Abortion

[leibowde84]

All,

I didn't say I'm neutral on this issue. Very few people I know are neutral on this issue. I said the biggest tool to make an unnecessary abortion go away is to put the children and parents together. In the CPC, we were able to offer those who requested it a neutral meeting place. Would "safe" place help clarify? Or "Gosh, my mom's going to be REALLY mad. Where can I tell her?" "Here, we will have a counselor present if you wish it--or not."

I guess I'm a little stumped that no one responded to my Planned Parenthood story, or even to my claims to being honest and stepping out on a limb with you, before accusing me and mine of coercion!

Didn't you refer to those who are "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion", though? Doesn't get more dishonest/misleading than that. It is almost as if you are trying to say that the arguments made by pro-choicers are based on convenience, which is certainly dishonest (or, at the very best, ignorant).

 

[Revoltingest]

That is ridiculous. Calling someone who is pro-choice "pro-abortion" is nothing more than an unfounded ignorant insult. "Pro-choice" is the most appropriate term, as they usually believe that the choice, at least, should be available to every woman. That they themselves wouldn't get one is completely irrelevant and is not necessary at all, as that is a moral issue, not a legal one.

That isn't always true.
I'm both pro-choice & pro-abortion.

 

[Marisa]

All,

I didn't say I'm neutral on this issue. Very few people I know are neutral on this issue. I said the biggest tool to make an unnecessary abortion go away is to put the children and parents together. In the CPC, we were able to offer those who requested it a neutral meeting place. Would "safe" place help clarify? Or "Gosh, my mom's going to be REALLY mad. Where can I tell her?" "Here, we will have a counselor present if you wish it--or not."

I guess I'm a little stumped that no one responded to my Planned Parenthood story, or even to my claims to being honest and stepping out on a limb with you, before accusing me and mine of coercion!

No one is suggesting that your personal opinion is neutral. It's rather obvious what your opinion is, so much so that you chose to work in an environment that completely discouraged neutrality in every possible sense. You're insulting the intellect of everyone in the conversation by steadfastly holding onto the delusion that an entity (CPC) with the stated goal of discouraging abortion is in any way neutral. It is not, YOU are not, and it's disingenuous to continue to double down on that narrative.

I did respond to your PP story. It's not my fault you missed it, while you were busy trying to convince us that a crisis pregnancy center offers neutrality on the subject of elective abortion.

ETA: you were asked some rather direct questions, repeatedly, by @MysticSang'ha . Color me a little perplexed as to why you repeatedly choose to ignore them, but it does seem your intent is to convince that CPC's are neutral.

 

[leibowde84]

That isn't always true.
I'm both pro-choice & pro-abortion.

Fair enough. But do you get my point? Just because someone is pro choice does not necessarily mean they are pro abortion. They are different positions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough. But do you get my point? Just because someone is pro choice does not necessarily mean they are pro abortion. They are different positions.

Aye.
I don't see "pro-abortion" as all that bad, even if some might actually intend it to be.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All,

I didn't say I'm neutral on this issue. Very few people I know are neutral on this issue.

That is true.

I said the biggest tool to make an unnecessary abortion go away is to put the children and parents together. In the CPC, we were able to offer those who requested it a neutral meeting place. Would "safe" place help clarify? Or "Gosh, my mom's going to be REALLY mad. Where can I tell her?" "Here, we will have a counselor present if you wish it--or not."

I'm challenging your assertion that the CPC you are referring to is neutral. Your stated intentions have been to qualify abortions as "unneeded" or "unnecessary", and by surrounding a patient with authoritarian figures (obviously, figures that intimidate the patient already) with the intent solely to preventing any termination of a pregnancy.

I will take the evasion of my questions regarding medical examinations as a possibility that the CPC was NOT a medical facility, but likely a center (perhaps a mobile one?), that fronts itself as another option for pregnant girls and women, but certainly NOT for medical reasons. It is a moralizing center and seems to fit the description of many CPC's that cross ethical boundaries on doctor-patient confidentiality as well as a patient's right to medical privacy.

I guess I'm a little stumped that no one responded to my Planned Parenthood story, or even to my claims to being honest and stepping out on a limb with you, before accusing me and mine of coercion!

I have been in Planned Parenthood before. The first time I thought I was pregnant (I wasn't), and the first time I WAS pregnant. They were helpful and knowledgeable and gave me all the options I was entitled to, including termination options, adoptive resources, lists of doctors according to insurance providers and according to state assistance, after-care programs for new recovering mothers and for immunizations for babies and kids up to age 5.

