It’s always interesting to read After Abortion, if only as a sort of portal into an alternate universe, in which pro-choicers are evil evil subhuman demons who only favor reproductive rights because we just hate babies that much.
This comment by After Abortion reader “Selma” really impressed me for how much it got wrong in so few words. It seems worth blogging about because so many pro-lifers seem to share Selma’s mistakes. Let’s take a look:
This supports the pro-lifer belief that intact D&X is absolutely, positively never needed (and thus, women won’t be hurt if it is banned). Unfortunately, Selma’s quote lies by omission – she’s only quoted part of the paragraph. Here’s the whole paragraph:
Quite a difference those extra two sentences make, don’t you think? In fact, the AMA (which has gone back and forth on the PBA ban) is, in this statement, taking the opposite point of view from Selma. They’re saying that there may be some times when alternative procedures could be riskier for women, and that doctors need to be able to have intact D&X as an option.
Selma is like a movie ad which quotes a reviewer as saying “A great movie!,” when in reality the reviewer wrote “if you want to see a great movie, avoid seeing this stinker.”
Anyhow, Selma goes on:
But pro-choicers don’t have “preferred methods,” in the sense of liking one abortion procedure better or worse than another. That pro-lifers like Selma think pro-choicers “prefer” intact D&X shows how utterly ignorant they are of what pro-choicers think. Pro-choicers don’t favor any single medical procedure; we just favor a process in which women and their doctors have the freedom to choose what’s best for themselves. (Pro-lifers, in contrast, want the choices to be made by the federal government.)
Selma goes on:
Of course, pro-choicers don’t care about women; we’re all unfeeling, evil demons. Boy, Selma’s sure got our number.
But another misconception here is more interesting: Selma believes that “parital-birth abortion” and “D&X” are the same thing. That’s not true. Here’s what intact D&X means, according to the AMA:
That’s what an intact D&X is, according to medical authorities. Compare that to how pro-lifers officially define “partial-birth abortion”:
`(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus;
So an intact D&X, by definition, is feet-first (“footling”). “Partial-birth” abortion, on the other hand, includes head-first deliveries. Why is that important? Because second trimester D&E abortions can be head-first; late-term D&X abortions, in contrast, are never head-first. By sticking in the “head-first” language, pro-lifers are trying to sneak a ban of second trimester D&E abortions (the most common and safest procedure for women who need second-trimester abortions) into law – and claim that they’re just trying to ban late-term D&X abortions. They could never get the votes to ban second-trimester D&Es honestly, so they do it by lying instead.
Similarly, the specific way intact D&X abortions kill the fetus – by removing the contents of the skull – isn’t part of the “partial birth abortion” definition. Instead, “parital birth abortions” forbid any “overt act” that would kill the fetus. Again, by being vague, the pro-lifers get to pass a ban that would in fact apply to many different abortion procedures, but they claim they’re only after D&X.
Finally, the medical definition of intact D&X specifically distinguishes D&X from D&E abortions. Of course, the partial birth ban doesn’t do that, because the entire point is to include D&E abortions.
I don’t think “Selma” is deliberately lying – she’s just parroting what the pro-life leadership says. Nonetheless, it’s a lie to claim that “intact D&X” and “partial-birth” abortions are the same thing..
I don’t know how long ago that happened to you, Lauren, and I am very sorry for all the hardship you went through. I do understand your fear for your survival back then. I guess all I can say, given what I know now from personal experience, is that I know women and girls who have been in your same situation and have instead, at least recently, found that somehow, in a way they couldn’t have foreseen, help came their way and made it possible for them to survive without having the abortion. Admittedly it happens more now in the past decade or so than it did when I had my abortion 25 years ago. But while it seemed likely you might have OD’d and died had you not aborted, it is also possible that the “impossible” – real help for you – might have been given to you. There are now over 3,400 places in the U.S. [ http://optionline.org/locate.html ] delivering that kind of compassionate help to girls and women in crisis pregnancies, for no cost and no strings attached, and not just to women who were victims of rape or incest, either. I know some Christians have gotten the true message of Christ’s compassion screwed up, and they give the majority not just a bad but a hideous name. If someone finds a condemning Christian in any group offering real assistance, then I say, move on and find one who ISN’T. But my friends and I also offer that kind of help to women who are just like you were, at the last minute as they walk into the abortion clinic, and every time, between 1 and 6 women change their minds and accept the help we offer: getting them signed up for free medical care from the state, food and clothes for themselves and their other kids if they have them, rides to/from docs’ offices & hospital on their babies’ bdays. I have a spare bedroom I’ve offered to women who need a place to live, others also do the same, and my friends have a warehouse down the street filled with baby supplies and even have helped find jobs for the girls’ boyfriends and go visit them in the hospital when their babies are born. These women come back to visit us at the sidewalk outside the abortion clinic even a year or two later, bringing their children with them. And every single one of them tells us of the turnaround in their luck: after deciding to keep their babies, their boyfriends/husbands got fantastic new, well-paying jobs, and next they were able to afford a car, and eventually a nice home of their own, and the good luck or “blessings” just continue. I use the word blessings because it’s the word the women use themselves.
I wasn’t sure whether to tell you all this. Certainly it is not meant to minimize or belittle your troubles back then, nor the supreme difficulty of your decision. I know other women who also aborted because their lives were in serious danger also [ here’s one, with a disease in which pregnancy causes vomiting 4-20 or more times a day…and which killed Charlotte Bronte, author of _Jane Eyre_ : http://hyperemesisgravidarum.blogspot.com/ and also her main blog is at http://thesiclecell.blogspot.com/ ]. The truth is, none of us really know for certain “what might have been” because we didn’t choose that path, and now, FWIW, I personally see dozens of women a year choosing that path now and finding nothing but goodness and survival help in situation after situation.
We’re just trying to offer the help and the alternative that women really deserve, Lauren, the one that wasn’t available to me 25 years ago, and perhaps not to you either, the one that pro-choice people are crying out that we pro-lifers DON’T offer or care to offer, and we’re doing it even though we have to do it personally and out of our own pockets. Those pregnancy centers I referred to above don’t take a dime from the pregnant moms or dads, ever. It’s all funded by private donors, and run 99% by volunteers. Those who do get a salary (and who are mostly post-abortive, formerly-rabid-pro-choice advocates) take massive paycuts from what they used to make in corporate America. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, in 2002-03, got $254.4 million in taxpayer money (yours and my money), and made $36 million in profit and paid lots of high-paid workers and lobbyists from the pockets of the 1 million women a year who pay a few hundred dollars per abortion. It isn’t in PP’s best interests truly to advocate for any other “choice” since they would put themselves out of business if they did. Please don’t dismiss the hundreds of thousands of us who ARE actively giving compassionate financial/medical/emotional/survival help to women every week, every day, for as long as it takes to help get them (back) on their feet. We ARE out there. The mass media and the abortion industry don’t want anyone to know we’re there, or that we really do care to come up with solutions that help the women, not just the babies. I hold a sign at the abortion clinic that says just that: “Please let us help YOU, not just your baby.”
Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, in 2002-03, got $254.4 million in taxpayer money (yours and my money), and made $36 million in profit and paid lots of high-paid workers and lobbyists from the pockets of the 1 million women a year who pay a few hundred dollars per abortion. It isn’t in PP’s best interests truly to advocate for any other “choice” since they would put themselves out of business if they did.
[snort] I know I’m wasting my breath, but does anyone of a more neutral position have any concrete proof that Annie isn’t just blowing smoke up our collective noses again with this little gem du jour ? While you’re at it, dig up Haliburton’s or the Pentagon’s or the Catholic Church’s budget (and their collective burden on taxpayers) so she can REALLY got to town !!
Annie, what part of “Planned Parenthood is a women’s health center, not an abortion mill” do you fail to understand ? Never mind, don’t even bother answering. Pointless. Totally pointless.
