Life in a Shoe Discusses Abortion

[pomology]

inashoe.com/2012/03/abortion-murder-or-chicken-dinner/#comments

Although I think the person she quotes is batshit crazy (I believe we talked about her views on adoption awhile ago and I'm not too fond of the way she talks about abortion), it's obvious that Kim and her minions don't even remotely understand the pro-choice position.

You know why I want abortion "safe, legal, and rare"? It's not because I think it's some morally abhorrent thing. It's because it carries medical risks that women wouldn't have to undergo in a magical world where every child that is conceived is wanted and healthy.

And frankly, I don't care if people find abortion an abhorrent practice they would never ever participate as long as they realize they are making a choice and don't want to take that choice away from others.

I hate these people.

[debrand]

Prolifers insist on viewing a mass of cells without a brain as the exact same as a newborn baby. For some reason, they can't wrap their mind around the fact that a first trimester fetus can't feel pain or think. It is not the same as a newborn.

Why do they want to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Pregnant women are supposed to take care of their bodies, not drink, do drugs etc. A woman who feels forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy might not make certain that she does simple things like go to the doctor or take prenatal vitamins or abstain from alcohol. When those unwanted children are born there is no guarantee that the mother will give it up for adoption. The father and grandparents wanted Susan Smith' s boys but she drowned them anyway.

edited for clarity

[debrand]

I left and returned to rant

Many prolifers don't want to take any measures to either make being a single mother easier or to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Their solution is to tell people to not have sex until they want or can afford a baby. The problem with this is that telling people to abstain doesn't work.

Yes, people can have self control. However, we have example after example of people taking stupid risks for sex. Think of Hugh Grant getting a blow job from a prostititue. Stupid action. Or Clinton risking his legacy by having an affair with an intern. Apparently, in 18th century England loose women could be whipped and sent to prison. Guess what, people still had sex.

If prolifers really cared about ending abortion, they would admit how powerful the sexual urge is and insist that birth control be given away for free. They would make damn certain that every pregnant woman had access to programs that would help her care for the child after it was born.

Most prolifers don't actually care about the sanctity of life. They want to shame and hurt anyone who steps outside their sexual buondaries.

Note: please notice that I said most prolifers. There are some prolifers who do believe in birth control and providing programs for single parents.

edited because I keep forgetting the i before e rule

[SisiL78]

And the fact of the matter is that these Gothardites don't foster or adopt because of some stupid idea that the children have some inherited sin. They also vote Republican and the Republicans are the ones cutting social services for families and children in need. I find it to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy to tell a woman she HAS to give birth no matter what. But, then deny her or that child any help so that they can live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives.

[BelieveinScience]

And the fact of the matter is that these Gothardites don't foster or adopt because of some stupid idea that the children have some inherited sin. They also vote Republican and the Republicans are the ones cutting social services for families and children in need. I find it to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy to tell a woman she HAS to give birth no matter what. But, then deny her or that child any help so that they can live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives.

This.

I really want a bumper sticker that says "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" but I live in a pretty conservative state and I'd rather not get my car smashed in by the crazies.

[genericJname]

You know why I want abortion "safe, legal, and rare"? It's not because I think it's some morally abhorrent thing. It's because it carries medical risks that women wouldn't have to undergo in a magical world where every child that is conceived is wanted and healthy.

I don't quite buy the medical risk thing. Abortion is almost always going to be much safer than pregnancy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions.

[pomology]

I don't quite buy the medical risk thing. Abortion is almost always going to be much safer than pregnancy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

Yeah... that's not related to what I was talking about. It's a medical risk I wish women wouldn't have to undergo, because my wish is that no woman would ever have an unwanted pregnancy. If they're already pregnant, it's already past the point of me wanting to keep abortion rare. I want to keep abortion rare by preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

I'm hoping you buy the idea that abortion is more of a medical risk than not being pregnant at all?

[Third]

Aren't they the ones who advocate NOT aborting an ectopic pregnancy because of that woman in England who was able to carry one of her triplets [an ectopic baby] to viability?