I walked out knowing I wanted to go through the pregnancy...especially after seeing all my options in a clinical setting where *I* could decide based on my own personal ethics.

I also know people who work there and at other women's health care centers who provide abortion services. Might I say their stories match mine when dealing with many pro-life activists and mobile CPC trucks that park close to the clinics.

Your experiences you are sharing - while going out on a limb - are leaving out some extremely important details on what you are providing for pregnant women (and girls, though you haven't answered how young your patients have been....or WERE they even considered patients?).

 

[BilliardsBall]

Didn't you refer to those who are "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion", though? Doesn't get more dishonest/misleading than that. It is almost as if you are trying to say that the arguments made by pro-choicers are based on convenience, which is certainly dishonest (or, at the very best, ignorant).

Again, I commend everyone on this thread for keeping their calm, but that doesn't mean we have to be PC. And I will try to use "pro choice" going forward if that helps. But what is the parallel? "For abortion"? "Not opposed to abortion?" Pro means...?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No one is suggesting that your personal opinion is neutral. It's rather obvious what your opinion is, so much so that you chose to work in an environment that completely discouraged neutrality in every possible sense. You're insulting the intellect of everyone in the conversation by steadfastly holding onto the delusion that an entity (CPC) with the stated goal of discouraging abortion is in any way neutral. It is not, YOU are not, and it's disingenuous to continue to double down on that narrative.

I did respond to your PP story. It's not my fault you missed it, while you were busy trying to convince us that a crisis pregnancy center offers neutrality on the subject of elective abortion.

ETA: you were asked some rather direct questions, repeatedly, by @MysticSang'ha . Color me a little perplexed as to why you repeatedly choose to ignore them, but it does seem your intent is to convince that CPC's are neutral.

Repeating, I apologize again for using "neutral" instead of "safe". For young people, men and women, afraid to meet with their parents to discuss the issues, we offered a "safe" place. Often these meetings were held on our property. It was, however, "neutral" ground if you understand what I mean. It wasn't mom's house, grandpa's house, school grounds, the child's college dormitory, etc. And this is not the kind of conversation kids and parents want to have in, like, Starbucks. It was not that we or you are "abortion neutral" it was that the center and staff offered a not-child, not-parent safe place to meet.

Certainly, we were against abortion. But, and I can only speak for my own center where I worked, we were less concerned about the aborted child than the mother's and father's wellbeing. By being compassionate and non-judgmental, we frequently had repeat clients who came to us after an abortion for counseling, free medical, financial aid, etc.

I chose not to answer certain questions re: medical and clinical procedures as I've had a bad experience in the past with my avatar being uncovered and I don't want to say anything untoward, even by accident, on a forum. Will it suffice to say that as far as I know we never did anything uncharitable, coercive or unlawful? There's no need for underhanded tactics in a place people go to get help but where they also receive love and kindness.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Fair enough. But do you get my point? Just because someone is pro choice does not necessarily mean they are pro abortion. They are different positions.

The only way that can be so is if the pro choice, not pro abortion person feels that choice is good and that abortion is bad. Yes? No?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aye.
I don't see "pro-abortion" as all that bad, even if some might actually intend it to be.

"Pro-abortion" could be construed as being in favour of abortion generally, including forced abortion.

It could also be construed to mean that making abortion available is the only goal; "pro-choice" better captures the idea that abortion should be just one of a spectrum of available options. When abortion is legal but pregnancy leave is crappy, "pro-abortion" is done but "pro-choice" is just getting started.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only way that can be so is if the pro choice, not pro abortion person feels that choice is good and that abortion is bad. Yes? No?

Not all abortion is good. Forced abortion is just as abhorrent to the pro-choice position as forced pregnancy.

 

[Whiterain]

Becoming pregnant on accident and wanting an abortion is the ultimate act of irresponsibility.

Abortion for complications and medical reasons though is understandable.

As far as the religious over tones abortion was used just as eugenics throughout the ages.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is true.



I'm challenging your assertion that the CPC you are referring to is neutral. Your stated intentions have been to qualify abortions as "unneeded" or "unnecessary", and by surrounding a patient with authoritarian figures (obviously, figures that intimidate the patient already) with the intent solely to preventing any termination of a pregnancy.

