Poland's abortion dilemma

[Black Dog]

If your answer to the last question is something along the lines of, "Because those things can be harmful if they aren't properly administered" then why can't the government at least caution prospective aborters about the long-term consequences of the procedure?

I'm not oppossed to regulating how abortions are carried out, but, as Riverwind hints at, there's a dangerous potential for politicization of information. I'd rather the government stick to making sure that abortion doctors are qualified professionals and that facilities are safe.

Beyond the physical risks, there are also long term psychological effects that should at least be acknowleged as well.

Abortion is safer than childbirth. Plus, I'm sure any medical professional would make their patient aware of any potential risk no mater how small.

As for the alleged psychological effects, well research shows abortion has positive or neutral rather than negative psychological outcomes for the majority of women.

If the government is going to crack down, they need to start with bogus "pregnancy counselling" organizations that peddle myths like "post-abortiion syndrome" to vulnerable women.

[BHS]

As for the alleged psychological effects, well research shows abortion has positive or neutral rather than negative psychological outcomes for the majority of women.

Every woman I know who has had an abortion was come away with regrets, some deeper than others. Abortion is not the guilt-free shedding of lifeless tissue that the pro-choice crowd like to portray it as. A woman who has an abortion early in her life and has difficulty conceiving later on can suffer tremendously for "what might have been". You can argue that an unwanted child would have caused more suffering for the mother than what she puts herself through in hindsight, but that's entirely speculative. The pain I'm talking about is real and lasting.

If the government is going to crack down, they need to start with bogus "pregnancy counselling" organizations that peddle myths like "post-abortiion syndrome" to vulnerable women.

Maybe the government could start by tapping their phones and looking into their bank records. Too rough? (Actually, I don't know where the term "crack down" in your post finds it's genesis. I'm a little curious about that.)

[betsy]

Excellent question:

If a child is born and causes say, post-partum depression, can the mother kill or have the child killed as it impacts her life negatively, maybe even causing death through suicide?

I, too, await somebody who can provide the answer.....

Didn't we have a couple of tragic incidents involving depression? A woman who killed herself and her baby in the subway? A woman who threw her child from the bridge?

The flurry of media that followed were all dismissive of any other possible causes why these things happened....the culprit was automatically post-partum depression.

I guess Susan Smith would've gotten off the hook if she did not concoct such convoluted stories and alibis.

All she had to do was blame depression.

What was her motive....increased chances of getting a particular guy if she had no extra baggage in tow?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Every woman I know who has had an abortion was come away with regrets, some deeper than others. Abortion is not the guilt-free shedding of lifeless tissue that the pro-choice crowd like to portray it as. A woman who has an abortion early in her life and has difficulty conceiving later on can suffer tremendously for "what might have been". You can argue that an unwanted child would have caused more suffering for the mother than what she puts herself through in hindsight, but that's entirely speculative. The pain I'm talking about is real and lasting.

We have had two abortions in our immediate family. I would describe the reactions of both women as regret for having had to abort. In both cases the abortions were undertaken on the advice of physicians for health reasons - in one instance there was a significant possibilty that the woman would die if the pregnancy were not terminated. In neither instance was the medical condition known prior to conception.

[Charles Anthony]

I would describe the reactions of both women as regret for having had to abort.

What exactly do they regret (assuming they voice their opinions specifically)?

If they could go back in time, do they suggest that they would have taken the chance of carrying the children to term?

In both cases the abortions were undertaken on the advice of physicians for health reasons - in one instance there was a significant possibilty that the woman would die if the pregnancy were not terminated.

Do they doubt the advice, in hind sight?

In neither instance was the medical condition known prior to conception.

What exactly were the conditions?

[Guest Warwick Green]

I would describe the reactions of both women as regret for having had to abort.

What exactly do they regret (assuming they voice their opinions specifically)?

If they could go back in time, do they suggest that they would have taken the chance of carrying the children to term?

In both cases the abortions were undertaken on the advice of physicians for health reasons - in one instance there was a significant possibilty that the woman would die if the pregnancy were not terminated.

Do they doubt the advice, in hind sight?

In neither instance was the medical condition known prior to conception.

What exactly were the conditions?

Their regret is that they had to abort two fetuses when they were willing to go to term.

It's speculative as what they would do if faced with it again. But my feeling is they would make the same decision. I have never heard either of them suggesting that they would have done anything different.

One was a gall bladder, the other a psychiatric condition.

