Comments on: Could it be easier to force childbirth when abortion is legal? http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/ Just another WordPress weblog Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:18:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Beast http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482788 Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:14:53 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482788 Apparently Jill Stanek is the living embodiment of "Love the fetus, hate the child." Is it worse to remove an insensate wad of tissue, or to leave a real, live child to "suffer?" From Jill Stanek's own blog: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are projecting. I am by no means bitter. My son suffered due to an immature mother who would sometimes rather party than spend time with him, back in the day. I sinned. But God saw an opportunity for the blessing of giving a unique, special child to the world, despite that. I met Rich when Michael was 3-1/2. We married when he was 5, and Rich adopted him, which was another blessing. Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 16, 2008 4:51 AM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jess, I did not. I got pregnant at age 19 and married to my 18-year-old boyfriend (who was still in high school) at 4-1/2 months along. I had my oldest at age 20. I was divorced and a single mom by age 23. I cannot regret my lapse because that would mean I regret my wonderful son, who has now given me 3 beautiful grandsons. But our life was hard for a time. And he suffered most for it. Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 15, 2008 10:34 AM Apparently Jill Stanek is the living embodiment of “Love the fetus, hate the child.”

Is it worse to remove an insensate wad of tissue, or to leave a real, live child to “suffer?”

From Jill Stanek’s own blog:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are projecting. I am by no means bitter. My son
suffered due to an immature mother who would sometimes rather party than
spend time with him, back in the day.
I sinned. But God saw an opportunity for the blessing of giving a unique,
special child to the world, despite that.
I met Rich when Michael was 3-1/2. We married when he was 5, and Rich
adopted him, which was another blessing.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 16, 2008 4:51 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jess, I did not. I got pregnant at age 19 and married to my
18-year-old boyfriend (who was still in high school) at 4-1/2 months
along. I had my oldest at age 20. I was divorced and a single mom by age
23.
I cannot regret my lapse because that would mean I regret my wonderful
son, who has now given me 3 beautiful grandsons.
But our life was hard for a time. And he suffered most for it.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 15, 2008 10:34 AM

]]> by: Greg Sanders http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482762 Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:22:16 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482762 <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012918.php" rel="nofollow">Kevin Drum</a> has some insight I think. First the L.A. Times notes that the drops seem to be in states with less restrictions on abortion: <blockquote>Some of the biggest drops in the abortion rate, however, have come in states that do not impose tight restrictions. Oregon, for instance, was rated this week by Americans United for Life as the nation's "least pro-life state," yet its abortion rate dropped 25% from 2000 to 2005 — more than any state except Wyoming.</blockquote> He goes on to note the drop in unwanted pregnancies: <blockquote>Here are the basic numbers: excluding miscarriages, the pregnancy rate among women aged 15-44 has dropped by 13 per thousand since 1990. At the same time, the abortion rate has dropped by 8 per thousand. By itself this isn't conclusive, but it strongly suggests that the reduced abortion rate is mostly due to fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place. If increased regulation were the prime driver, you'd be more likely to see the pregancy rate staying about the same while abortions drop, and you'd be more likely to see bigger drops in states with more regulation. </blockquote> So I think the possibility Amanda is hypothesizing about makes sense but probably isn't a main driving factor. Kevin Drum has some insight I think. First the L.A. Times notes that the drops seem to be in states with less restrictions on abortion:

Some of the biggest drops in the abortion rate, however, have come in states that do not impose tight restrictions. Oregon, for instance, was rated this week by Americans United for Life as the nation’s “least pro-life state,” yet its abortion rate dropped 25% from 2000 to 2005 — more than any state except Wyoming.

He goes on to note the drop in unwanted pregnancies:

Here are the basic numbers: excluding miscarriages, the pregnancy rate among women aged 15-44 has dropped by 13 per thousand since 1990. At the same time, the abortion rate has dropped by 8 per thousand. By itself this isn’t conclusive, but it strongly suggests that the reduced abortion rate is mostly due to fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place. If increased regulation were the prime driver, you’d be more likely to see the pregancy rate staying about the same while abortions drop, and you’d be more likely to see bigger drops in states with more regulation.

