Jinjer 49: Westward Ho!

[Smee]

On 7/11/2019 at 7:02 PM, StraightOuttaArkansas said:

It is not just "being too semantic"! Don't give up on this point, please. I was/am this person. I was raised very SBC, even going with my youth group to a "pro-life" march (makes me sick that I did not question it back them, but I was like 13). It is only in the last few years that I have begun to call myself pro-choice and wrap head around that I can be personally pro-life about what I would do in a situation, but the fact that I don't WANT to be part of anyone else's choice (like I don't want to make that decision for them because I don't want them to make it for me) IS a pro-choice way of thinking. It is so hard when you come from the background of being told that you have to care about other peoples choices in this matter, that it ties you up in it and makes you somehow personally complicit in an abortion. That school of thought does so much damage to a person. It is really only the past 6 or so years that I have really sat down to think about the semantics of the situation and come to understand what I feel, what choices I would want, and what word that falls under. I am even much more bold about saying that I am pro-choice now. Please don't give up on these kinds of people, even before I got my head around what label I was I still would never have voted to ban it.

I also had to realize one day that I did make a choice when I chose to have my first child after getting pregnant at 17. I didn't feel like I had a choice, but abortion was suggested to me so in retrospect I do realize I did have one. Seeing now that I did have a choice gave me the confidence to become vocal about being pro-choice even those I choose what some would call a pro-life choice there. Key word is CHOICE and I wish more people in those circles would recognize that.

I call myself “reluctantly pro-choice”. Because I do believe that a fetus is a human life and it’s wrong to deliberately kill, and that’s something I would not choose for myself nor recommend anyone else chooses. But life is not black and white, there are countless scenarios that people on both sides of the debate will draw a line in. I’ve never met someone so rabidly pro-choice that they’d say a woman who decides at 36 weeks that she wanted a girl instead of a boy should be given an abortion rather than therapy, nor have I met anyone so rabidly pro-life that they think a woman dying of an ectopic pregnancy should carry on. Apparently these people exist, but 99.9% of us fall somewhere else on that spectrum. So someone has to draw a line somewhere as to when it’s ok and when it’s not, and there are as many opinions about where that line should be as there are people in the world. What it boils down to, for me, is that the people who get to draw that line should be the people DIRECTLY affected by it - I.e. not politicians. I might not agree with the decisions some pregnant AFAB people might make, but I’m not the one living with the consequences.

Plus, even though I do believe a fetus is a human life with value, pregnancy carries huge risks and we don’t legally demand that anyone puts themselves at risk to save another - blood donations, for example, save lives and are much lower risk than pregnancy, but they’re not compulsory for everyone eligible to donate. My right to survival doesn’t trump your right to bodily autonomy if I need a transfusion or a bone marrow transplant or something.

[JustEnough]

10 hours ago, Smee said:

I’ve never met someone so rabidly pro-choice that they’d say a woman who decides at 36 weeks that she wanted a girl instead of a boy should be given an abortion rather than therapy, nor have I met anyone so rabidly pro-life that they think a woman dying of an ectopic pregnancy should carry on.

This isn't meant as an attack on you and your position.

The only issue I take when people bring up those examples (or ones very very similar) is that short of a DIY abortion, there is an abortion provider involved as well. And the first situation simply would not happen. Not here or in the US at least. The second though? Yeah, it can and has and will again. They are simply not equivalent examples because of that.

When we look at women who are denied abortions, or who have to travel so far that they are in practical terms unable to obtain one, they are majority first trimester, practically all pre viability, and the ones that are post viability are needed because of the health of mother or fetus or both. 

And if theoretically someone at 36 weeks suddenly decided she didn't want a girl (or boy) an abortion being denied to her will never directly result in her death. But women being denied abortions in other situations can, and at this point, unfortunately still do depending on access where she is. 