Most moderate Christian, Muslim, Jewish pro-lifers I know wouldn't tell someone to not seek abortion until you are on death's doorstep from an ectopic pregnancy.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Prolifers insist on viewing a mass of cells without a brain as the exact same as a newborn baby. For some reason, they can't wrap their mind around the fact that a first trimester fetus can't feel pain or think. It is not the same as a newborn.

Why do they want to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? Pregnant women are supposed to take care of their bodies, not drink, do drugs etc. A woman who feels forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy might not make certain that she does simple things like go to the doctor or take prenatal vitamins or abstain from alcohol. When those unwanted children are born there is no guarantee that the mother will give it up for adoption. The father and grandparents wanted Susan Smith' s boys but she drowned them anyway.

edited for clarity

I saw that happen a fair bit in my practice.

Some of my teen mom clients genuinely wanted to do the best for their babies, and made heroic efforts to take prenatals, get proper care, quit drugs, etc.

In other cases, though, there was definitely some passive-aggressive stuff going on, especially with pregnancies resulting from rape. I knew women who wouldn't actively abort, but would completely ignore nutrition, deal with stress by continuing to smoke/drink/do drugs, and in my most extreme cases, get into rages and inflict some serious physical abuse on the child as it was growing up, despite loving that child and fighting in court for custody.

"Fetal protection" laws are also worse than useless. Most of the damage to the fetus from drugs and alcohol and folic acid deficiency occurs in the first trimester, when the major organ systems are forming. At that point, the pregnancy isn't obvious to the world. Later on, the fetus is basically fully formed and is just growing, so an 8 mo. pregnant woman having a single glass of wine in a bar will get plenty of evil looks, but is unlikely to be doing major damage.

This is one of the reasons that I so strongly believe that every pregnancy should be planned (even if that plan is "don't use contraception at all", as long as there is an acknowledgement that by doing so, you are basically trying to conceive). A lot of damage can be done before someone is even fully aware that they are pregnant with a surprise.

[starfish]

I don't have a sense of how intelligent Kim from LiaS is, but she has difficulty putting together a cogent argument advancing a belief system.

I think she's probably a pleasant person, but she's been hoodwinked by Doug and the entire QF movement. Combined with her low self-esteem and what I suspect to be mental issues, she's bought in to that movement hook, line, sinker, and the rest.

[Not That Kind of Dr]

I don't have a sense of how intelligent Kim from LiaS is, but she has difficulty putting together a cogent argument advancing a belief system.

What I can't get over with Kim from LiaS is that I think that she is quite bright. She's often amusing and engaging and can string together a coherent and even compelling blog post in a way that many other Dominionist bloggers can't. That's why I don't understand why she's bought into a worldview and lifestyle that I see as almost completely unreasonable. It would be comfortable to chalk it up to stupidity or ignorance, but it must be more complicated than that. With Kim, I sometimes get the impression that she engages in Vision Forum's typically convoluted logic realizing that it is convoluted but almost daring someone to take her on.

[SisiL78]

There are some cases where an ectopic pregnancy is viable. But if the blastocytes implant inside of the Fallopians or some other organ that cannot easily stretch enough to accommodate the pregnancy then it will expand and expand until that part of the mother ruptures. The mother in England with the triplets had a fetus that I believe implanted on the outside of the uterus and was just sort of floating in between the organs in its own embryonic sac so it was protected. Like any other pregnancy the organs shifted to accommodate the baby. Plus in England there is the NHS so the mother didn't have to worry about paying for medical care and it sounds like she was constantly monitored in a way that I doubt even insured women in the US get.

[DarkAnts]

What I hate is the fact that they only seem to care about the fetus. They dont care about the actual baby. They want to cut government social services. This will lead to millions of children going hungry and living on the street. They dont care about the possibility of the baby being abused, being neglected or being beaten to death (I have a friend who has a low IQ because she was abused and neglected as a child). They also dont care about the quality of life for a baby born with major medical problems like missing lungs.