So I think the possibility Amanda is hypothesizing about makes sense but probably isn’t a main driving factor.

]]> by: Mighty Ponygirl http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482670 Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:58:40 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482670 The reason we aren't seeing an uptick in illegal backalley abortions and coathangers has partly to do with the medical options for abortion available to women (as opposed to surgical), but also, women and girls aren't using coathangers. They're getting their boyfriends to hit them in the stomach with baseball bats, or throwing themselves down stairs. They're trying to induce a miscarriage through external trauma. The women who know about the history of the coathanger know why it's a symbol of the pro-choice movement -- because it will kill you, so they're not going to try that and probably opt for more medical abortions. Women who don't know about the coathanger symbol and why it's a symbol of the pro-choice movement wouldn't think of it as a means of aborting because they don't understand how surgical abortion happens. And if a woman was as desperate and ill-informed as to try all of that, there's a good chance she'll actually be treated and saved at the hospital because abortion <em>isn't illegal</em> and so the doctors and nurses aren't under orders to <em>withhold treatment</em> when a woman comes in with a ruptured uterus. Since she didn't die, there's no news story, and we don't hear about it. The reason we aren’t seeing an uptick in illegal backalley abortions and coathangers has partly to do with the medical options for abortion available to women (as opposed to surgical), but also, women and girls aren’t using coathangers. They’re getting their boyfriends to hit them in the stomach with baseball bats, or throwing themselves down stairs. They’re trying to induce a miscarriage through external trauma. The women who know about the history of the coathanger know why it’s a symbol of the pro-choice movement — because it will kill you, so they’re not going to try that and probably opt for more medical abortions. Women who don’t know about the coathanger symbol and why it’s a symbol of the pro-choice movement wouldn’t think of it as a means of aborting because they don’t understand how surgical abortion happens.

And if a woman was as desperate and ill-informed as to try all of that, there’s a good chance she’ll actually be treated and saved at the hospital because abortion isn’t illegal and so the doctors and nurses aren’t under orders to withhold treatment when a woman comes in with a ruptured uterus. Since she didn’t die, there’s no news story, and we don’t hear about it.

]]> by: paul http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482582 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:33:59 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482582 I really doubt it's abortion access per se, because the situation for lack of clinics has sucked for years. It's been getting worse, but not all that rapidly. The two things that have been getting worse have been contraceptive education, with tens of millions of federal dollars pushing lies about contraception to teenagers and young adults, and the economic status of poor women and men, with real income falling for the lowest quintiles during the Bush Administration. Make it a little more expensive to get an abortion, allow people less money to spend, and lie to them about the circumstances under which they might need one... And tempting though it might be to think that outlawing abortion would finally stir people to action, I wouldn't bet on it. Think of all the things that were supposed to be the last straw in the authoritarian war on US liberties. Think of all the people who would be able to get abortions anyway without making a big deal of it, and the deleterious effect a surveillance state has on activism. No college loans if you don't register for the draft, no college loans if you can't prove you didn't contribute to Planned Parenthood... And pretty much the best you would get would be a return to the status quo ante. I really doubt it’s abortion access per se, because the situation for lack of clinics has sucked for years. It’s been getting worse, but not all that rapidly. The two things that have been getting worse have been contraceptive education, with tens of millions of federal dollars pushing lies about contraception to teenagers and young adults, and the economic status of poor women and men, with real income falling for the lowest quintiles during the Bush Administration. Make it a little more expensive to get an abortion, allow people less money to spend, and lie to them about the circumstances under which they might need one…

And tempting though it might be to think that outlawing abortion would finally stir people to action, I wouldn’t bet on it. Think of all the things that were supposed to be the last straw in the authoritarian war on US liberties. Think of all the people who would be able to get abortions anyway without making a big deal of it, and the deleterious effect a surveillance state has on activism. No college loans if you don’t register for the draft, no college loans if you can’t prove you didn’t contribute to Planned Parenthood…

And pretty much the best you would get would be a return to the status quo ante.