I will take the evasion of my questions regarding medical examinations as a possibility that the CPC was NOT a medical facility, but likely a center (perhaps a mobile one?), that fronts itself as another option for pregnant girls and women, but certainly NOT for medical reasons. It is a moralizing center and seems to fit the description of many CPC's that cross ethical boundaries on doctor-patient confidentiality as well as a patient's right to medical privacy.



I have been in Planned Parenthood before. The first time I thought I was pregnant (I wasn't), and the first time I WAS pregnant. They were helpful and knowledgeable and gave me all the options I was entitled to, including termination options, adoptive resources, lists of doctors according to insurance providers and according to state assistance, after-care programs for new recovering mothers and for immunizations for babies and kids up to age 5.

I walked out knowing I wanted to go through the pregnancy...especially after seeing all my options in a clinical setting where *I* could decide based on my own personal ethics.

I also know people who work there and at other women's health care centers who provide abortion services. Might I say their stories match mine when dealing with many pro-life activists and mobile CPC trucks that park close to the clinics.

Your experiences you are sharing - while going out on a limb - are leaving out some extremely important details on what you are providing for pregnant women (and girls, though you haven't answered how young your patients have been....or WERE they even considered patients?).

We weren't a mobile center and I came to the center via fund raising efforts on their behalf. I participated in fund raisers and other efforts to get more and more medical equipment on site.

You have an interesting spin on authority:

1. By saying we surrounded a patient with authoritarian figures (obviously, figures that intimidate the patient already) with the intent solely to preventing any termination of a pregnancy. Not true. Our intent was to show the same level of respect and care for persons choosing abortion as not. Love and care for a client, hoping that she will trust Jesus for salvation, goes right out the door when/if someone was doing anything verbal or non-verbal to intimidate the client. Someone like me who really believes in the love of Jesus as winning souls, not the scimitar of some other religions, cannot beat or coerce someone into doing ANYTHING and still maintain their gospel witness.

2. By assuming that the PP people aren't also authoritarian figures, or that a variety of options frees them of all pro choice biases and etc. Do you know tons of PP staffers who are ardently pro life? Because they would be opposing PP platforms de facto and in a work conflict. And my stories regarding harassment and intimidation at PPs are true, I saw them firsthand and I will never forget.

3. By obviously misunderstanding how we, rather than sit there and intimidate the clients, brought their family members into the process (always and ONLY with the express permission of the clients themselves). My point being there was little risk to the process as moms and dads were usually against abortion, pro-their child with what they needed (financial support, a place to live, help for adoption, and yes, abortion, if that was their choice), and therefore, I used the words "unneeded abortions". I have a family member who made a tough decision once, a medical abortion to save the life of herself, the mother. I don't judge her, I appreciate her. That was her choice, if a painful Sophie's Choice, and the doctors said, "You need this abortion."

It's upsetting to see, after I tell you most people have abortions (or so I've found) simply to avoid telling their spouse or partner or parents they got pregnant, that those of you reading this thread don't put your money where your mouth is, test my hypothesis, and start helping people. Abortion is hard on the mother. Be a cause for good in this world! I would REALLY respect even more someone who says, "I'm pro choice, but I would never have an abortion and so I want to help the helpless". It's a platitude, not gratitude or a beatitude to "help" someone terminate a pregnancy, for example, because the pregnant mom's money is tight. Even millionaires cannot guarantee the kid will be set for life. Why not rather give some money to needy persons who are pregnant? I have done so.

 

[leibowde84]

Again, I commend everyone on this thread for keeping their calm, but that doesn't mean we have to be PC. And I will try to use "pro choice" going forward if that helps. But what is the parallel? "For abortion"? "Not opposed to abortion?" Pro means...?

Because to most it is about bodily autonimy, not abortion specifically. it paints them as supporters of abortions when their actual argument is the protection Of women's control over their own bodies. Respect means at the very least labeling them in a way that is relevant to their point of view.

 

[leibowde84]

The only way that can be so is if the pro choice, not pro abortion person feels that choice is good and that abortion is bad. Yes? No?

Nope. Not necessarily. The movement is not based on the enjoyment or favor of abortion. as I said, it's based on women's bodily autonomy.

 

[Marisa]

Again, I commend everyone on this thread for keeping their calm, but that doesn't mean we have to be PC. And I will try to use "pro choice" going forward if that helps. But what is the parallel? "For abortion"? "Not opposed to abortion?" Pro means...?

The question of abortion is one of choice. You are either pro choice, in which case you believe every woman has the right to make the choice (even if it's a choice with which you disagree) or you are anti choice, in which case you believe women should not possess the right to make the choice at all.