P.S.– Thanks for the props, zoe. :)
And every single one of them tells us of the turnaround in their luck: after deciding to keep their babies, their boyfriends/husbands got fantastic new, well-paying jobs, and next they were able to afford a car, and eventually a nice home of their own, and the good luck or “blessings” just continue. I use the word blessings because it’s the word the women use themselves.
Every single one? Hm. Since I decided to become a single parent my life isn’t shit, but it is certainly lacking in a few areas. The babydaddy has yet to get a good job or support himself. I can’t afford a car and the most expensive thing I own is this computer. What kind of blessings are we talking about, exactly?
But I (repeat I, as the mother, why should we feel blessed that babymama’s husband/boyfriend got the job?) am working toward that well-paying job, and despite me meeting the pro-life requirements of carrying a pregnancy to term, I’m not particularly fond of pro-life congratulations.
Isn’t it up to me to define my own existence? Yeah.
While I suppose you can see yourself as a different kind of radical, I’m not too keen on people who stand outside of clinics holding signs and harassing the women walking indoors. Frankly, at a Planned Parenthood, you don’t know what they’re there for, in in all truth, they’re more likely there for a yearly or a birth control refill than an abortion. And Planned Parenthood’s spending habits are less of a concern for me than that we have easy access to birth control and real medical information than the tripe that W wants to provide. Sexual education should be factual, not based on a shrill emotional appeal. Period.
Locally, we have organizations like you mention that provide support for mother and baby should she carry the pregnancy to term, but these support systems are intended to help women through the first year or two. Babies keep on growing. Are we not interested in children?
My advice, if we are truly keen on saving the children of the world (which I have absolutely no problem with), is to volunteer for children’s advocacy groups like CASA and community organizations that bring together support for families of all stripes. Start organizations that show parents how to parent and organize cheap, affordable daycare that doesn’t have a waiting list two miles long. Those things are much better in the long run than a group that gives me a package of diapers and pats itself on the back for it’s job well done.
Show kids how to put condoms on bananas while simultaneously showing them just how gross some STIs really are. Explain abstinence alongside contraceptive use and give kids directions to the local PP so they can get themselves some damned birth control.
If we want to talk about abortion, we have to talk about sex. If we want to reduce abortion (alas, you’ll never eradicate it) we have to talk candidly about sex, responsibility, context, poverty, power, and privilege.
Like I said before, saying abortion should be illegal is saying it’s okay for women to die of botched, back-alley surgery, that the desperation of an unplanned pregnancy that results in a woman dying of inserting firecrackers and bleach into her vagina is preferable to abortion. There are no easy answers or situations when it comes to unplanned pregnancy, sexual relationships, and the low wall between religious morality and govenrment, and it’s ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
Amy asked:
” I know I’m wasting my breath, but does anyone of a more neutral position have any concrete proof that Annie isn’t just blowing smoke up our collective noses again with this little gem du jour?”
According to their 2003 Annual Report Planned Parenthood received $254.4 million in Government grants and contracts. $254.0 million was to PP affiliates and $400000 went to the National Office. The $36 million dollars is listed in the report as “Excess of revenue over expenses”.
I’m not sure what the lots of high paid workers and lobbyists are. The National Office seems not to have spent anything for public policy though the affiliates spent $39.5 million.
(the Annual Report can be viewed here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/PPFA_annreport03.pdf)
Oh, I forgot another little quibble. How can we blame PP for “taking money from mothers and fathers” for abortion and keep Medicaid from funding it?
Another note: Medicaid only offers one month of birth control after baby is born. Where are people like me supposed to go after that? The family planning clinic. Planned Parenthood.
Amy S., the #s are from PP’s own Annual Report. And this is the part of “what part of ‘Planned Parenthood is a women’s health center, not an abortion mill'” that anyone would fail to understand, given the numbers:
PPFA income 2002-2003…………..2001-2002
Total …..$766.6 million………$692.5 million
Clinic operation $288.2 million…$254.8 million
Taxpayer money $254.4 million…..$240.9 million
Donations $228.1 million……… $190.9 million
Profit $36.6 million…………. $12.2 million
PPFA Services …..2002………..2001
Surgical abortions 227,375……..213,026
Emergency contraception (which if fertilization takes place, causes an abortion of the human life/embryo) 633,756…469,578
Prenatal care …..15,860………15,618
Adoption referrals 1,963……….1,951
227,375 abortions out of 243,235 possible pregnancies they saw in one year. That’s 93.5%. And less than 1% of their services are adoption referrals.
“women’s health center?” Emergency contraception already has led to an increase in sexually-transmitted disease: in Washington state, where teens already get the Morning-After Pill “over-the-counter,” chlamydia rose nearly 20%. Chlamydia causes painful diseases: PID in women, and in men, epididymis. Left untreated, these diseases can be life-threatening and cause infertility. [ http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-willsprint032102.html ]
Last May, a UK study showed that, after 4 years of dispensing free MAPs to females, 612% more British men and 206% more women got syphilis between 1996 and 2001. Chlamydia jumped over 100%; gonorrhea, herpes and genital warts also rose substantially. Gonorrhea and syphilis increase the risk of getting HIV.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040104-102915-6931r.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/std/Gonorrhea/STDFact-gonorrhea.htm
and the UK study is at http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=25704 and
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdclam.htm and http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdsyph.htm and
Just last month, the CDC said drug-resistant gonorrhea is breaking out in Boston worse than it has these past four years in Seattle, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia and Las Vegas. Gonorrhea can damage the prostate, joints and bloodstream, and can kill you. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1995/9503/950310.PDF
The AP recently reported that “[MAPs] are high-dose birth control pills…” Studies show that women taking birth control pills are 14 times more likely to develop blood clots from airplane travel [ http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/22/2771 ] and those using birth control pills for 10 or more years double their risk of cervical cancer (which kills 5,000 women yearly). If they took it for 5-9 years, the risk is increased 60%. [http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/news/pressreleases/cervical ]
Sorry but Planned Parenthood is not really that concerned with “women’s health” if they’re dispensing 633,756 of these “safe” pills a year.
As I said, Amy, I don’t stand outside harassing anyone. In fact, I fight against the old school Christians who stood there 25 years ago and harassed and condemned ME and STILL STAND THERE AND DO SO today, so I can offer help to these women and girls. THAT is what I do. I offer them concrete help, and some of them take it. My sign simply tells them I’m here to help THEM, not just their babies, because sometimes my words of help cannot be heard above the bullhorn of the elderly, hateful man who condemns them just as he condemned me 25 years ago, and maybe they’ll see my sign and know I’m NOT LIKE HIM.
Correction, that was Lauren, not Amy, who said “While I suppose you can see yourself as a different kind of radical, I’m not too keen on people who stand outside of clinics holding signs and harassing the women walking indoors.”
Did I not say we are “giving compassionate financial/medical/emotional/survival help to women every week, every day, for as long as it takes to help get them (back) on their feet”? It doesn’t stop with “a pack of diapers” but goes on as long as is needed.
>”Oh, I’m adamantly anti-abortion. I would like to outlaw it totally. But before we can do that (the outlawing part) we must make sure that sex education is un-biased and tell kids about all the different kinds of birth control there are.”
Sex education is not nearly as effective as its advocates claim. Abstinence is a lot more viable. But the education kids get is all about unreliablely “safer” sex.
>”And we must make sure that all kinds of birth control is 100% safe, never fails, available and very cheap. And the “abortion-pill” must be available, cheap and 100% safe and never fail.”
Why all kinds? Abstinence is 100% safe and doesn’t fail. It is as cheap as can be. The availability depends on the individual and the supports provided by peers and others.
>”And we must make sure that every conceived fetus is wanted.”