[SisiL78]

What I hate is the fact that they only seem to care about the fetus. They dont care about the actual baby. They want to cut government social services. This will lead to millions of children going hungry and living on the street. They dont care about the possibility of the baby being abused, being neglected or being beaten to death (I have a friend who has a low IQ because she was abused and neglected as a child). They also dont care about the quality of life for a baby born with major medical problems like missing lungs.

AMEN! Their only concern is to have the ability to force birth. But, once you're born you have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop whining. The hypocrisy makes me so angry :cry: :o

[DarkAnts]

AMEN! Their only concern is to have the ability to force birth. But, once you're born you have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop whining. The hypocrisy makes me so angry :cry: :o

Hypocrisy is what they do best. Jesus told us to help to the poor and sick. He also told us to befriend those that are cast off by normal society. And, above all, Jesus said to love your neighbor. These people call themselves Christian but fail to follow three of the most important teachings.

[dairyfreelife]

There are some cases where an ectopic pregnancy is viable. But if the blastocytes implant inside of the Fallopians or some other organ that cannot easily stretch enough to accommodate the pregnancy then it will expand and expand until that part of the mother ruptures. The mother in England with the triplets had a fetus that I believe implanted on the outside of the uterus and was just sort of floating in between the organs in its own embryonic sac so it was protected. Like any other pregnancy the organs shifted to accommodate the baby. Plus in England there is the NHS so the mother didn't have to worry about paying for medical care and it sounds like she was constantly monitored in a way that I doubt even insured women in the US get.

Yes. I really fear these people who try and legislate against abortion for any reason. Endo increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy so I worry about that if I ever get pregnant. I am currently on two different prescriptions with high risks of birth defects so I would definitely consider aborting if I got pregnant, say tomorrow or any time soon. It would be unfair imo to allow the embryo to develop into a human who could have serious and even fatal defects. It's not fair to the potential child and that's why I would consider abortion. It's not about me. Outside of meds, I'd most likely keep it knowing I may not get another chance to have a child. It aggravates me to no end when I hear anti-choicers claim it's "Selfish" to abort when it can be least selfish thing to do. I really, really hate and fear people advocating that an unviable embryo had the right to life ahead of me because I'm supposed to sacrifice my health to support it. This is why I'm pro-choice. It's my decision to sacrifice myself for someone else and it's definitely my decision to use my own body to help give support to another possible life. The government should not be allowed to tell an entire gender to sacrifice themselves for another person because that unviable thing has more value than you do to them and their non-existant life matters more than yours.

[starfish]

I don't think Kim is stupid or anything, actually she seems pretty pleasant and at times engaging. (unlike Kelly Crawford, etc).

She can't refute any arguments, though. But I ask myself why such an otherwise nice seeming person has such deranged viewpoints.

I think she's bought into the whole spiel.

[fluttershies]

Yes. I really fear these people who try and legislate against abortion for any reason. Endo increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy so I worry about that if I ever get pregnant. I am currently on two different prescriptions with high risks of birth defects so I would definitely consider aborting if I got pregnant, say tomorrow or any time soon. It would be unfair imo to allow the embryo to develop into a human who could have serious and even fatal defects. It's not fair to the potential child and that's why I would consider abortion. It's not about me. Outside of meds, I'd most likely keep it knowing I may not get another chance to have a child. It aggravates me to no end when I hear anti-choicers claim it's "Selfish" to abort when it can be least selfish thing to do. I really, really hate and fear people advocating that an unviable embryo had the right to life ahead of me because I'm supposed to sacrifice my health to support it. This is why I'm pro-choice. It's my decision to sacrifice myself for someone else and it's definitely my decision to use my own body to help give support to another possible life. The government should not be allowed to tell an entire gender to sacrifice themselves for another person because that unviable thing has more value than you do to them and their non-existant life matters more than yours.

ALL. OF. THIS.

It frightens me how relaxed anti-choicers are about letting women die. Foetuses >>>>> people to them.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Honestly, I can't stand Kim's position OR the article that got her ranting.

My position is that the state has no business controlling our bodies. Period. Therefore, the opinion of others, and the value that someone places on the life of a fetus is simply not relevant to the legal discussion. It's a question of jurisdiction. Just as the government can't outlaw things that you do in another country (for the most part), it can't control what happens with a fetus while it is residing in another human being.

