within a factor of ten of producing the same number of pregnancies as casual sex, that might be a different story. Until then, it is nothing more than a stalking horse used to distract from the fact that the vast majority of abortions are preformed for convenience.


----------



## granfire (Jun 1, 2011)

Big Don said:


> What pro abortion people seek to do is trivialize abortion. That is, to make it just one more medical procedure, that has nothing to do with morals. As far as the rape or incest question, its a bunch of crap. When incidents of rape and incest come within a factor of ten of producing the same number of pregnancies as casual sex, that might be a different story. Until then, it is nothing more than a stalking horse used to distract from the fact that the vast majority of abortions are preformed for convenience.




STOP!

It's not 'pro abortion', it is _pro choice._

And that is the decisive difference: Pro choice is for the option, you may or not, if you choose.
Anti abortion/pro life aim to take the option away.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 1, 2011)

granfire said:


> STOP!
> 
> It's not 'pro abortion', it is _pro choice._
> 
> ...


The choice to wear plaid? The choice to walk funny? The choice to dye your hair? No, the choice to have an abortion, ergo, PRO ABORTION.


----------



## granfire (Jun 1, 2011)

Big Don said:


> The choice to wear plaid? The choice to walk funny? The choice to dye your hair? No, the choice to have an abortion, ergo, PRO ABORTION.




nope, still pro choice.
Let's see:
Pro choice does not drag women kicking and screaming into dark alleys to make them have abortions
Anti abortion forces a woman to deal with having a child regardless of circumstance, with no provision to help out with the consequences of said anti stance for the next 20 or so years. 

The difference is that pro choice does not superimpose personal ideas onto another person.
Anti abortion does this in a matter that is rather disturbing, since it does not affect you the slightest in any way if this woman is or is not having a child. But your stance on her body function greatly impacts her. See the difference? 

Like I said, I don't see too many people walk the walk on the pro life issue. That means, I see a lot of pro lifers, but non that put their money where their mouth is to defray the consequences incured by non abortion, like adopting or even fostering kids.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 1, 2011)

Yeah, because nobody adopts kids or fosters them anymore. There hasn't been one adoption since Roe v Wade...
The only choice those who use the term "pro choice" are about is the choice to have an abortion, pretending that isn't true is disingenuous.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 1, 2011)

Big Don said:


> What pro abortion people seek to do is trivialize abortion. That is, to make it just one more medical procedure, that has nothing to do with morals. As far as the rape or incest question, its a bunch of crap. When incidents of rape and incest come within a factor of ten of producing the same number of pregnancies as casual sex, that might be a different story. Until then, it is nothing more than a stalking horse used to distract from the fact that the vast majority of abortions are preformed for convenience.


 
Do you have _anything_ to back this up? Statistics showing the causes of aborted pregnancies for example? Maybe a study of the intake questionnaires? How about a study showing repeat abortions to indicate the frequency with which women consider abortion a convenient contraception method? Or is this all just ideological talking points? 

I'm being such a stickler about evidence because what you just typed assumes a lot, and makes pretty clear your preconceptions about the women getting abortions. I don't believe those preconceptions apply to most or even many of them, so I call B.S.

Personally, my belief about allowing abortion doesn't really depend on the motivations or sexual promiscuity of the women who get them because it's not about whether they get them, it's about their right to choose.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

Big Don said:


> When incidents of rape and incest come within a factor of ten of producing the same number of pregnancies as casual sex, that might be a different story. Until then, it is nothing more than a stalking horse used to distract from the fact that the vast majority of abortions are preformed for convenience.



Again, why does this matter to you?  If it's murder, then it doesn't matter whether it's performed for "convenience" or because you were raped.  A child is still murdered either way.  *The "rape and incest" clauses are only distractions because the debate has already effectively conceded the point that abortion is not murder*.  If that was in serious dispute, then the focus would be on murder, not assigning fault.