[Black Dog]

Every woman I know who has had an abortion was come away with regrets, some deeper than others. Abortion is not the guilt-free shedding of lifeless tissue that the pro-choice crowd like to portray it as. A woman who has an abortion early in her life and has difficulty conceiving later on can suffer tremendously for "what might have been". You can argue that an unwanted child would have caused more suffering for the mother than what she puts herself through in hindsight, but that's entirely speculative. The pain I'm talking about is real and lasting.

Women who have abortions may experience some of those feelings, but the primary emotion is one of relief. That's what the research and my own anecdotal evididence shows. It may not be guilt free, but nor are women who get abortions doomed to a lifetime of emotional trauma that the anti-abortion crowd likes to portray.

Maybe the government could start by tapping their phones and looking into their bank records. Too rough? (Actually, I don't know where the term "crack down" in your post finds it's genesis. I'm a little curious about that.)

Mostly I'm thinking ensuring places that pass themselves off as counselling services have people who are actually qualified. Perhaps requiring licencing.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Women who have abortions may experience some of those feelings, but the primary emotion is one of relief. That's what the research and my own anecdotal evididence shows. It may not be guilt free, but nor are women who get abortions doomed to a lifetime of emotional trauma that the anti-abortion crowd likes to portray.

My experience is only the two women I referred to. Relief? I guess in a sense that the abortions were done for medical reasons. Still, neither of them wanted an abortion.

[Black Dog]

My experience is only the two women I referred to. Relief? I guess in a sense that the abortions were done for medical reasons. Still, neither of them wanted an abortion.

But most women who get abortions don't get them for medical reasons. That's what the stats show. So it's safe to assume these women (again, the majority) opted for abortions because they simply didn't want to have a kid. In which case, I can see having the burden of an unwanted child being lifted as a relief.

[Guest Warwick Green]

My experience is only the two women I referred to. Relief? I guess in a sense that the abortions were done for medical reasons. Still, neither of them wanted an abortion.

But most women who get abortions don't get them for medical reasons. That's what the stats show. So it's safe to assume these women (again, the majority) opted for abortions because they simply didn't want to have a kid. In which case, I can see having the burden of an unwanted child being lifted as a relief.

If you didn't want to be pregnant in the first place I can see relief after the abortion. However, I don't know if there still might feelings of regret later in some women, as some claim.

[Black Dog]

If you didn't want to be pregnant in the first place I can see relief after the abortion. However, I don't know if there still might feelings of regret later in some women, as some claim.

You can have both. Women I've spoken to who've had abortions may regret that it was necessary for them to get an abortion, but they have no qualms about the decision itself. And contrary to BHS's earlier statement, I don't think any pro-choice advocates claim abortion is a "guilt-free shedding of lifeless tissue"; it is recognized by the majority as a regrettable but necessary reality. That degree of subtlety is certainly not found in the more vocal members on other side of the issue, who tend to claim that women who get abortions will inevitably experience any number of problems from fertility or medical problems (like the enduring myth about the links between abortion and breast cancer) or deep psychological problems.

[Charles Anthony]

it is recognized by the majority as a regrettable but necessary reality. That degree of subtlety is certainly not found in the more vocal members on other side of the issue,

Wrong.

I have heard the same logic from "the other side" of the issue. I will be specific but you will have to be open-minded. You do not have to believe the assumptions but try to be creative and follow it. Here goes:

Some people believe man is made in the image of God.

They believe that each child is born entirely pure and looking into the face of an infant is looking directly at God.

Thus, an "unwanted" pregnancy is God's only way of intervening: coming to the victim and rejuvenating the victim's life -- if the victim accepts.

Thus, the burden of being a victim of rape (or carrying a bastard-child or being unmarried or missing out on education or carreer opportunities) is outweighed by the gift of life.

Again, if the victim accepts the gift, the unwanted pregnancy is a regrettable but necessary reality.

[Guest Warwick Green]

it is recognized by the majority as a regrettable but necessary reality. That degree of subtlety is certainly not found in the more vocal members on other side of the issue,

Wrong.

I have heard the same logic from "the other side" of the issue. I will be specific but you will have to be open-minded. You do not have to believe the assumptions but try to be creative and follow it. Here goes:

Some people believe man is made in the image of God.

They believe that each child is born entirely pure and looking into the face of an infant is looking directly at God.

Thus, an "unwanted" pregnancy is God's only way of intervening: coming to the victim and rejuvenating the victim's life -- if the victim accepts.

Thus, the burden of being a victim of rape (or carrying a bastard-child or being unmarried or missing out on education or carreer opportunities) is outweighed by the gift of life.

Again, if the victim accepts the gift, the unwanted pregnancy is a regrettable but necessary reality.