[lumpentheologie]

21 hours ago, Smee said:

Plus, even though I do believe a fetus is a human life with value, pregnancy carries huge risks and we don’t legally demand that anyone puts themselves at risk to save another - blood donations, for example, save lives and are much lower risk than pregnancy, but they’re not compulsory for everyone eligible to donate. My right to survival doesn’t trump your right to bodily autonomy if I need a transfusion or a bone marrow transplant or something.

To me this is the strongest argument against forced continuation of pregnancies. Someone else's survival doesn't trump my bodily autonomy.  And as a rape survivor, the idea of being forced to have someone else inside my body against my will for months on end is horrifying and triggering to the point that I would probably consider suicide in that position. 

[Satan'sFortress]

10 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

To me this is the strongest argument against forced continuation of pregnancies. Someone else's survival doesn't trump my bodily autonomy. 

I agree with this--and yet, I don't ever hear this argument made by pro-choice people.  If the life of a fetus is, effectively, more important than that of the mother, then why can't I force someone to donate a kidney or part of their liver to my baby if he needed it? 

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, Satan'sFortress said:

I agree with this--and yet, I don't ever hear this argument made by pro-choice people.  If the life of a fetus is, effectively, more important than that of the mother, then why can't I force someone to donate a kidney or part of their liver to my baby if he needed it? 

This is one of three points I like to bring up to avidly anti-choice people. The other two, also never addressed, are the actual logistics and costs of enforcing criminalized abortion for women as well as practitioners. 15-25% of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. We would need law enforcement to investigate all of these. That's a shit ton of people, and salaries. Are we investigating every woman who buys a suspiciously large amount of Vitamin C? Starving oneself and heavy lifting in the first trimester have also been decently reliable abortion methods through the centuries and there would be zero ability to regulate either of those. And if abortion is murder, we need to investigate attempted abortion just like we do attempted murder. 

The third point is none of these laws will ever stop wealthy and middle-class women from getting abortions.  A world exists outside the United States, and many countries are easily accessible with strong healthcare and stable abortion freedoms. We're only ever talking about poor and working class women's access to abortions. 

I'm sincerely willing to listen to their arguments on these points, but whenever I've brought them up, they normally change the subject. 

Edited July 14, 2019 by nausicaa

[PainfullyAware]

In terms of law enforcement involvement if abortion was illegal, I think they would criminalize providing the service of abortions rather than attempting a self-induced termination? That would get around the impossibilities of investigating those cases at least. 

In Canada there is no law against late term abortions. But it's against the medical association guidelines unless the health of the mother is at risk (so you would lose your license to practice as a doctor). Therefore it doesn't happen but isn't politicized. I think it's a good system. According to Huffpost "from 2016, state that only 616 of the nearly 23,000 abortions performed in Canadian hospitals that year took place after 20 weeks — approximately 2.7 per cent." Interestingly fewer overall abortions are performed in Canada than the US (8 vs 12/1000 women aged 15-44).

I'm also of the opinion that abortion is a necessary evil. It's a harm reduction perspective, to prevent self injury or backstreet butcher types, like back in the day. Miscarriages occur all the time because of biological issues (abnormalities, etc.). I think of many abortions as a result of social circumstances that make the life of the fetus also unviable. Like a human, or society-caused limitation or abnormality, if that makes sense (like poverty, marginalization, astronomical child care costs). I think if you were really pro life you would address those issues and abortion rates would keep coming down. 

I think, at the very minimum, all societies should allow first trimester abortions, especially with the abortion pill, free and clear of conditions like bullshit mandatory ultrasounds listening to the heartbeat or doctor/therapy consultations. Somewhere 20-25 weeks I get a bit squeamish and think more limitations are ok (like health, including psychological, of the mother).

Edited July 15, 2019 by PainfullyAware

[LacyMay]

1 hour ago, PainfullyAware said:

free and clear of conditions like bullshit mandatory ultrasounds listening to the heartbeat or doctor/therapy consultations.

This might be an unpopular opinion. But I do think unbiased counseling should be provided pre procedure (on the same day to reduce barriers to care). 