So if it's not murder, why does it have moral consequences?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Personally, my belief about allowing abortion doesn't really depend on the motivations or sexual promiscuity of the women who get them because it's not about whether they get them, it's about their right to choose.



Very true.  That's why asking for evidence on this point is a red herring.  It shifts the debate to "convenience vs. need", on assigning fault.  This really shouldn't matter to either side.

FWIW, I'm absolutely sure Don is correct on that point.  However, that point *should *be meaningless to *both *sides of the debate.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Very true. That's why asking for evidence on this point is a red herring. It shifts the debate to "convenience vs. need", on assigning fault. This really shouldn't matter to either side.
> 
> FWIW, I'm absolutely sure Don is correct on that point. However, that point *should *be meaningless to *both *sides of the debate.


 
This is a great point (and illustrates how easily I got distracted myself), but tying back to the OP, it seems the same representatives who made the original comments had similar misconceptions---blaming the victim, in a roundabout way. So even if it isn't logically a factor in allowing abortion (note, Don: not aborition itself, but allowing it) being 'right or wrong', it definitely seems relevant to the discussion....if we can call it that.


----------



## KELLYG (Jun 1, 2011)

When Rep. Barbara Bollier voiced concern for women who may become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, this exchange followed:
DeGraaf: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"
Bollier: "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with pregnancy?"
DeGraaf: "I have a spare tire on my car."
"I also have life insurance," he added. "I have a lot of things that I plan ahead for."

This exchange offends me to the very core. This DeGraaf person has insulted and degenerated all the people that have suffered from the Violent attack Rape. He has equated it as to checking to see if you have enough life insurance, or that your tires are in good shape before you drive. You don't plan ahead to get violated. 

As to what should be done after an attack that could result in pregnancy. I think that only the person that was attacked has the right to determine whether to keep the child (if pregnant) or not. There also is the Plan B pill that could be used. 

I personally do not support abortion, but I approve of a woman's right to choose!!! 

Since this Degraff person is Male any decision concerning conseption during rape has no bearing on his life at all.  

No offence to the Male species, just this Degraff (person).


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 1, 2011)

Pro-abortion.  That wording is so loaded and full of fail it is ridiculous.  I don't know of anyone that is thinks abortion is a good thing, as your phrase indicates.  It is the lesser of evils for every pro-CHOICE person I know.

Lets also make another thing clear, abortions have and will happen regardless if it is legal or not.  Many times putting the woman's life in danger.  I understand if a person is not in favor of keeping abortion legal, but seems to me that many of people with that belief could stop vilifying people that don't believe the same, and maybe care about the woman as much as they claim to care about the "unborn children."


----------



## Kacey (Jun 1, 2011)

granfire said:


> Then again, if their agenda was pure, they'd have a houseful of adopted kids and fosters. Plus raising money for scholar ship for kids of single moms.
> Last I heard, the county was looking for foster homes in a very bad way!



Indeed.  Anti-abortionists will convince women to choose to bear the child to term; sometimes, they will even help the women to receive medical care prior to and during birth.  Once the child is born, the mother and child are dropped like a hot potato.  If such people were truly concerned about the child, care would continue until the child is fully adult and has completed school.



cdunn said:


> Things happen. Short of a hysterectomy, birth control fails. Sometimes, the child-to-be is wanted, but the biological development fails. The path from zygote to human is not trivial. Fetuses may be lacking entire systems of organs, may threaten the mother's life, and may, on occasion, be better described as lumps of cancerous flesh than as fetuses.