How relevant is this argument to those who don't believe in God - and more to the point, do those who do believe in God have a right to impose their views on others who don't? It's a bit academic mind you - nobody wishing to outlaw abortion uses a religious argument.

[Guest Warwick Green]

That degree of subtlety is certainly not found in the more vocal members on other side of the issue, who tend to claim that women who get abortions will inevitably experience any number of problems from fertility or medical problems (like the enduring myth about the links between abortion and breast cancer) or deep psychological problems.

I am sure that some do suffer psychological problems but certainly not all. Anyway, that's not an argument for banning abortion. It's an argument for counselling.

[Black Dog]

I am sure that some do suffer psychological problems but certainly not all. Anyway, that's not an argument for banning abortion. It's an argument for counselling.

Word, WG. There's very serious problems with how abortion is handled. The process needs to be improved, but for that to happen the procedure and those who undergo it need to be destigmatized. IOW, I'm tired of so many mainstream nominally prochoice liberals treating abortion like a dirty secret (ie. "you have the right to choose and we'll fight to keep it that way, but please don't ever speak of it.")

[Guest Warwick Green]

I am sure that some do suffer psychological problems but certainly not all. Anyway, that's not an argument for banning abortion. It's an argument for counselling.

Word, WG. There's very serious problems with how abortion is handled. The process needs to be improved, but for that to happen the procedure and those who undergo it need to be destigmatized. IOW, I'm tired of so many mainstream nominally prochoice liberals treating abortion like a dirty secret (ie. "you have the right to choose and we'll fight to keep it that way, but please don't ever speak of it.")

If the two members of my family who have had abortions had made it public all they would have had for their troubles would have been to have had religious zealots picketing their homes calling them "baby killers". It's that kind of an issue -- hijacked by the extremists. Women who have aborted best stay away from it all.

[Kindred]

Most women who get abortions for non-medical reasons do so because they are not in a financial position to support both themselves and a child. An awful lot are in University and the impact of a baby/child can cause them to have to drop out.

Most people assume the baby will be born healthy . All too often it isnt and the cost is too great for a single mother to carry on her own while completing her education. The cost is usually too high for a healthy child to be combined with educational costs.

A pregnant woman has to choose, her education and a career, eventually children she can provide for, or a life of poverty for her and the baby she is pregnant with. Hard choices to be forced to make.

Aso some women are just not maternal.

Those I know who have had abortions suffer no apparent regret or guilt, or repurcussions.

I am not commenting on the right or wrong of abortion, the morality of it, I have completely torn between freedom to choose and my own personal feelings about abortion, especially as a form of birth control.

However I will say I dont think tax payers should be picking up the tab for "repeat aborters" unless a medical condition prevents them from taking the pill, or neutralizes the pill so it wont work for them -- and even then there are other methods.

Anti seizure medication neutralizes the effect of birth control pills. They just dont work.

[BHS]

Mostly I'm thinking ensuring places that pass themselves off as counselling services have people who are actually qualified. Perhaps requiring licencing.

A little off topic (or maybe not) but would this apply to AA?

[Melanie_]

[some people believe man is made in the image of God.

They believe that each child is born entirely pure and looking into the face of an infant is looking directly at God.

Thus, an "unwanted" pregnancy is God's only way of intervening: coming to the victim and rejuvenating the victim's life -- if the victim accepts.

Thus, the burden of being a victim of rape (or carrying a bastard-child or being unmarried or missing out on education or carreer opportunities) is outweighed by the gift of life.

Again, if the victim accepts the gift, the unwanted pregnancy is a regrettable but necessary reality.

Spare me (and my daughters, sister, nieces, cousins, and all our combined female friends) from the "intervention" of a god like this.

[Charles Anthony]

Spare me (and my daughters, sister, nieces, cousins, and all our combined female friends) from the "intervention" of a god like this.

Have no fear. All of you can explain the EXACT SAME EVENTS with evolution.

Choose your antidote.

[geoffrey]

[some people believe man is made in the image of God.

They believe that each child is born entirely pure and looking into the face of an infant is looking directly at God.

Thus, an "unwanted" pregnancy is God's only way of intervening: coming to the victim and rejuvenating the victim's life -- if the victim accepts.

Thus, the burden of being a victim of rape (or carrying a bastard-child or being unmarried or missing out on education or carreer opportunities) is outweighed by the gift of life.

Again, if the victim accepts the gift, the unwanted pregnancy is a regrettable but necessary reality.

Spare me (and my daughters, sister, nieces, cousins, and all our combined female friends) from the "intervention" of a god like this.