Or every sexually active person clearly understands the responsibility that comes with intercourse. If you want “it” then be prepared for possible consequences. At the least that might mean carrying a birth through to adoption (or standing with the woman if you’re the guy who induced conception).
>”And we must make sure that every conceived fetus will be born into some sort of family (not necessarily an opposite-sex couple) that will love it, cherish it, be good parents, and have a some economic means to support it.”
Single moms, and single dads, and same-sex couples may be the best available solution for a given child’s particular circumstances. As for economic means, I hope this doesn’t mean state nannies because that would undermine the first principle of being prepared for possible consequences of sexual behavior.
>”Until we can’t do that with a 100% certainty: I’m pro-choice.”
All these reasons are social lifestyle reasons and don’t seem to have much to do with the health of the woman who becomes pregnant. Meanwhile the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice — that is for legal abortion only in hard cases (rape, incest, life of mother or severe threat to physical health of mother). Roe makes restrictions on the other cases next to impossible; but allows abortion for all of the quasi reasons you listed. And those are the reasons given for about 97% of the one million-plus abortions performed each year in our country.
For what it is worth, I don’t believe that women who abort for social reasons are heartless; they may make a difficult, and often misinformed, choice when they and their male partners discard a human life because of a “mistake” made by sexually mature adults. Unintended is not the same as unwanted or mistimed. It is not the same as inflicted as in a rape or incest. Saying that this or that contraceptive was faulty or less than 100% failsafe is another way of society (and the individual) evading responsibility before, during, and after.
In hard cases a crime committed doesn’t make the choice any easier, but more understandable. It is even more difficult when a mother must choise between her own life, or health, and that of the child she carries. These are deeply personal choices, sure, and yet society should be struggling with how to draw the line between the circumstances in which an abortion is the individual’s choice — yes or no — and in which abortion is society’s choice to permit — yes or no.
Having faced such a choice I have learned that abortion even in hard cases is far more like an act of homicide than a medical procedure or a form of late birth control; until I was required to make my choice, I had not understood the gravity of holding the power to end an innocent life. Although abortion, like homicide, can sometimes be justified, it still leaves blood on the hands of both sexual partners. It is natural and humane to experience it in that way, I believe.
Just as society *should* struggle with drawing and redrawing the lines, each individual who finds herself, or himself, in the circumstances *should* struggle with both the choice and the aftermath. And more, each should struggle with the choice before it ever becomes necessary — to better appreciate the responsibilities involved in sexual behavior between consenting adults. And that’s why people who speak up against abortion are right to do so. And they are properly tested by those who speak the other side of the issue. It is a struggle because human life is at stake — and not just that of the fetus, or unborn, but also of those living with the full status of “person”. Our own humanity is reflected in how our society handles abortion access.
I just reread this before posting and it sure sounds unseemly grim. Heh. Not exactly the thoughts one might want to have knocking about one’s head while in the sack with a lovely. But maybe such thoughts have been pushed too far from the direct experience of intimate relations in modern times. And I include myself…
Well, I hope my views are welcomed, if not entirely agreed with or understand by those with views are much closer to unrestricted access. Cheers.
Thank you for speaking up, chairm. I for one welcome your posting your views. You are right about abstinence and although there are several studies and links that could be posted, they won’t be appreciated by most readers here, unfortunately.
Annie, the only link between the use of the morning-after pill and STDs appears to be in the fantasies of yourself and your fellow zealots. In some of the statistics you cite, you don’t even specify whether the rises in STD’s are among women at all, much less women of childbearing years. Do you get all your links from your fellow fundies, or what ?
As for this:
PPFA Services …..2002………..2001
Surgical abortions 227,375……..213,026
Emergency contraception (which if fertilization takes place, causes an abortion of the human life/embryo) 633,756…469,578
Prenatal care …..15,860………15,618
Adoption referrals 1,963……….1,951
Yes, Annie. I see your point. This has nothing to do with women’s health. It’s just dreadful. Dreadful !! All of this is far more unhealthy for women than back alleys or compulsory childbearing would be. [smacks forehead] I’ve seen the light. Thank You, oh, Thank You. I’m gonna’ march right over there after work and demand back the money for my pap smear and counselling on tubal ligation last year. I mean, I could’ve diiiiiied !!!
I’d love to discuss the annual report –or rather your version of it– which I don’t much trust as you are clearly not trustworthy on this subject, but all that comes up when I use my search engine is more crap from your fellow zealots, so I think I’ll either wait for Deep River to rush to the rescue or until I have time to get away from my office’s firewall, whichever comes first.
But you and your new friend chairm here enjoy prattling about the superiority of abstinence over birth control. I’m sure you’ll have fun going back to your extremely selective well for the figures on that one. ‘Bye.
*long, exhausted, “been there, done that” sigh*
I can’t help but admire Annie B.’s persistence, which at this point is exceeding my ability to keep up with her sham reasonings and deceptive stats. I can’t say I’m really surprised, as she has the endless energy of the self-righteous religious zealot and the shrewd understanding of emotional manipulation you’ll find in the greatest telephone psychics. Given the slickness of her advertising pitch (which all of her posts have been pretty much) I’m tempted to think she’s a public relations employee for “Silent no More,” the anti-choice company you reach when you click her name.
Let’s be honest. Why am I fighting her? Because I know what she’s after. She’s patrolling sites like this looking for the handful of people who have been raised in/bombarded by an anti-abortion culture into feeling guilty about their support for choice. She hopes her impressive but ultimately one-sided and/or distorted statistics will bamboozle such people into seeing her as a reasonable individual instead of the religious fanatic draped in selective-thinking and pseudoscience that she is. She knows such a tactic can be transparent however, so she buries the targeted board with a veritable avalanche of cherry-picked statistics she can readily copy-paste from blinder-wearing anti-choice sites and filtered pro-choice sites.
Now, anyone familiar with her kind knows most of the “facts” she is using are out of context, proven false, collected by biased institutions, inaccurate, irrelevant, or simply fabricated. But she’s not after those who understand what is really at stake. She wants those fence sitters, those still harboring misplaced feelings of inbuilt cultural guilt, those who won’t have the time or the fortitude to fact-check each and every one of her seductively reasonable looking hooks.
It’s worth noting how perfect a hunting ground the internet is for her, since the vast majority of internet sites about abortion are anti-choice, a product of their endless crusader energy and the fact that they have had to retreat to the online world. This sad fact is just another reminder of how the pro-choice side has grown complacent over the last thirty years, satisfied with the tenuous and slipping legality of its right to self control, mostly unaware of the approaching tyranny (at least until they go to get an abortion and discover an endless series of new bureaucratic hoops they have to jump through). Only when the women of this country have once again been relegated to brood mare status will they gather up the outrage to inevitably turn back the tide, but in the meantime millions of full fledged lives will have been stunted, ruined, or ended.
All this is why I fight her, but I don’t know if I can keep it up. My time is limited (I have a life), I can’t run to the library every time I need to discredit her “only a click away” pool of ever ready dubious facts, and I honestly wonder if it’s worth fighting for this tiny corner of cyberspace. What’s worse, I know there are hundreds of others like her, fishing for misinformed fence sitters all over the internet, using the same enduring arguments over and over. It’s tiring revisiting this ground time after time, and they can never run out of energy, fueled as they are by religious outrage.
I’ll end this post by giving the visitors of this site some credit. I’ll assume anyone who comes to Alas is by necessity intelligent, and can realize the obvious. Annie B. and her ilk are only telling you a third of the story. It’s her JOB to tell you only a third of the story, to say any more is contrary to her interpretation of her religious beliefs.
Actually, research suggests that abstinence education alone is ineffective. Abstinence education along with education on contraceptives does much better (also known as Comprehensive Sex Education).