This happened to a friend of mine; in fact, she nearly died of it.  Due to a genetic abnormality, her fetus died in utero.  Unfortunately for my friend, her insurance company sent her to a Catholic hospital, which performed abortions *only* if the mother's life was clearly in danger - so despite having determined that the fetus was dead, the hospital would not induce labor, nor perform a D&C (both methods of abortion) until she was in _clear, medical danger_.  Therefore, she stayed in the hospital for 4 days, knowing her fetus was dead inside of her, waiting to either go into labor naturally, or to develop an infection from the dead tissue that had been her fetus and go into toxic shock, at which point her life would be in danger - which is what happened.  She developed toxic shock, characterized by significant fever and massive infection, at which point the abortion was performed - at much greater risk to her life than if it had been done earlier.  Notice *the fetus was already dead* when all of this occurred - but the necessary procedure was technically an abortion, and _the hospital refused to do it until her life was in danger_.  

This is one of those cases where, to me, abortion is a clear and appropriate procedure - but because of moral objections to the word "abortion", despite medical proof that life had already ended, _it couldn't be done_.  I have never understood how this was a reasonable decision.



cdunn said:


> As usual, it is a great melange of greys - no black and no white, no matter how much some people may wish otherwise.



Definitely.  A Catholic friend of mine once told me that if she were raped and became pregnant as a result, she would bear the child and then give it up for adoption.  That's her choice.  I'm not sure I could do it, but I respect her adherence to her beliefs.

Bottom line:  if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.  But don't tell other people what they can and cannot in regards to abortion, unless you are willing to support your words with your actions, by providing for the child thus born through adulthood and beyond, just as you would for a child of your own.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 1, 2011)

i'd like to add that although pro lifers would insist a fetus is not a parasite, there are cases where, yes indeed it is a parasite that lives off its host and can even kill it. Its called 'fetus in fetu.' 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu


----------



## Nomad (Jun 1, 2011)

Kacey said:


> This happened to a friend of mine; in fact, she nearly died of it.  Due to a genetic abnormality, her fetus died in utero.  Unfortunately for my friend, her insurance company sent her to a Catholic hospital, which performed abortions *only* if the mother's life was clearly in danger - so despite having determined that the fetus was dead, the hospital would not induce labor, nor perform a D&C (both methods of abortion) until she was in _clear, medical danger_.  Therefore, she stayed in the hospital for 4 days, knowing her fetus was dead inside of her, waiting to either go into labor naturally, or to develop an infection from the dead tissue that had been her fetus and go into toxic shock, at which point her life would be in danger - which is what happened.  She developed toxic shock, characterized by significant fever and massive infection, at which point the abortion was performed - at much greater risk to her life than if it had been done earlier.  Notice *the fetus was already dead* when all of this occurred - but the necessary procedure was technically an abortion, and _the hospital refused to do it until her life was in danger_.
> 
> This is one of those cases where, to me, abortion is a clear and appropriate procedure - but because of moral objections to the word "abortion", despite medical proof that life had already ended, _it couldn't be done_.  I have never understood how this was a reasonable decision.



This is absolutely appalling, and well illustrates some of the quagmire associated with the politics surrounding abortions.  There is no way this should have been considered an abortion (abort meaning literally to stop), since the fetus was already dead, and the threat to the mother (their actual patient) was clear and 100% predictable.  To decide to wait until she was in danger of losing her life is at best criminal negligence, and clearly violates the hypocratic oath to "do no harm".

Personally, I think she has a phenomenal medical malpractice suit which she should pursue, not necessarily for the monetary recompense (though that might be nice too) but to force the institution in question to amend their rules on similar situations.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 1, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Personally, I think she has a phenomenal medical malpractice suit which she should pursue, not necessarily for the monetary recompense (though that might be nice too) but to force the institution in question to amend their rules on similar situations.



Include the insurance company too for requiring a policy holder to use an institute that won't perform medically necessary procedures.


----------



## granfire (Jun 1, 2011)

Kacey said:


> Definitely.  A Catholic friend of mine once told me that if she were raped and became pregnant as a result, she would bear the child and then give it up for adoption.  That's her choice.  I'm not sure I could do it, but I respect her adherence to her beliefs.
> 
> Bottom line:  if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.  But don't tell other people what they can and cannot in regards to abortion, unless you are willing to support your words with your actions, by providing for the child thus born through adulthood and beyond, just as you would for a child of your own.