]]> by: Airina http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482550 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:57:23 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482550 <i>Thanks Aririna, I had never heard of those laws being in effect around here. I suppose I have never looked into it too hard because there is a big Planned Parenthood just a couple blocks from where I live, so I know where I would go. </i> Careful of that assumption-- there is, in fact, only one Planned Parenthood in the state of Minnesota that provides abortions. Thanks Aririna, I had never heard of those laws being in effect around here. I suppose I have never looked into it too hard because there is a big Planned Parenthood just a couple blocks from where I live, so I know where I would go.

Careful of that assumption– there is, in fact, only one Planned Parenthood in the state of Minnesota that provides abortions.

]]> by: blondie http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482502 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:53:30 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482502 Rather than ceding Jeff the power to push my buttons, I wanted to go a little OT after reading Pollitt's article. I don't know if it's reflective of changing times or what, but one of the seminal movies of my youth was Fast Times at Ridgmont High. In Fast Times, one of the main young teen characters got pregnant, got an abortion, and the angst was about the boy's non-support (financial and emotional), not about whether she was immoral to terminate the pregnancy. Like many of my generation, that was also my take on it. As a pregnant teen, the first response would be to decide whether to get an abortion. Alternatives would then be thinking about adoption or keeping the baby. Now, abortion is not mentioned or is treated cartoonishly. Of course, we <i>all</i> base our decisions on movies, but I find the difference between current movies and Fast Times interesting. Rather than ceding Jeff the power to push my buttons, I wanted to go a little OT after reading Pollitt’s article.

I don’t know if it’s reflective of changing times or what, but one of the seminal movies of my youth was Fast Times at Ridgmont High. In Fast Times, one of the main young teen characters got pregnant, got an abortion, and the angst was about the boy’s non-support (financial and emotional), not about whether she was immoral to terminate the pregnancy. Like many of my generation, that was also my take on it. As a pregnant teen, the first response would be to decide whether to get an abortion. Alternatives would then be thinking about adoption or keeping the baby. Now, abortion is not mentioned or is treated cartoonishly. Of course, we all base our decisions on movies, but I find the difference between current movies and Fast Times interesting.

]]> by: Chrissy http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482497 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:31:19 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482497 Maybe this is waaayyyy too simplistic, but I think that the birth rate is going up primarily because women desire to have more children. If they desire to have children, they try to have them early, and are very aware of the possibility of declining fertility with age and other possible fertility issues. Several years ago, all women assumed that all women could have children whenever they wanted, well into their early forties, and that getting medical help was no big deal. Infertility treatments are expensive and very taxing physically and emotionally, and no one wants to find themselves like "that woman" who waited, even if she waited for a good reason. A very good friend of mine cast her "good reason" aside, and actually delayed practicing as a lawyer for 2 years to accomodate an unplanned pregnancy. I also decided to take a semester and summer off from school to have my child, at age 28, because, among other things, I was diagnosed with PCOS which effects fertility. Several years ago, both of our decisions would have been seen as a mistake, that career and education was more important and that children were supposed to come "later." Well, a lot of us have anxiety that "later" means invasive fertility treatments, multiple births, adoption, or not having children at all. This is what I see amongst my peers, who are women in their 20s and 30s, married or single, educated with average or above incomes. Maybe this is waaayyyy too simplistic, but I think that the birth rate is going up primarily because women desire to have more children. If they desire to have children, they try to have them early, and are very aware of the possibility of declining fertility with age and other possible fertility issues. Several years ago, all women assumed that all women could have children whenever they wanted, well into their early forties, and that getting medical help was no big deal. Infertility treatments are expensive and very taxing physically and emotionally, and no one wants to find themselves like “that woman” who waited, even if she waited for a good reason. A very good friend of mine cast her “good reason” aside, and actually delayed practicing as a lawyer for 2 years to accomodate an unplanned pregnancy. I also decided to take a semester and summer off from school to have my child, at age 28, because, among other things, I was diagnosed with PCOS which effects fertility. Several years ago, both of our decisions would have been seen as a mistake, that career and education was more important and that children were supposed to come “later.” Well, a lot of us have anxiety that “later” means invasive fertility treatments, multiple births, adoption, or not having children at all. This is what I see amongst my peers, who are women in their 20s and 30s, married or single, educated with average or above incomes.