I believe that women have the legal right to control their own bodies, and that they also have the right to timely, sensitive access to medical services. I don't, however, think that anyone ever has the right to unconditional approval. People have the right to NOT love abortion, so long as they aren't depriving someone else of their rights in the process.

This was part of the struggle that I experienced as a feminist coping with pregnancy loss. Prior to my loss, I could tell you about all sorts of women's health issues - the politics of excluding women from drug trials, challenging high rates of episiotomy and hysterectomy and c-sections, eating disorders, domestic violence, underdiagnosis of heart problems, risk factors for breast cancer, etc. - but somehow, miscarriage and stillbirth were completely off my radar and I was absolutely blindsided when it happened to me. There was an enormous gap in support available - Christian sources would sell poetry verses and angel figurines, while feminist sources had a lot of silence, and the occasional anemic reference to acknowledge that you may feel some grief on the loss of a wanted pregnancy. I found at the time (13 years ago), that there wasn't much room to acknowledge the very real grief and loss that a pregnancy loss could bring.

The miscarriage made me even more worried about anti-abortion laws and crazed activists (I was literally reading about the murder of Dr. Slepian while waiting for my D&C, and wondering what would happen if a lunatic misunderstood the meaning of the "missed abortion" notation on my chart), but also critical of some positions of the pro-choice camp.

[artmama]

eh, I "know" the author of the article she is quoting, we have been friends online for many years now. I don't think she is bat shit, certainly not the least bit comparable to Kim or any of the other fundies we snark on.

I don't always agree with her, but Jessica's article that has the forced birthers in a tizzy is spot fucking on.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

There was an enormous gap in support available - Christian sources would sell poetry verses and angel figurines, while feminist sources had a lot of silence, and the occasional anemic reference to acknowledge that you may feel some grief on the loss of a wanted pregnancy. I found at the time (13 years ago), that there wasn't much room to acknowledge the very real grief and loss that a pregnancy loss could bring.

The miscarriage made me even more worried about anti-abortion laws and crazed activists (I was literally reading about the murder of Dr. Slepian while waiting for my D&C, and wondering what would happen if a lunatic misunderstood the meaning of the "missed abortion" notation on my chart), but also critical of some positions of the pro-choice camp.

I wish there were more attention paid to the idea that it's exactly that, the WANTING part, that makes a difference. And that line, that happening, that occurrence, happens (or not) in different ways at different times for different women.

And so the choice must always be with those women.

We can talk about brain development of the fetus and all the rest, but really, I strongly feel that line of "baby or not" really has to do with how the mother's mental image of the fetus is - once it's imagined as a child, there will be grief, even if miscarried very early on, and yet similarly people should not be made to feel guilty for aborting, under different circumstances. You can't just take a time and say "X weeks, it's a baby" or force that on people with ultrasounds and all the rest.

And the fact that it's the mother's decision, I think, the fact that it's all about the mother's mental state, is what rankles a lot of men on the issue. It's one thing that they can't control - they're happy with the idea of "well, God made us have bigger muscles so that's the breaks, quit whining about being left out of this job" when it's women being marginalized because of "facts of nature" but this is the one thing, well, sorry, but "God made us the ones who physically bear the next generation, so some things are up to us" where it's men being left out and suddenly oh no, it's not fair, we must not be left out.

I don't mean to imply that a father's wanting the baby is meaningless, either. But he's not the one birthing it, and by physical design it's possible for a woman to know she's pregnant and not tell, or to abort, because it's her body. Short of locking people up and forcing them to give birth, that's just how it is.

[fluttershies]

I wish there were more attention paid to the idea that it's exactly that, the WANTING part, that makes a difference. And that line, that happening, that occurrence, happens (or not) in different ways at different times for different women.

And so the choice must always be with those women.