1) to ensure the patient is fully aware of the decision they are making and they are making it freely of their own volition with no pressure from a spouse/parent etc 

2) to ensure they are provided with referrals/other resources to help support them post procedure if desired. 

Because of the current stigma associated with termination of pregnancy I think it's important that as much support be provided as desired by the patient. 

And I 100% mean for this to be provided by a trained unbiased professional. I'm not referring to "crisis pregnancy center" counseling.

[just_ordinary]

I think everyone pro-life should also be a fierce fighter for

-the knowledge about and the accessibility to all methods of contraception

- exceptional education about sexuality and reproduction/pregnancy

- accessible social nets that help parents in need, be it material support or help in all questions parenting/mental health

I strongly believe this could actually help to lower abortion rates. Not the crap they come up with. I also believe abortion needs to be legal and accessible.

But as many have already pointed out: it’s mostly not about the baby/life at all. It’s about controlling others and forcing religious believes on others.

They need to understand that pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. And they also need to chill out because no one is forcing them to abortion their babies.

There is nothing wrong with having a good debate about “when starts the human life”, “is it wrong to end life/potential life” and so on. And it’s fine to believe life starts at contraception and abortion is murder. But you also have to realise that you live in the real world full of clashing mind sets and believes. Finding a compromise that might not be perfect for you but allows the majority to peacefully live together should be seen as a huge ein and everyone should strive for that.

Edited July 15, 2019 by just_ordinary

[Karma]

13 hours ago, nausicaa said:

the actual logistics and costs of enforcing criminalized abortion for women as well as practitioners. 15-25% of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. We would need law enforcement to investigate all of these

This reminds me of a conversation with a colleague back in the mid 90s.  She’d migrated from Romania, where abortion had been illegal.  After having one child she had several illegal, secret abortions.  Then when they were in a position to afford another child she became pregnant again.  And had a miscarriage of this wanted, planned baby (from memory early second trimester).  She said that she was devastated about the miscarriage but it was a very difficult time because the police(?) (it’s a long time ago and my memory is hazy) had come and investigated her and accused her of procuring an illegal abortion.  Of the anguish his caused her and her husband.  Luckily they ended up believing that it was indeed a miscarriage.

After the revolution I remember seeing images on tv of all of the orphans, kept in cots, terribly neglected.  Another situation like this, and illegal abortions, are what these pro lifers could end up with.  Perhaps they should all be made to study the Romanian example before depriving women of the control over their own bodies.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Karma
Details

[Lizzybet]

7 hours ago, LacyMay said:

1) to ensure the patient is fully aware of the decision they are making and they are making it freely of their own volition with no pressure from a spouse/parent etc 

Sincerely, I’m curious what could a provider do if the patient said, yes, it is because they were being pressured to abort?

What would be the next step?

[SilverBeach]

7 hours ago, LacyMay said:

1) to ensure the patient is fully aware of the decision they are making and they are making it freely of their own volition with no pressure from a spouse/parent etc 

Prior to performing the procedure, women are asked if they are choosing the abortion on their own (at least where I live they are). Sadly, some women say yes, but they really are doing what someone else wants. I do wonder what happens if the woman says "No! My boyfriend threated to leave me if I proceed with the pregnancy but I want my baby!" You are practically in the procedure room when the question is asked, in a highly vulnerable state. I think the question should be asked when the appointment is made.  The choice to abort should really, truly just be that of the person having the procedure. I am very pro-choice but I think this is something that gets glossed over. Any coercion either way renders the "choice" meaningless.

Edited July 15, 2019 by SilverBeach

[LacyMay]

3 hours ago, Lizzybet said:

Sincerely, I’m curious what could a provider do if the patient said, yes, it is because they were being pressured to abort?

What would be the next step?

I truthfully don't know, it's not an area I have any experience in. 

I would imagine it would open a deeper dialogue and decisions would be made in consultation with the patient. Information on alternatives would likely be provided and depending on the situation referrals to other agencies (ie if the patient disclosed an abusive relationship and it physical threats against herself or the fetus. A referral to a shelter etc) 

Again though this is purely speculation. 