Annie conveniently forgot, in her list of services done by Planned Parenthood, routine gynecological examinations, treatment of gynecological conditions, and birth control prescriptions. That’s where a significant portion of the “taxpayer money” comes from – Medicaid and state health plan reimbursement for unquestionably legitimate medical procedures.
Annie conveniently forgot, in her list of services done by Planned Parenthood, routine gynecological examinations, treatment of gynecological conditions, and birth control prescriptions. That’s where a significant portion of the “taxpayer money” comes from – Medicaid and state health plan reimbursement for unquestionably legitimate medical procedures.
Damn double posts.
Annie, perhaps you should know that correlation does not prove causation, re your venereal disease statistics. You cite an increase in chlamydia among people in Washington State, but fail to compare it to regional or national statistics.
You cite to an astounding increase in syphilis, yet fail to indicate that the increase is due to a low rate previous to the increase, or that there has been a huge upsurge of syphilis among gay men, thanks to the idiotic practice of “barebacking” (anal sex without a condom).
You also fail to point out that Planned Parenthood ALSO DISTRIBUTES CONDOMS, which, when used properly, significantly reduce the possibility of transmission of STDs, as well as Planned Parenthood clinics offering examinations and treatment for STDs.
chairm, I think Jocelyn Elders had a good idea a few years ago. Remember, masturbation is just another form of abstinence.
Lauren has it right: sex education for pre-teens and teens should have a realistic mix of tools to prevent irresponsible sex, practical demonstrations of birth control and the consequences of pregnancy and STDs, and abortion as a last resort.
While this model will significantly reduce unintended pregnancies (and abortions), it’ll never be implemented in many parts of the United States, since the fundamentalists in charge think teens are “pure vessels” and also believe you’re either abstinent or a dirty little slut who deserves to have a painful delivery and give your baby to the nice upper-middle-class people their adoption agency serves.
Back on Planet Reality, I’d like to see Lauren’s model implemented everywhere.
Links to the Washington Times, the CDC, Princeton University, the NIH, Cancer Research UK and JAMA Archives of Internal Medicine are “fellow fundies” and “zealots?” You may never get it, unfortunately. Because if you did, your whole collective belief system would come crashing down on your heads, and your worlds with it. I won’t change your minds. I knew that. But perhaps someone lurking here, who disagrees with most of you trying to tear me to shreds but who cannot possibly face the same treatment from you, perhaps that someone who regrets her abortion might just go to the Silent No More website and seek and FIND the referral to the relief she now realizes she’s been looking for all her life perhaps without even knowing it (as I didn’t know it for 20+ years of denial). And not one of us here on this blog, neither you nor I, need ever know about her doing so. And that is just as it should be. Listen to yourselves and your venom. You (almost) all are the reason why we have remained silent so very long.
Your persecution and name-calling of me matters not, except that it actually benefits me in ways you may never know. BTW, I am the Connecticut State volunteer contact for Silent No More, to which it costs nothing to belong.(unpaid, spare time; it’s 5:15 PM here and I run my own small company so I can take time here or there since I’ll make up for the volunteer work by working late nights or weekends, putting in a 50+ hour total work week). I’m one of tens of thousands (and growing) grateful and voluntary members. As the name says, it’s an awareness campaign, not a company. We’re just women who have been hurt by our abortions (and some men who regret their involvement with abortion), and whose truth will not be silenced by this kind of persecution any longer. I wish you all the best, whether you believe that or not. And if anyone ever does “change their mind,” it doesn’t matter what you’ve said to me here. You can always write. I’ve been where you are now, so I know what it’s like and don’t hold grudges. DOING THAT would be hypocritical.
I came late to this blog but the American Medical Association endorsed the “Partial Abortion” bill as a trade-off. According to Julius B. Richmond, MD of the Harvard Medical School:
“For readers to understand how the AMA suddenly adopted a policy supporting the legislation against “partial-birth abortion” last year, they should know that the AMA hired the consulting firm Booz Allen & Hamilton.
Not surprisingly, the firm’s report found that AMA leaders, bypassing proper decision-making processes, traded possible congressional support of more favorable Medicare payments for physicians in return for support of the abortion legislation then pending in Congress. The report* indicates that AMA lobbyists were no match for the congressional tranders.”
* Pear R. Inquiry criticizes AMA backing of abortion procedure ban, NEW YORK TIMES, Dec. 4, 1998: A27.
More anecdotal stuff: I had a DIY abortion in 1964 after having 3 children in 4 years and a legal one in 1974 after contraceptiv failure with the Dalkon shield for which I received a settlement from AH Robbins of $5000. Legal is better.
Isn’t the Washington Times a Moonie rag ?
Yeah, that Rev. Moon, definitely the guy I want to talk over my moral issues with.
Gevalt.
Persecution she says!
Enough paranoid b*llshit Annie. No one is persecuting women who regret abortion, we are protesting agains those who USE such women to serve a theocratic agenda! It would only be persecution if we were FORCING you to have an abortion, otherwise we’re only defending a right.
You, however, ARE a persecutor, demanding that women be forced to bear children regardless of their will or beliefs.
If it really was just about helping women then you would TRUST those who say they have no regrets and move along to needy cases instead of lingering to implant doubt or manipulate guilt out of them. Do you even realize how insultingly patriarchal you are being when you insist that women have no idea what’s good for them?
As for your “oh so official” links (which were pointed out to you by your anti-choice friend, so don’t give me that unfiltered canard), read some of what the other posters have dredged up. They demonstrate that through wishful thinking You connect things that are unconnected and ignore contexts and equally official information that is contrary to what you want to believe. Your credibility is thin, and given time we could probably counter every RELEVANT (because as I pointed out in several posts some of the things you avalanche on us don’t even matter) argument you have, but then you’d just go back to your library of accumulated distortions and repeat the process.
Oh, and while I’m here, you still haven’t responded to this (two can play the credibility avalanche game Annie dear, and there will be more if you insist):
The mental health of women faced with unwanted pregnancy is at greater risk when they are compelled to deliver than when they are allowed to choose abortion. According to one study, 34 percent of women who were denied abortions reported one to three years later that the child was a burden that they frequently resented. Dagg, Paul K. B. (1991). “The Psychological Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion – Denied and Completed.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(5), 578-585.
Although only a small minority of women report severe negative emotional effects post-abortion, the idea that abortion has severe negative effects continues to be widespread by abortion opponents (Boyle, 1997; Russo & Denious, 2001). The fact is that anti-abortion groups have invented this condition to further their cause. The American Psychiatric Association does not recognize “post-abortion syndrome” (1994), and all of the studies that purport to prove PAS contain methodological flaws that render their conclusions nongeneralizable beyond their subjects. The most egregious flaw common to all of these studies is that ONLY WOMEN WHO ALREADY SELF-IDENTIFIED AS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH ABORTION WERE RECRUITED FOR THEM. For example:
In her doctoral dissertation, “The Psycho-Social Aspects of Stress Following Abortion,” Anne Catherine Speckhard chronicled how “abortion functions as a stressor” (Speckhard, 1985). However, she drew her conclusions from a subject pool of 30 women who “had high-stress abortion experiences” (Speckhard, 1985). As a result, in unpublished correspondence, her doctoral advisor clarified that Speckhard’s “findings apply only to the 30 women who volunteered to participate in her study and to absolutely no one else” (Boss, 1986). In fact, there is little evidence to support the notion that abortion will lead to severe psychological sequelae among the general population of women. The American Psychological Association assembled an expert panel to review the evidence of psychological risks of abortion. This panel concluded “the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women. (Beckman, 1998).
In his survey of women who had abortions, David Reardon found that 94 percent of his respondents experienced negative psychological effects (Reardon, 1987). However, he used a biased subject pool, drawing only from members of an anti-choice group called Women Exploited by Abortion (WEBA).
