Linxz0rz

[stevencwatts]

My posts lately have all been reviews. "Where's the fun?" you may ask. "Where's the good-natured ribbing, where's the non-sociopolitical rants?" Well, you're going to be 2/3 disappointed. But this time I have links! Actually, this is just an excuse to post up a few things I found interesting today

Comments

[stevencwatts]

Let me rephrase. Required abortion counseling, performed by a professional. Asking "is this what you want?" isn't counseling. And yes, mothers can form their own mental image, but many probably attempt not to. Being slapped by a postcard is just a tad different from actually seeing your child move.

I know a girl who got an abortion too, and every day she thinks about it. Every day she drifts into silence for it. Every day she reflects on it, regrets it, and every day it affects her. Anecdotal evidence is all well and good, but until you can conjure up some facts, I don't want to hear you spout about the "majority" of women. The fact is that about 80% of women regret or have at some point regretted their decision, and it increases risks of ectopic pregnancy by 50% if that woman ever wants to have a child again. The fact is, as well, that more women have died under legal abortion than ever did when it was illegal. Don't spout words that imply facts unless you can back it up with numbers.

All that argument aside, I really do recommend you read the article. It basically postulates that pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates both have to get used to compromise, to make the system better as a whole. Both sides are fighting a losing battle of absolution, and neither one is working because of damning evidence from the other side. Drama sells, but (unless things are vastly different in Canada) the drama influence is heavily in favor of the pro-choice side. Now some is coming from the pro-lifers and some commentators (like this one) are commenting that we can't just keep ignoring and tuning out good arguments. The sides have to shut up and work together for the safety of the mother, if not the child.

[woekitten]

I read the article. Wasn't that impressed by it, which is why I posted here.

Also:

And yes, mothers can form their own mental image, but many probably attempt not to.

Contradicts:

Don't spout words that imply facts unless you can back it up with numbers.

Your "many probably" isn't much more solid than my argument. I understand your want for numbers, though I personally think they don't prove much. You're going to get different statistics depending on what source you use. It depends what the writer of the article wants you to see.

[stevencwatts]

Excellent point, I misstated. What I was trying to say was more of, "if I were in their position, I would try not to." It seems like the reasonable thing to do, from a logical and emotional level, avoiding thinking about something that is likely to be painful. Think about it. A broken-hearted teenager certainly can picture their ex-girlfriend sleeping with another guy, but are they really likely to do it?

And I think my "many probably" is actually a lot less solid than your argument, so thanks for catching it. :-P The point is that semantics and numbers don't solve anything; the only reason I put some out there (from "Taking Sides," part of a series of debate books) was to point out that very thing, that it's entirely reliant on who you ask.

The fact is that at least some women regret it, and the inconvience of counseling for all seems to more than make up for the pain that some feel after they do it. Honestly, what is the harm in requiring them to talk to a professional for a set number of hours? Then, at the very least, if they got one they would feel confident in their decision and have tips on how to cope afterwards.

I'm not so much against women having abortions as I am against women making mistakes. It's an option that I know isn't taken lightly, but I also don't feel that all women really consider the full ramifications, or all of their options. If all the women who would have gotten abortions were to still get them, I wouldn't mind, because at least I (and other pro-life advocates) would have less cause for concern for what they do with themselves afterwards. In spite of what all the name-calling and mud-slinging may imply about pro-lifers, many of us care about the mothers just as much as pro-choice advocates, and express it in a different way.

[woekitten]

I'm not so much against women having abortions as I am against women making mistakes.

That's valid, which is why I think councilling is a good idea, and / or even some restrictions of how many abortions a woman can get because I know very well that there are some out there who are using it as a means of birth control. That'd be tricky to impliment though.

Sonograms, on the other hand, just strike me as one of those glurgy, manipulative tactics of guilting a mother into keeping her baby, much like those email forwards from the foetus' perspective ("Yay, I'm going to be born soon, I'm so happy! ... OMG, KNIFE").

A woman at the crossroads doesn't need that. Keeping a baby over a guilt trip can very well result in resentment down the road. I like to think I'm not a horrible monster ... I don't believe I'd ever get an abortion, unless my life was in danger and it couldn't be helped. But if I were thinking about it and my doctor did the sonogram thing, I'd probably get mighty pissed off at the attempt to manipulate my emotions.

Whatever is done to revise the abortion laws, it should take first and foremost take the mental well-being of the mother into consideration, because that will yield the best results for the baby as well.

If you're a single woman and your job pays peanuts, the prospect of pregnancy can be terrifying, so abortion might be a knee-jerk reaction. On the other hand, if that woman knows she's not alone and there's help to be had, she might find the strength to skip abortion. Unfortunately, a lot of what I see in terms of politics is "Keep abortion" or "Make it illegal" and nothing really social.

[woekitten]

P.S.: Purely for the sake of interest (because I don't really use my religion to govern my life), I'll note that Judaism is semi-OK with abortion. In fact, it's an absolute must if the mother's life is in any danger, because the baby considered "potential life" until most of it is out of the mother's body, whereas the mother is definitely considered a living being (Judaism is big on doing what it takes not to die).

It's kind of interesting because of the never-ending debate on whether or not a foetus can be counted as a life. Well, here we go, one of the oldest religions in the world -- and the basis for Christianity, besides -- lays it out pretty clearly. XD

[stevencwatts]

I don't know anybody (sane) who wouldn't agree with abortion if it threatens the life of the mother, or at least agrees that at that point the decision should be up to her. I think "life-threatening" needs to be separated, though, from "quality-of-life-threatening." There's a difference between a woman dying and a woman not being able to buy new shoes. Hyperbolic example, but you get the idea.