Whew, I must say Charles, people that make statements like that don't help our side of our argument. You can't justify enforcing your God upon others. Religion or faith can have no part in an ethical debate in a secular society. You'll find my arguments deal with the logical trap that abortion is and the ethical delimma there. I happen to be religious too, but I've never mentioned creation in God's image or anythinf of the such in making my claims to pro-life. You must take a position like this to be crediable.

One aspect of freedom of religion is that you have to be ready to allow others to not be religious. God plays no part in their logic, and likely the logic of the majority of Canadians. Even SSM was more of a non-religious issue with most critics, the Christian fundamentalist sect in Canada is very small.

So yes Melanie, people like Charles and I are going to be against abortion. But you won't hear many of us claiming that rape victims are net beneficiaries, besides Charles that is. This doesn't change the central premise of my argument though, that there is no logical line to be drawn and that if the baby is alive at any time, it should be considered alive at all times. Aborting a 'bastard' child would be unethical from this perspective, as this would be extending the violence of a rape. That being said, with emergency contraceptives, there should be no real issue here in 99% of cases.

Now I can just feel BD ready to post something about how I'm imposing my morals on others. Which is fine, I am. But we do as a society all the time, premediated murderers obviously don't have much of a moral issue with murder as we do. Same with rapists, those that defraud the elderly, ect.. The way I see it is that abortion can have no legislation and pro-choice people have to be ok with abortion during labour... or abortion must be outlawed in all cases. Compromise can't really exist, if the kid is alive, then you can't kill it, if it's not, then why not kill it. I'm ok with either argument if it could be proven to me. In the meantime, I'll err on the side of caution and support the pro-lifers.

I also take issue with BD saying that abortion is a necessary reality. Is this in cases of rape or medical emergency only, or do many people have a necessity (necessity implies that no other option in viable... no adoption, ect. ect.) not to have a child?

[BHS]

Geoffrey:

If you're going to slap someone down, only to discover that they've already sidestepped your argument, the least you could do is acknowledge that they've done so. Do you not have anything to say about the evolution rebuttal?

Further, I don't see Charles arguing that rape victims are net beneficiaries. I see him arguing that someone of a religious bent could choose to see the life resulting from a rape as God turning lemons into lemonade. Overcoming tragedy by turning it into a source of strength and thereby a means of coping with life's negative aspects is the goal of secular mental therapy, so why should it be argued away if the theraputic guidance is rooted in religious beliefs? Do you not see that as a double standard?

Now, as far as using the religious belief to justify a refusal to perform abortions - I'm personally against that. I simply am arguing that a religious viewpoint shouldn't exclude you from the debate.

[Charles Anthony]

Further, I don't see Charles arguing that rape victims are net beneficiaries. I see him arguing that someone of a religious bent could choose to see

Thank you. At least somebody knows how to read.

I thought it was obvious but obviously not -- people choose to read what they want to read, funny, is it not?

[Black Dog]

A little off topic (or maybe not) but would this apply to AA?

I don't think AA fits in the same catagory as these "counselling" services.

The way I see it is that abortion can have no legislation and pro-choice people have to be ok with abortion during labour... or abortion must be outlawed in all cases.

If that's the choice, then I'm okay with abortion during labour. However, I can also rest easy in the

knowledge that the probability of such an occurance is very, very low. And I don't think an extreme, highly unlikely event should be used as a cudely to justify a universal ban on abortions.

Compromise can't really exist, if the kid is alive, then you can't kill it, if it's not, then why not kill it. I'm ok with either argument if it could be proven to me. In the meantime, I'll err on the side of caution and support the pro-lifers.

See, my pro-abortion argument doesn't depend on defining the fetus as "alive" or not. It's alive, just as any collection of cells can be considered alive. What a fetus is not, though, is an autonomous entity deserving the same rights and protections as a sentient, self-sufficient human being.

I also take issue with BD saying that abortion is a necessary reality. Is this in cases of rape or medical emergency only, or do many people have a necessity (necessity implies that no other option in viable... no adoption, ect. ect.) not to have a child?

I think abortion often is the only viable alternative. What people who advocate for adoption (for example) forget is that pregnancy is a stressful and dangerous ime. In addition to potential health risks, there's the psychological issues, the employment issues, etc etc that amke carrying a child for 9 months, and then giving birth a far less cut and dried solution than some would make it out to be.

[BHS]

A little off topic (or maybe not) but would this apply to AA?

I don't think AA fits in the same catagory as these "counselling" services.

Not to beat a dead horse, but how would you differentiate between different types of counselling services for the purposes of licensing?