To demonstrate that adolescents suffer greater psychological consequences after abortion than adults, Wanda Franz and David Reardon examine data from “a survey of organizations [such as WEBA] serving as support groups for women who have had negative reactions to abortion” (Franz & Reardon, 1992). They conclude by making generalizations about the effects of abortion on all adolescents, even though they derive their data from a non-representative, highly biased subject pool. In fact, a recent study of young women found that there is no evidence that abortion poses a threat to adolescents psychological well-being (Pope, 2001).
In an unpublished but widely circulated paper, Terry Selby limits her discussion of “post-abortion trauma” to “a population of women who have presented themselves in a general mental health practice with a variety of presenting psychological and psycho-social issues” (Selby, 1984).
In 1987, a white paper was presented to former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop describing the “problem” of PAS. In the paper, the writers admit, “the psychological risks of abortion are based mainly upon studies which have used small, uncontrolled and non-representative samples” and “cannot be predictive of national estimates” (Rue et al., 1987).
And here’s a follow up on good old Koop:
“Furthermore, in closed meetings in 1988, Koop told representatives from several anti-abortion organizations that the risk of significant emotional problems following abortion was “minuscule” from a public health perspective (House Committee on Government Operations, 1989).”
Sources are drawn from the following list (which includes other uncited but equally good stats and conclusions):
Adler, Nancy E. (1989). University of California at San Francisco, Statement on Behalf of the American Psychological Association Before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Operations, U. S. House of Representatives: 130-140.
Adler, Nancy E., et al. (1990). “Psychological Responses after Abortion.” Science, 248(4951), 41-44.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IVä), 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Armsworth, Mary W. (1991). “Psychological Response to Abortion.” Journal of Counseling and Development, 69 (March/April), 377-379.
Arthur, Joyce. (1997). “Psychological Aftereffects of Abortion: The Rest of the Story.” The Humanist, 2(57), 7.
Ashton, J. R. (1980). “The Psychological Outcome of Induced Abortion.” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 87(12), 1115-1122.
Barber, Jennifer S., et al. (1999). “Unwanted Childbearing, Health, and Mother-Child Relationships.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40(3), 231-257.
Beckman, Linda J. and S. Marie Harvie,Ed. (1998). The New Civil War: The Psychology, Culture, and Politics of Abortion. American Psychological Association: Washington D.C.
Beeson, Diane, et al. (1983). “Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Disorders. Part II: Issues and Implications.” Birth, 10(4), 233-241.
Berzewski, H. (1984). “Psychological and Social Disorders of Turkish Women during an Unaccepted Pregnancy in a Foreign Country.” International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 30(4), 275-282. Boss, Pauline to David W. Lohman, 20 October 1986.
Boyle, Mary. (1997). Re-thinking Abortion: Psychology, Gender, Power and the Law. Routledge: New York.
Bradley, Christine F. (1984). “Abortion and Subsequent Pregnancy.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 494-498.
Brewer, Colin. (1977). “Incidence of post-abortion psychosis: A prospective study.” British Medical Journal, 1, 476-477.
Dagg, Paul K. B. (1991). “The Psychological Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion – Denied and Completed.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(5), 578-585.
David, Henry P., et al. (1985). “Postpartum and Postabortion Psychiatric Reactions.” In Paul Sachder, ed., Perspectives on Abortion (pp. 107-116). Metuchen, N. J.: Scarecrow Press.
David, Henry P. (1986). “Unwanted Children: A Follow-Up from Prague.” Family Planning Perspectives, 18(3), 143-144.
DeVeber, L. L., et al. (1991). “Post-Abortion Grief: Psychological Sequelae of Induced Abortion.” Humane Medicine, 7(3), 203-208.
Franz, Wanda & David Reardon.
(1992). “Differential Impact of Abortion on Adolescents and Adults.” Adolescence, 27(105), 161-172.
Henshaw, Stanley K. & Jane Silverman. (1988). “The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U. S. Abortion Patients.” Family Planning Perspectives, 20(4), 158-159 & 162-168.
Henshaw, Stanley K. & Jennifer Van Vort. (1990). “Abortion Services in the United States, 1987 and 1988.” Family Planning Perspectives, 22(3), 102-108.
House Committee on Government Operations. (1989). The Federal Role in Determining the Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortions on Women. H. R. 329, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess.
Lazarus, Arthur. (1985). “Psychiatric Sequelae of Legalized First Trimester Abortion.” Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 4(3), 140-150.
Koop, C. Everett. (1987). The Surgeon General’s Report on the Public Health Effects of Abortion.
Major, Brenda, et al. (1985). “Attributions, Expectations, and Coping with Abortion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 585-599.
Major, Brenda, et al. (1990). “Perceived Social Support, Self-Efficacy, and Adjustment to Abortion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychiatry, 59(3), 452-463.
Major, Brenda, et al. (1992). “Male Partners’ Appraisals of Undesired Pregnancy and Abortion: Implications for Women’s Adjustments to Abortion.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(8), 599-614.
Major, Brenda, et al. (2000). “Psychological Responses of Women after First-Trimester Abortion.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(8), 777-784.
Miller, Diane Helene. (1996). “Medical and Psychological Consequences of Legal Abortion in the United States.” In Roxanne Louiselle Parrot & Celeste Michelle Condit, eds., Evaluating Women’s Health Messages: A Resource Book (pp. 17-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moseley, D. T., et al. (1989). “Psychological Factors that Predict Reaction to Abortion.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(2), 276-279.
Myhrman, A et al. (1996). “Unwantedness of a pregnancy and schizophrenia in the child.” The British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 637-640.
Petersen, P. (1981). “Psychological Alterations Following Induced Abortion.” Munchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, 43(20), 1105-1108.
Pope, Linda, et al. (2001). “Postabortion Psychological Adjustment: Are Minors at Increased Risk-” Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(1), 2-11.
Reardon, Daivd C. (1987). Aborted Women: Silent No More. Chicago: Loyola University Press.
Robinson, G. E., & Donna E. Stewart. (1993). “Postpartum Disorders.” In Nada L. Stotland, ed., Psychological Aspects of Women’s Health Care (pp. 115-138). Washington: American Psychiatric Press.
Rue, Vincent M., et al. (1987). The Psychological Aftermath of Abortion: A White Paper. Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Abortion Recovery & Research.
Russo, Nancy Felipe & Jean E. Denious. (2001). “Violence in the Lives of Women Having Abortions: Implications for Practice and Public Policy.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(2), 142-150.
Russo, Nancy Felipe & Amy J. Dabul. (1997). “The Relationship of Abortion to Well-Being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference-” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(1), 23-31.
Russo, Nancy Felipe & Kristin L. Zierk. (1992). “Abortion, Childbearing, and Women’s Well-Being.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 269-280.
Sachdev, Paul. (1989). Unlocking the Adoption Files. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Sachdev, Paul. (1993). Sex, Abortion and Unmarried Women. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Selby, Terry L. (1984). Post Abortion Trauma. Unpublished paper.
Speckhard, Anne Catherine. (1985). The Psycho-Social Aspects of Stress Following Abortion: A Thesis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Torres, Aida & Jacqueline Darroch Forrest. (1988). “Why Do Women Have Abortions-” Family Planning Perspectives, 20(4), 169-176.
Tyrer, Louis B. & David Grimes. (1989). The Surgeon General’s Report on the Public Health Effects of Abortion: The Suppressed Final Draft – An Overview. Unpublished paper.
Watters, W. W. (1980). “Mental Health Consequences of Abortion and Refused Abortion.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 25(1), 68-73.
Zabin, Laurie Schwab, et al. (1989). “When Urban Adolescents Chose Abortion: Effects on Education, Psychological Status, and Subsequent Pregnancy.” Family Planning Perspectives, 21(6), 248-255.
Zeanah, Charles H., et al. (1993). “Do Women Grieve After Terminating Pregnancies Because of Fetal Anomalies- A Controlled Investigation.” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 82(2), 270-275.