We can talk about brain development of the fetus and all the rest, but really, I strongly feel that line of "baby or not" really has to do with how the mother's mental image of the fetus is - once it's imagined as a child, there will be grief, even if miscarried very early on, and yet similarly people should not be made to feel guilty for aborting, under different circumstances. You can't just take a time and say "X weeks, it's a baby" or force that on people with ultrasounds and all the rest.

And the fact that it's the mother's decision, I think, the fact that it's all about the mother's mental state, is what rankles a lot of men on the issue. It's one thing that they can't control - they're happy with the idea of "well, God made us have bigger muscles so that's the breaks, quit whining about being left out of this job" when it's women being marginalized because of "facts of nature" but this is the one thing, well, sorry, but "God made us the ones who physically bear the next generation, so some things are up to us" where it's men being left out and suddenly oh no, it's not fair, we must not be left out.

I don't mean to imply that a father's wanting the baby is meaningless, either. But he's not the one birthing it, and by physical design it's possible for a woman to know she's pregnant and not tell, or to abort, because it's her body. Short of locking people up and forcing them to give birth, that's just how it is.

Yes, all of this. If I really wanted a pregnancy then the foetus would be a baby to me from conception. Therefore loss of that pregnancy would be a source of grief even if it happened very early on.

[debrand]

eh, I "know" the author of the article she is quoting, we have been friends online for many years now. I don't think she is bat shit, certainly not the least bit comparable to Kim or any of the other fundies we snark on.

I don't always agree with her, but Jessica's article that has the forced birthers in a tizzy is spot fucking on.

The blog owner was so offended that she did not even link to Jessica's article. She tells her readers to do a search if they want to read the original article.

I'm not certain who LIfe In A Shoe is trying to protect.

[ilovetchotchkes]

I wish there were more attention paid to the idea that it's exactly that, the WANTING part, that makes a difference. And that line, that happening, that occurrence, happens (or not) in different ways at different times for different women.

And so the choice must always be with those women.

We can talk about brain development of the fetus and all the rest, but really, I strongly feel that line of "baby or not" really has to do with how the mother's mental image of the fetus is - once it's imagined as a child, there will be grief, even if miscarried very early on, and yet similarly people should not be made to feel guilty for aborting, under different circumstances. You can't just take a time and say "X weeks, it's a baby" or force that on people with ultrasounds and all the rest.

And the fact that it's the mother's decision, I think, the fact that it's all about the mother's mental state, is what rankles a lot of men on the issue. It's one thing that they can't control - they're happy with the idea of "well, God made us have bigger muscles so that's the breaks, quit whining about being left out of this job" when it's women being marginalized because of "facts of nature" but this is the one thing, well, sorry, but "God made us the ones who physically bear the next generation, so some things are up to us" where it's men being left out and suddenly oh no, it's not fair, we must not be left out.

I don't mean to imply that a father's wanting the baby is meaningless, either. But he's not the one birthing it, and by physical design it's possible for a woman to know she's pregnant and not tell, or to abort, because it's her body. Short of locking people up and forcing them to give birth, that's just how it is.

OMG THIS! If I lost a pregnancy at any stage (all of mine are "wanted" as I have a hell of a time catching pregnant even if one were utterly unplanned and epically at a bad time) I'd mourn it as a baby (or rather a potential baby) , however, I know people who have had a miscarriage with a very unwanted pregnancy and breathed a HUGE sigh of relief because she didn't have to worry about procuring an abortion.

[Feberin]

OMG THIS! If I lost a pregnancy at any stage (all of mine are "wanted" as I have a hell of a time catching pregnant even if one were utterly unplanned and epically at a bad time) I'd mourn it as a baby (or rather a potential baby) , however, I know people who have had a miscarriage with a very unwanted pregnancy and breathed a HUGE sigh of relief because she didn't have to worry about procuring an abortion.

I agree! I always feel weird when I'm pregnant and refer to it as a baby since I'm extremely pro-choice. Yet talking about my fetus just seems awkward and something I have to remind myself to do (I like to use the word fetus just to annoy my MIL sometimes). Even when I know it's just a ball of cells I still find myself using the word baby. I'm also very glad to have yet to have a miscarriage since I'm not sure how I would handle it.