End story I do think that we need to be mindful of the emotional, spiritual and mental components of this choice and ensure that patients are cared for in these ways as well. It's why I think the growing movement of the incorporation of abortion doulas seems really valuable. 

[19tacos&counting]

Jing is at a holocaust museum in LA. She said it’s her 3rd time going. She posted a few pictures. I’m happy she seems to be opening her mind more and more. I wonder what she thinks now about Jessa and others comparing abortion to the holocaust. 

[FleeJanaFree]

I saw she posted pictures too. I wondered if she saw today’s pictures of ICE detainees’ luggage and belongings tossed into dumpsters, because that’s what I thought of when she says we were doomed to repeat history if we don’t learn from it. That’s what nazis did to their prisoners belongings after stripping them down for valuables. Just threw em away.

[VelociRapture]

3 hours ago, 19tacos&counting said:

Jing is at a holocaust museum in LA. She said it’s her 3rd time going. She posted a few pictures. I’m happy she seems to be opening her mind more and more. I wonder what she thinks now about Jessa and others comparing abortion to the holocaust. 

I’m pretty sure all the Duggars had visited the Holocaust Museum in DC prior to Jessa making that particular comment. It was several years ago and maybe they’ve matured since then, but I’m not about to hold my breath on that. 

[TheOneAndOnly]

A selfie at the holocaust museum?  Jinger, no!  

...Unless what you want to communicate to the world is" Look at me! See how I am reacting! Aren't I interesting?"

She says she's been there 3 times and still finds it moving. Well, I would hope that being reminded of the deaths of millions of innocent people would still have an effect on someone even after they've spared a thought or two about it before.

[SassyPants]

I used to incorporate a visit to any Holocaust Museum available within the scope of my travels. After the museum in DC, I decided no more. 

[lizzybee]

The yikes posts from Jinger just keep coming. She’s just become increasingly problematic of late. 

[VelociRapture]

For anyone interested, here’s the post Jessa made that I referred to earlier:

She made it back in September 2014. I believe the entire Duggar family were in DC for the Values Voters Summit or something stupid like that, so it’s very likely the entire family (Jinger included) toured the Holocaust Museum together.

So this wouldn’t have been Jinger’s first time being exposed to a Holocaust Museum. Jinger hasn’t really been vocal about what she personally believes, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if she follows the family line of thinking when it comes to abortion being a modern day Holocaust. 

9 minutes ago, lizzybee said:

The yikes posts from Jinger just keep coming. She’s just become increasingly problematic of late. 

I personally don’t think selfies are exactly appropriate for a setting like that, but at the very least Jinger didn’t post a selfie of herself inside the museum while she’s smiling or laughing or something like that. 

1 hour ago, TheOneAndOnly said:

A selfie at the holocaust museum?  Jinger, no!  

...Unless what you want to communicate to the world is" Look at me! See how I am reacting! Aren't I interesting?"

She says she's been there 3 times and still finds it moving. Well, I would hope that being reminded of the deaths of millions of innocent people would still have an effect on someone even after they've spared a thought or two about it before.

She said this was the third time she’s visited a Holocaust Museum, not that she’s been to this specific one three times. 

[PennySycamore]

Oh, Jinger,  racism has been around a lot longer than evolutionary theory!

I wonder what Jinger thinks of children in concentration camps.  I suspect she has does not have a problem with the way our country is treating these kids.  Suffer the children, indeed!

[Anna Bolinas]

Even though she's not smiling, it's still weird that she had the impulse to take a selfie at all in a Holocaust Museum. And honestly, taking any pictures at a Holocaust Museum feels weird to me. It's not like an art gallery or a Smithsonian.

It's also ironic that she posted on her story a picture with the caption, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Like what history has she learned, exactly? How WWII was singlehandedly won by the USA and therefore we can never do anything bad ever again, so don't you dare call those concentration camps along the border concentration camps even though that's what they are? 