Ziporyn, Terra. (1984). “‘Rip van Winkle Period’ Ends for Puerperal Psychiatric Problems.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 251(16), 2061-2063 & 2067.
Zolese, G & CVR Blacker. (1992). “The psychological complications of therapeutic abortion.” British Journal of Psychiatry; 160: 742-749.
Deep River, if real life ever gets too tedious, maybe you and some of the others here could collaborate on some kind of online pro-choice “cheat sheet” of sources. After I spent at least some time in the last week attempting to find some less… er… carefully culled versions of some of the stuff Annie cited, I’m afraid you’re right: The pro-life piffle really is far more readily accessable online… or else I just don’t know how to do a freaking search. :o
Not that anyone cares, but just to note yet another selective bit of reading on Annie’s part, I never claimed that the institutions she listed are “zealots.” I am claiming that she is one, and that she clearly selectively harvests any number of sources for the snippets that will most easily back up her one-dimensional, pious zealotry. Or else she’s getting this endless drivel from someone else that has done just that. Whichever.
I fight against the old school Christians who stood there 25 years ago and harassed and condemned ME and STILL STAND THERE AND DO SO today, so I can offer help to these women and girls. THAT is what I do. I offer them concrete help, and some of them take it. My sign simply tells them I’m here to help THEM, not just their babies, because sometimes my words of help cannot be heard above the bullhorn of the elderly, hateful man who condemns them just as he condemned me 25 years ago, and maybe they’ll see my sign and know I’m NOT LIKE HIM.
A sign, a bullhorn, whatever. When I walk into my PP, I see a bunch of shrill protesters who really resent me getting a free gynecological exam. And I mean they REALLY resent it.
For all the blame placed on Planned Parenthood, you have to acknowledge, honey, that PP is an easy target. There are millions of other gynecologists out there willing and able to perform abortions as a matter of course. They profit, they provide, they counsel, and they’re trained, just like Planned Parenthood.
The only difference is that those gynecologists are available to people who can buy insurance. Oh, and that they aren’t as easy to peg as “abortion mills.”
Leave Planned Parenthood alone. That is one organization that has done wonders for me, and they didn’t condescend me by offering the forgiveness of God for my dirty, dirty lifestyle.
I’m about to extract myself from this discussion before I get mean.
This was interesting, by the way:
DRA – Now, anyone familiar with her kind knows most of the “facts” she is using are out of context, proven false, collected by biased institutions, inaccurate, irrelevant, or simply fabricated. But she’s not after those who understand what is really at stake. She wants those fence sitters, those still harboring misplaced feelings of inbuilt cultural guilt, those who won’t have the time or the fortitude to fact-check each and every one of her seductively reasonable looking hooks.
Annie – I won’t change your minds. I knew that. But perhaps someone lurking here, who disagrees with most of you trying to tear me to shreds but who cannot possibly face the same treatment from you, perhaps that someone who regrets her abortion might just go to the Silent No More website and seek and FIND the referral to the relief she now realizes she’s been looking for all her life perhaps without even knowing it
“Tomato”, “To-mah-to”
I didn’t intend that to be a disinterested, “why can’t we get along” look at this debate, by the way. It’s really a condemnation of Annie. Or rather, showing that Annie pretty much admits what DRA accused her of, only tries to make it sound like she’s not an exploitive [insert insulting term here (can’t think of anything not rude)]. She does this by hiding it in a bunch of poorly written, illogical bullshit about how pro-choicers opress women who regret abortions. I don’t know how many times we can say, “we don’t”. But she won’t listen. She’s too busy living in her own little shell where everyone is a Christian or wants to be a Christian, and we might as well enforce it.
It’s useless arguing with her. Might as well argue with a brick wall. At least the brick wall won’t take whatever you say completely out of context and attack you with it.
Raznor sez:
“It’s useless arguing with her. Might as well argue with a brick wall. At least the brick wall won’t take whatever you say completely out of context and attack you with it.”
Yeah, but if she gets the last word she’ll convince herself that her flawless “supreme truth” won out over the eeeeevil toddler killers. This false pride will fill her with hot air, which she will used to float over to her next victim and explode in a scalding blast of deluded self-righteous horn blowing.
Ah feh. I say, let her think she won if we must. The debate is dead. As dead as all those fetuses that I apparently delight in killing.
Yeeouch, Raznor. I almost made a dead baby joke, too, but that looks awfully insensitive considering…
Right. We all regret it.
Not.
And BTW, Annie, I know someone who had a late term abortion. If she didn’t have it, she would have died. You can say that you don’t know for sure if she would have died, but you can say that about any medical procedure for a life-threatening situation.
I’m very sorry that you regret the choice you made. I certainly hope you can make peace with yourself. However, kindly refrain from punishing those of us who do not hold such regrets. We don’t force anyone to abort; however, the anti-choicers would force us to breed.
I certainly didn’t mean it to be insensitive. It was more of a joking commentary on how annoying it is to be treated like I hate babies and want to see them all aborted because I support a woman’s right to choose.
“Last May, a UK study showed that, after 4 years of dispensing free MAPs to females, 612% more British men and 206% more women got syphilis between 1996 and 2001.”
This comment doen’t make sense. The MAP has been available here in the UK since 1984. In 2001, it was made available over the counter rather than via prescription only; if you go to the doctor it’s free, if you get it over the counter, you have to pay for it.
So the connection being made with an increase in STD’s in a randomly selected four year period is somewhat spurious to say the least.
So the connection being made with an increase in STD’s in a randomly selected four year period is somewhat spurious to say the least.
Right, correlation isn’t causation. Classic logical fallacy.
In other news, accidental firearms deaths in states with strong anti-abortion contingents are an infinite percentage higher than they were under the reign of the pro-choice Emperor Augustus of Rome.
—JRC
but what it comes down to is that law-making is not based on regrets. if law-making were based on regrets, alcohol would be illegal. can a single person who has ever been drunk say that they’ve NEVER regretted either being drunk or actions they’ve taken while drunk? and yet, alcohol is not illegal: it’s available as a choice to people who wish to consume it, and it is for the people who wish to consume it to decide if they want it, can handle it, etc. not the government.
if you do not like alcohol, do not drink it.
if you do not like abortion, do not have one.
don’t stop other adults from making a decision to participate in an activity they may – or may not – regret.
and someone above (lost in all the comments, sorry) said that someone else (i think lauren?) SHOULD have gone ahead and had a baby that could well have been born addicted to drugs or dealing with withdrawl.
i’m sorry, how does that have the best interest of the child in mind?
“Actually, research suggests that abstinence education alone is ineffective. Abstinence education along with education on contraceptives does much better (also known as Comprehensive Sex Education).”
The so-called comprehensive version of sex education is a sham. It does not reduce the rate of STDs and pregnancies.
You are correct to say that abstinence education alone is ineffective. Because it is not delivered in a vaccum. Peer pressure and the wider culture are like a tidal wave that floods out the best option for anyone — teenager or adult — who wishes to be sure of preventing unintended pregnancies.
Research does show that abstinence education works much better than the other variations. Where teenagers have publicly pledged for abstinence, and where they had peer support from others who made the same pledge, a significant difference was made. And that’s with a one-time pledge. So there is untapped potential in educating young people about the consequences of sexual behavior.
Although I do agree that proper education about contraceptives is appropriate — for adults. The primary and clear message to kids — who don’t truly have a handle on consequences for risky behavior — is to give themselves permission to wait. A mixed message just reinforces the louder message that already engulfs adolescent eyes and ears and senses.
>”Lauren has it right: sex education for pre-teens and teens should have a realistic mix of tools to prevent irresponsible sex, practical demonstrations of birth control and the consequences of pregnancy and STDs, and abortion as a last resort.”