]]> by: Chrissy http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482492 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:08:22 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482492 Maybe this is waaayyyy too simplistic, but I think that the birth rate is going up primarily because women desire to have more children. If they desire to have children, they try to have them early, and are very aware of the possibility of declining fertility with age and other possible fertility issues. Several years ago, all women assumed that all women could have children whenever they wanted, well into their early forties, and that getting medical help was no big deal. Infertility treatments are expensive and very taxing physically and emotionally, and no one wants to find themselves like "that woman" who waited, even if she waited for a good reason. A very good friend of mine cast her "good reason" aside, and actually delayed practicing as a lawyer for 2 years to accomodate an unplanned pregnancy. I also decided to take a semester and summer off from school to have my child, at age 28, because, among other things, I was diagnosed with PCOS which effects fertility. Several years ago, both of our decisions would have been seen as a mistake, that career and education was more important and that children were supposed to come "later." Well, a lot of us have anxiety that "later" means invasive fertility treatments, multiple births, adoption, or not having children at all. This is what I see amongst my peers, who are women in their 20s and 30s, married or single, educated with average or above incomes. Maybe this is waaayyyy too simplistic, but I think that the birth rate is going up primarily because women desire to have more children. If they desire to have children, they try to have them early, and are very aware of the possibility of declining fertility with age and other possible fertility issues. Several years ago, all women assumed that all women could have children whenever they wanted, well into their early forties, and that getting medical help was no big deal. Infertility treatments are expensive and very taxing physically and emotionally, and no one wants to find themselves like “that woman” who waited, even if she waited for a good reason. A very good friend of mine cast her “good reason” aside, and actually delayed practicing as a lawyer for 2 years to accomodate an unplanned pregnancy. I also decided to take a semester and summer off from school to have my child, at age 28, because, among other things, I was diagnosed with PCOS which effects fertility. Several years ago, both of our decisions would have been seen as a mistake, that career and education was more important and that children were supposed to come “later.” Well, a lot of us have anxiety that “later” means invasive fertility treatments, multiple births, adoption, or not having children at all. This is what I see amongst my peers, who are women in their 20s and 30s, married or single, educated with average or above incomes.

]]> by: Storm at Sea http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482489 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:04:09 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482489 The Guttmacher Institute has the study on their website: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf Table 3 breaks it down by state, including not just the counties without a provider but the % of women in those counties. It ranges from a low of 0 in Hawaii and DC to a high of 96 in Wyoming. For the whole US, 35% of women live in a county with no providers; for the Northeast, it's 17%; for the Midwest, it's 50%; for the South, it's 47%, and for the West it's 15%. The Guttmacher Institute has the study on their website:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf

Table 3 breaks it down by state, including not just the counties without a provider but the % of women in those counties. It ranges from a low of 0 in Hawaii and DC to a high of 96 in Wyoming. For the whole US, 35% of women live in a county with no providers; for the Northeast, it’s 17%; for the Midwest, it’s 50%; for the South, it’s 47%, and for the West it’s 15%.

]]> by: Damian http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482485 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:57:27 +0000 http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/6577/#comment-482485 Jeff, I'm going to assume you're joking, and not tear into you right now. But know this: if you're seriously saying what it looks like you're saying, you're in for Hell itself coming right up to Earth in front of you. Jeff,

I’m going to assume you’re joking, and not tear into you right now. But know this: if you’re seriously saying what it looks like you’re saying, you’re in for Hell itself coming right up to Earth in front of you.

]]>