Well, I suppose even she won't know until (hopefully never) is presented with the question.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 1, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, because nobody adopts kids or fosters them anymore. There hasn't been one adoption since Roe v Wade...



Um, I adopted my kid after Roe v Wade....and my aunt adopted my three cousins after RVW....I'm reasonably certain we're not the only ones.


----------



## Flea (Jun 1, 2011)

My aunt and uncle are on their 20th foster baby right now.  They also happen to be militantly pro-choice.  If I were any kind of a kid person I'd do likewise, but I've more than earned my community service stripes in other ways.


----------



## granfire (Jun 1, 2011)

Flea said:


> My aunt and uncle are on their 20th foster baby right now.  They also happen to be militantly pro-choice.  If I were any kind of a kid person I'd do likewise, but I've more than earned my community service stripes in other ways.



I can accept the position when it is backing up the consequences.

But that is not the rule. Rather the exception.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 1, 2011)

granfire said:


> I can accept the position when it is backing up the consequences.
> 
> But that is not the rule. Rather the exception.


Boy, you could sure apply that to incest and rape...


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 2, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Boy, you could sure apply that to incest and rape...



If you are going to continue to make this point, you could at least answer my question and tell us all why it matters.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 2, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Do you have _anything_ to back this up? Statistics showing the causes of aborted pregnancies for example? Maybe a study of the intake questionnaires? How about a study showing repeat abortions to indicate the frequency with which women consider abortion a convenient contraception method? Or is this all just ideological talking points?
> 
> I'm being such a stickler about evidence because what you just typed assumes a lot, and makes pretty clear your preconceptions about the women getting abortions. I don't believe those preconceptions apply to most or even many of them, so I call B.S.
> 
> Personally, my belief about allowing abortion doesn't really depend on the motivations or sexual promiscuity of the women who get them because it's not about whether they get them, it's about their right to choose.



I just looked 'em up. I'm pro-choice, but Big Don is right about this. Medical necessity and rape/incest combined come in at 7 percent of stated reasons for abortion. Most common are "unready for responsibility" and "can't afford baby" -- 21 percent each for a total of 42 percent.

Those aren't the cavalier attitude I think BD assumes, but it's still pretty sad. The problem could be solved by adoption. Contrary to BD's other post, it's still very easy to find a home for an infant.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 2, 2011)

I agree that adoption is a much better option than abortion.  If only every case where this was a real possibility would it happen.  However, carrying a baby to term still has economic repurcussions and is a lot of responsibility.


----------



## cdunn (Jun 2, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I agree that adoption is a much better option than abortion. If only every case where this was a real possibility would it happen. However, carrying a baby to term still has economic repurcussions and is a lot of responsibility.


 
Health repercussions as well. The process is non-trivial. A lot of both could be minimized by a stronger health care system, but that costs the community money.

Better, and cheaper, in the first place is to make it both easier, and more acceptable, to choose not to get pregnant in the first place. That'll take real sex education, and resources placed into making birth control readily available - and non-stigmatized.


----------



## Flea (Jun 3, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> The problem could be solved by adoption. Contrary to BD's other post, it's still very easy to find a home for an infant.



Not necessarily.  Adoption is an extremely lengthy and expensive process in the US.  Not only can the legal situations of the birth family be a swamp impossible to navigate, but racial barriers remain a significant issue in adoption.  As with GLBT households and those wanting to adopt as single parents.  Many adoptive parents try to adopt American children first, and ultimately turn overseas in frustration.  Would that it were not so.

Out of curiosity, I googled "abortion clinic" in my new city and found two.  One private OB-GYN practice, and the local Planned Parenthood.  I've been driving past the PP for a year now and had no idea it was even there, much less that they offered abortion services.  No pickets, no photoshopped giant posters of foeti, no one saying the Rosary.  * sigh * I knew I'd moved here for a reason.  Welcome home.


----------