I can see what you mean, however, abortion as the last resort? If that is part of the mixed message, then, no wonder the comprehensive approach fails. What is realistic is reinforcing the message that a good portion of parents try to get across at home during the years that they still have a chance to get through to their kids. And that’s to wait. If nothing else, it buys more time so that other choices can become more clear. The failure rate of contraceptive use among adults does show that there is more education needed; so the more time we can make in young lives, the better. Because as we all know — since we have all been adolescents — the future s far away. And so are consequences for irresponsible sexual behavior.
Abortions can be prevented. But when we teach that abortions are an okay last resort as *birth control*, we drastically distort the choices available when abortion is most preventable.
You still aren’t citing any studies, chairm. And by that I mean studies not the exclusive province of the Fundie crowd. Which just makes your comments more unsubstantiated wishful dreaming and Orwellian doublespeak as far as I’m concerned.
P.S.– If you don’t start educating kids about sex ed WHEN they’re kids, why do you assume they’ll take to such education more readily as adults ? This approach has always struck me as having lots more to do with coddling parents’ reticence about discussing sex than it has to do with respecting kids and their own priorities.
So, charim, what’s wrong with comprehensive sex ed, again? I’m assuming that good sex ed would say, “Abstinence is the best choice for someone your age–but just in case, here’s this other information.” Give them permission to wait; promote the hell out of it. But don’t deny them the resources they’ll need if they don’t wait. That’d be like saying, “Cars are dangerous” without mentioning seatbelts.
You say, “Peer pressure and the wider culture are like a tidal wave that floods out the best option for anyone — teenager or adult — who wishes to be sure of preventing unintended pregnancies.” That’s exactly why we need comprehensive sex ed and not a program that only discusses abstinence. Peer pressure and culture aren’t just going to go away, and dealing with reality is far more important than promoting an impossible utopia.
I too would like to see this research you’re talking about. Because in my state, a study showed that abstinence-only education is ineffective.
>>”You still aren’t citing any studies, chairm.”
Amy S.
Still? Please don’t imply evasion of a previous request that was never made.
And please restrain from prejudging both the sources and opinions that you have yet to read. If that sort of rhetoric is thrown about again, don’t expect a response from me.
Hestia,
>>”I too would like to see this research you’re talking about. Because in my state, a study showed that abstinence-only education is ineffective.”
When I have a chance I’ll look for the sources (on-line if possible) and post them.
I read the bit you linked. It reported that kids increasingly expected that they’d have sex as they moved from pre-adolescence to later adolescence. But it did not measure the program on the basis of sexual behavior or related outcomes. Still, it reported promising results in encouraging the kids to discuss sexual matters with their parents. That’s substantive, right?
Do you have research that demonstrates that particular comprehensive programs have reduced the rate of STDs and pregnancies and abortions? Or have been measured with metrics that allow comparison with abstinence programs?
Oh, get real, chairm. You cite dubious opinions as fact, just as Annie and countless others have done. You all sound remarkably alike. Hence my use of the word “still.” You don’t like my exasperation ? Too bad.
And please restrain from prejudging both the sources and opinions that you have yet to read.
Oh, even before Deep River and Annie went head-to-head, I’d shovelled buckets of pro-life nonsense off my front porch before. I’ve had some practice at it. Stuff’s as old as the sludge in the Willametter River’s bottom, and every bit as slimy and foul. To read half a dozen pieces of it at random is to read them all, as far as I’m concerned. You can piously and patronizingly call my attitude “pre-judging” if it helps feed your ego. I call it “considering the source and employing a healthy skepticism born of prior experience.”
IOW, I pretty much decided what you were about the minute you started prattling about the superiority of abstinence-only education. Don’t claim that the burden is on me to give you the benefit of the doubt. The burden is on you, chairm, to prove you can do more than just dribble out the same pre-digested pieties that nearly every other pro-lifer on the planet does all over this space and countless others I’ve visited.
If that sort of rhetoric is thrown about again, don’t expect a response from me.
Is that a promise ? Can I get it in writing ?
Amy:
Stuff’s as old as the sludge in the Willametter River’s bottom, and every bit as slimy and foul.
. . .
Is that a promise ? Can I get it in writing ?
Way to make me laugh here, Amy. You just made this stressed out, thesising Reedie’s day.
I [heart] you too, Raznor.
But it did not measure the program on the basis of sexual behavior or related outcomes.
Well: “Students reporting they had sexual intercourse over the past year also increased from 5.8 percent to 12.4 percent.”
Of course I’m not saying that ab-only ed caused greater rates of sex among students, just that it did nothing to curb it. I don’t think we should be throwing money at programs that don’t work. Do you?
Still, it reported promising results in encouraging the kids to discuss sexual matters with their parents. That’s substantive, right?
Sort of; it’s not really the purpose of the ab-only program, and it’s definitely not a good enough reason, by itself, to keep ab-only ed around. My guess is that we could achieve the same results in a comprehensive sex ed program.
Here’s a paper (published in March 2002) that discusses research behind ab-only and comprehensive sex ed. It says:
“[T]he evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals clearly shows that some comprehensive sex education programs can reduce behavior that puts young people at risk of HIV, STIs and unintended pregnancy, and that these programs do not promote earlier onset of sexual activity or an increased number of sexual partners among adolescents. By contrast, little if any credible research exists to substantiate the claims that abstinence-only programming leads to positive behavior change among youth.”
All I’m sayin’ is that I don’t understand why we shouldn’t give kids all relevant information instead of limiting their access to it, especially if they’re going to find out about it anyway, in the “real world.” Wouldn’t it be better to replace peer pressure with facts? Isn’t understanding preferable to ignorance?
What do ab-only program supporters want? To reduce pregnancy, STD, and sex rates? Then research indicates that they should support a comprehensive program instead. But they refuse to do so. Why?
PS. The MN study was conducted by MN ENABL, an organization that supports abstinence-only education. So it wasn’t biased.
Well, chairm. You and I have different perspectives. I guess you’re American. I’m Swedish. This really means it’s hard for the two of us to discuss the abortion issue because we come from very different viewpoints. And that’s why I usually don’t comment about abortion.
For ex I don’t believe in preaching to any woman that she can’t have sex just because birth control isn’t 100% safe and she doesn’t want children. You see I believe that women and men can have sex if they want to have sex. Regardless of age (as long as over age of consent, and consenting overall) or if they are in relationsships or not. That they should take measures if they don’t want children.
But also that abortion should be available if birth control fails. As it will. I’d never tell a 35 year old woman in a long term relationship (not married, since we Swedes don’t marry much…;-)…) that she can’t have sex just because she doesn’t want to have more children at the moment. She (nor he) can’t get sterilized because they may want another child in three years. Should they not have sex???
Anyways: for me (and most of my countrywomen/men)abstinence is not an option.
On the other hand abortion is a non-issue here. Safe. Available when needed. Not frown upon. Not stigmatized. No fanatics outside hospitals. Not even the religious leaders of importance are against it. (I’m discounting fringe fanatics since they’re not religious leaders of importance. Religious leaders of importance are Archbishop of Church of Sweden and main Rabbis and Imams)
And the reason why I in my former comment didn’t mention anything about abortions in cases where the woman’s health is threatened is that those instances are so few. Women have abortions for a multitude of reasons. The main reason is: she wants one. And that’s all the reason that we need. As long as any woman wants an abortion she should have it. To just be able to only have an abortion if health demands it would more or less be the same as outlawing abortion completely.
Sex ed should be about how sex is a nice and good thing if both parties want it. How to have sex by yourself. How to know when you want sex with someone else. How to say no. How to respect no being said. How to know if your partner is someone that you want to have sex with. How to know if you want to have sex with a woman or a man. What to do when you have sex. What kind of bc options there are. How to use condoms. What happens at a gynecological exam. What to do if you suspect you’ve gotten an STD. What to do if you suspect you’re pregnant. What to do if you decide to carry your pregnancy to term. What to do if you decide to have an abortion. Etc etc etc.