[nickelodeon]

9 hours ago, 19tacos&counting said:

Jing is at a holocaust museum in LA. She said it’s her 3rd time going. She posted a few pictures. I’m happy she seems to be opening her mind more and more. I wonder what she thinks now about Jessa and others comparing abortion to the holocaust. 

Maybe. Jeremy has recently been “liking” a lot of stuff on Twitter that’s critical of the SBC’s acknowledgment of antiracist action – including one dude who calls intersectionality “toxic” AND “satanic” – so I feel like their minds are still closed pretty tightly.

(Also SO MANY tweets about the holy calling of fatherhood omg. Jeremy would have been all over Doug Philips and co back in the day.)

[DillyDally]

Random anecdote: I went to visit Auschwitz last year while on holiday in Poland. It was super busy but very well organised. People were taking photos like it's the bloody Eiffel tower. On two occassions, our guide asked people not to take pictures as they were scenes where people have died (one courtyard where people were shot and one of the gas chambers). Guess what, people were still taking pictures of EVERYTHING. Made me quite mad. I mean, come on, are you gonna show those pictures around at home like "and this is where they died"??

[VelociRapture]

4 hours ago, DillyDally said:

Random anecdote: I went to visit Auschwitz last year while on holiday in Poland. It was super busy but very well organised. People were taking photos like it's the bloody Eiffel tower. On two occassions, our guide asked people not to take pictures as they were scenes where people have died (one courtyard where people were shot and one of the gas chambers). Guess what, people were still taking pictures of EVERYTHING. Made me quite mad. I mean, come on, are you gonna show those pictures around at home like "and this is where they died"??

I can understand taking a photo of the gates when you first arrive. It’s a powerful image and one that I might want to have for my own personal use (I don’t know if I actually would though.) But selfies or photos of anything else? Nope. I personally don’t think that’s ok. I get others feel differently about it, but at the very least you should be capable of respecting the requests of the people who guide the tours or who help maintain the complex in order to educate the world about the horrors that occurred there. 

The only people I’d give a pass to regarding behavior are survivors of the camps. In my opinion, if you lived through that Hell then you get to behave however you feel is best if you choose to return. That’s just me though and I respect that the people responsible for running Auschwitz now may not agree. 

I took a trip to DC during 8th grade with my school. It was a fantastic trip and we got to tour a lot of great sites, including the Holocaust Museum. The teachers and chaperones read us the riot act of how they expected us to behave and how anyone who stepped even a little toe out of line would face serious consequences. To my recollection, we were all extremely well behaved and respectful, which I find impressive because most 13 and 14 year olds aren’t exactly known for maturity or great decision making. So if a hundred teenagers can behave themselves appropriately in a setting like that then I’d fully expect full grown adults to behave themselves as well. 

[lumpentheologie]

5 hours ago, DillyDally said:

Random anecdote: I went to visit Auschwitz last year while on holiday in Poland. It was super busy but very well organised. People were taking photos like it's the bloody Eiffel tower. On two occassions, our guide asked people not to take pictures as they were scenes where people have died (one courtyard where people were shot and one of the gas chambers). Guess what, people were still taking pictures of EVERYTHING. Made me quite mad. I mean, come on, are you gonna show those pictures around at home like "and this is where they died"??

I visited Auschwitz 15 years ago, and I did take some pictures while I was there.  We didn't go on a tour, and no one told us not to.  I definitely didn't take any pictures of the gas chambers or places where people obviously died, but I did take some of the explanatory exhibits to show my family back home.  If someone had told us not to take pictures I definitely wouldn't have, and I certainly didn't take any pictures of myself (or anyone else).  There wasn't social media yet then, and I definitely wouldn't have posted the photos if there had been.  But I do think there's a place for private, educational photos of places like that, if they're taken and used respectfully. 

That said, even when I was there some people were taking pictures of themselves posing at the gates and generally acting like it was a theme park, which I found very upsetting.