ETA: This isn't rocket science.

 

[Marisa]

Repeating, I apologize again for using "neutral" instead of "safe". For young people, men and women, afraid to meet with their parents to discuss the issues, we offered a "safe" place. Often these meetings were held on our property. It was, however, "neutral" ground if you understand what I mean. It wasn't mom's house, grandpa's house, school grounds, the child's college dormitory, etc. And this is not the kind of conversation kids and parents want to have in, like, Starbucks. It was not that we or you are "abortion neutral" it was that the center and staff offered a not-child, not-parent safe place to meet.

I get your distinction. You should have stopped there, rather than tripling down on the notion that a "clinic" with the express purpose of counseling against abortion is in any way neutral.

Certainly, we were against abortion. But, and I can only speak for my own center where I worked, we were less concerned about the aborted child than the mother's and father's wellbeing. By being compassionate and non-judgmental, we frequently had repeat clients who came to us after an abortion for counseling, free medical, financial aid, etc.

I'll just take your word for that, since I believe the best of most people.

I chose not to answer certain questions re: medical and clinical procedures as I've had a bad experience in the past with my avatar being uncovered and I don't want to say anything untoward, even by accident, on a forum. Will it suffice to say that as far as I know we never did anything uncharitable, coercive or unlawful? There's no need for underhanded tactics in a place people go to get help but where they also receive love and kindness.

As I'm sure you read the paper I posted above which takes a look at Crisis Pregnancy Centers, straddling the line (if not outright crossing it) regarding patient privacy and medical expertise (dissemination of factual information) is rather common among CPCs. In my own experience working in a medical practice, I'm constantly amazed with the sheer numbers of people who have no idea what HIPPA is,let alone what it offers them. Let's just say that I'm extremely skeptical that your clinic was one of very few not playing fast and loose with legalities.

 

[Marisa]

The only way that can be so is if the pro choice, not pro abortion person feels that choice is good and that abortion is bad. Yes? No?

Flat out wrong. Most of us in the pro choice community are quite knowledgeable of certain facts. Namely, that in the US pregnancy and childbirth still ranks among the top 10 killers of women and in the third world, it's number 1 (bumped off that list only in places where abortion in unilaterally illegal, in which case guess what the number one killer of women is?). It is the complacency that comes with having an above average system of health care that allows us to so glibly dismiss possible complications that derive from pregnancy and state we are "pro life" while showing little to no concern for the life of the pregnant female in terms of potential complications. I can personally assure you that gestating a child for 9 months is no guarantee that mother or child will survive later and delivery, as a mere 75 years ago I and my child would have died in childbirth.

NOBODY chooses abortion for the experience. One might have thought that working in a facility where these decisions are discussed you'd understand that it is a difficult decision to make, and not something one schedules in between lunch and the evening's hot date. Choosing abortion is absolutely an exercise of responsibility, and the person who's best placed to judge whether or not a woman is prepared emotionally, financially and medically for pregnancy and childbirth is that woman herself.

The best possible outcome for everyone is that abortion remain safe, and legal. If you want to affect the number of abortions, your efforts are wasted moralizing on the issue. You'd be better off advocating for comprehensive sex education in all schools, and access to affordable, if not free, birth control.

 

[Marisa]

It's upsetting to see, after I tell you most people have abortions (or so I've found) simply to avoid telling their spouse or partner or parents they got pregnant,

That is a bold faced lie. Statistics exist, and if this is what you were telling people in your "center" then you have confirmed my suspicion that yours was, unsurprisingly, among the nefarious.

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives
By Lawrence B. Finer, Lori F. Frohwirth, Lindsay A. Dauphinee, Susheela Singh and Ann M. Moore
CONTEXT: Understanding women's reasons for having abortions can inform public debate and policy regarding abortion and unwanted pregnancy. Demographic changes over the last two decades highlight the need for a reassessment of why women decide to have abortions.

METHODS: In 2004, a structured survey was completed by 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites. Bivariate analyses examined differences in the reasons for abortion across subgroups, and multivariate logistic regression models assessed associations between respondent characteristics and reported reasons.

RESULTS: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

CONCLUSIONS: The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

 

[thau]

RESULTS: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

And somehow some mothers with those concerns or worries you listed still decide to go through and have the baby instead, somehow they make it anyway.
And no doubt it is an extremely rare case (if any) where six months after the child's birth the woman would look at her baby and say “I wish I had aborted you.” Gratitude, not regret.