On the other hand abortion is a non-issue here. Safe. Available when needed. Not frown upon. Not stigmatized. No fanatics outside hospitals. Not even the religious leaders of importance are against it.
If only Sweden had baseball – I’d move there in a second.
Oh, but we do Raznor. We call it Brännboll and it’s a childrens game… ;-)
I just wanted to add for chairm who wondered what I meant by economic means to raise a child. No, I don’t mean state nannies – whatever that is. I mean the ability of buying food for yourself and your child. Of having a roof over your and your childrens head. Of living somewhere safe. Of affording medical care. Those things are what I mean by economic means. And not even in my country are those things garanteed every child.
Amy S.,
>>”You can piously and patronizingly call my attitude “pre-judging” if it helps feed your ego. I call it “considering the source and employing a healthy skepticism born of prior experience.”
With all due respect, your pre-judging of sources has zilch to do with my ego. That sort of behavior in open forums is also known as poisoning the well. Flaming others is bad form but also a signal of weakness in thought.
Open discussion suffers when good people do nothing to discourage Amy-like rants. Since others have not posted objections to the ad hominem attacks (and that appears to be the history of this particular thread) I don’t intent to linger here as a target of abuse.
Hestia and Catrina the Swede have both provided responses that are substantive and respectful. I would have engaged in an informed and spirited discussion with both of them and with others might have joined in, but I’ve little patience for the other nonsense on display here.
Hestia and Catrina, you have email. ;-)
By NOTA – chairm: It isn’t that hard. CATARINA. Three a:s.
Catarina said:
“Sex ed should be about how sex is a nice and good thing if both parties want it. How to have sex by yourself. How to know when you want sex with someone else. How to say no. How to respect no being said. How to know if your partner is someone that you want to have sex with. How to know if you want to have sex with a woman or a man. What to do when you have sex. What kind of bc options there are. How to use condoms. What happens at a gynecological exam. What to do if you suspect you’ve gotten an STD. What to do if you suspect you’re pregnant. What to do if you decide to carry your pregnancy to term. What to do if you decide to have an abortion. Etc etc etc.”
I second that emotion.
Pingback: feministe
Pingback: feministe
Pingback: feministe
What I always find interesting about “pro-choice” arguments is that most always follow with the caveat “but I don’t believe abortion should be used as birth control or multiple times by irresponsible women who refuse to use reliable birth control.”
Why not? If abortion is morally acceptable…if abortion is perfectly safe…if abortion is nothing more than the equivalent of removing a cancerous tumor…then why shouldn’t a woman do it 50 times? 100 times? If it is perfectly normal and acceptable to do it once, then it should be perfectly normal and acceptable to do it an unlimited number of times. Why on the second, third or fourth abortion is suddenly a woman viewed with disgust, even by those who portend to be “pro-choice”?
I’ll tell you why. It’s because, deep down, “pro-choicers” believe that abortion takes the life of another human being, and they KNOW that taking the life of another human being is WRONG, no matter what the circumstances. Their acceptance of abortion to fix a “temporary lapse of judgment and responsibility” by a mother is merely a rationalization to demonstrate how “woman-friendly” they are. As it is, abortion is being accepted under the guise of “choice” as somewhat of a “get out of jail free card” for women who just refuse to acknowledge the implied acceptance of the chances of getting pregnant by participating in an act (sex) that inevitably eventually leads to the creation of another individual human life. There’s a political agenda that we’ve all been brainwashed to accept in this country, and “pro-choicers” have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. Why don’t men get a “get out of jail free card”, too? Why are the “choices” for men so limited; limited to whatever the mother decides? Why is the mantra for men “he should have kept it in his pants”, when it is so politically incorrect to say the same thing about the woman, especially when women should actually have MORE incentive to do so considering the increased stake she has in preventing pregnancy? Women have the choices of; have the baby and keep him or her; have the baby and give him or her up for adoption; have the baby and take him or her to a nearby hospital or fire station and drop them off without consequence or further responsibility; or kill the unborn baby before he or she has a chance to live out their natural life (a life that was brought about by the mother and father’s actions, as we all know). The last choice supposedly ends all further consequences and effects on the mother for the rest of her life (we now know that this is not always the case; many women are physically injured or killed by abortion, and a large portion of women are psychologically and emotionally harmed by abortion, sometimes leading to suicide or at least a long, painful path of self-destruction through substance abuse and/or promiscuity.)
A father’s choice is; let the mother make the decision kill their child without any imput or consideration of their wants or feelings, or; be emotionally and financially responsible for a child that THEY may not have wanted but had no say in whether he or she was born (we know this is not true; the father ALSO had the option of not having sex to prevent the life for which he is now responsible, whether the child is allowed to be born or not)
If abortion were to be allowed AT ALL, it should only be allowed for women under the age of consent in the state in which they reside. After all, they are really the only ones who cannot legally consent to the act of sex, regardless of their willingness to participate, and therefore do not have the ability to enter into an implied contract between themselves and any unborn human being who comes into being because of her actions. This is the only logical policy if the “pro-choice” argument were to be implemented in it’s truest form. We all know that this is ridiculous because the life within the mother is human, regardless of how he or she came to be. The circumstances of his or her existence is irrelevant.
Get a grip, people. Without the inherent right to life, all subsequent rights are meaningless.
“What I always find interesting about “pro-choice” arguments is that most always follow with the caveat “but I don’t believe abortion should be used as birth control or multiple times by irresponsible women who refuse to use reliable birth control.”
Why not? If abortion is morally acceptable…if abortion is perfectly safe…if abortion is nothing more than the equivalent of removing a cancerous tumor…then why shouldn’t a woman do it 50 times? 100 times? If it is perfectly normal and acceptable to do it once, then it should be perfectly normal and acceptable to do it an unlimited number of times. Why on the second, third or fourth abortion is suddenly a woman viewed with disgust, even by those who portend to be “pro-choice”?”
What I always find interesting about pro-life arguments is when they make exceptions for rape and incest. If abortion was the equivalent of killing a child, these exceptions would make no sense. Every time a woman is the victim of a crime, she gets to pop off a random littl’un off the street? Pssshhh.
Imagine if there was a disease that has killed more people than cancer. Heart disease. Diabetes. The jimmy legs. Put together. Imagine a disease that has killed more than 1 in 3 people who have ever lived. Further, imagine that this disease kills only small children. Zowee, huh? It’s called miscarriage, you know. And if pro-lifers really believed what they said, war, famine, and disease wouldn’t even be issues – they’d all be out there looking for the cure for miscarriage. That’s why I have little patience with them. I can figure what’s right pretty much by taking the opposite stance of everything that would be believed by a self-righteous fundie who holds imaginary conversations with Jesus while screwing an eight-year old relative.
deep river’s post about dishonest peddlers weaning off fence-sitters is so right. There are unfortunately too many people out there who haven’t realized the dangers of religion just yet and will sit on the fence until their chops are squished to a layer of pulp and they won’t be able to ride the baloney pony anymore and pro-lifers can safely declare the world free of moral turpitude and absolve us of their presence.
Let me blow past a few things that are pissing me off. First is that a zygote fulfills the criteria for life. Yeah, so do your blood cells. Another is that fetal ‘personhood’ requires belief in a mind/body split. No, all it requires is a belief in human essentialism, without which we’d have to regard human beings as mere animals – and that includes non-Muslims, so take note. Aggghhh…
I think we must remember that women will continue to get abortions whether or not they are legal – as our history has shown us. Perhpas the question should be:
Do we want our women (our daughters, mothers, sisters, friends, partners) to be able to get a safe abortion? Or would we prefer they risk severe injury or death to get an illegal abortion?