crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[ktgrok]

I didn't want to open this thread. At this point it's predictable what the general consensus is on this forum. And my views will not win me any popularity contests.

 

I just want to say that my abortion through the Planned Parenthood system confirms the criticism about them. I felt completely coerced and was not presented with keeping the baby as a valid option. I was living in a time and place where abortion was pushed much harder than anything else. I didn't know there was such a thing as a crisis pregnancy center.

 

 

I think just as there are good places that provide honest support for women and fake abortion clinics that lie to women, there are varying experiences  at abortion providers. The PP near where I grew up was a bad place, that was very much on the side of "having an unplanned baby will ruin your life, we are going to save you with an abortion". I had a friend go there who was very much planning to keep her baby. She'd bought books on pregnancy, was taking prenatal vitamins, and changing her diet. She went just to find out options, especialy in regards to prenatal care. They had her come back for an ultrasound, they told her that was all it was. When she got there she was talked into an abortion. She went in for an ultrasound, on prenatal vitamins, planning a pregnancy and when I talked to her a few hours later she was drugged up and had had an abortion. Later she told me they convinced her that because she and her boyfriend sometimes fought (NO violence, nothing abusive) that she'd be better off without a child,and that she'd never finish her education or make anything of herself if she kept the baby. 

 

Now, I've talked to people that have worked at other PP, and thankfully that was not how they operated. In fact, the one I am talking about was later disenfranchised or whatever they call it, and is no longer part of PP because of the crap they were pulling. But those places do exist. 

[MSNative]

Your experience confirms your experience. It does not mean that everyone universally has had that experience. As an older teen, I went to PP thinking I needed birth control. I left with a referral for a rape counselor because the clinician correctly suspected I had been abused at a much younger age and knowing I didn't need birth control because I wasn't ready or interested in having sex. As a 22 year old newlywed I went to there thinking an abortion was my only option since I was so young. I left with the knowledge that it was my choice and that parenting was an option (child turns 13 next month). At 23 I went for emergency contraception because I knew that I could not have kids 15 months apart. They were the only ones willing to dispense it on a holiday weekend. I don't doubt your experiences. Don't tell me your experience though is the only experience anyone has ever had there. I know dozens of women who have had abortions or other care there and had a positive and non-coercive experience.

Likewise your experience doesn't mean that everyone universally had a positive experience. It confirms your experience. I'm happy that you got the help you needed there. Yours left you with a positive view of PP. Hers left her with a negative view. Both are valid and helpful to the discussion.

Edited May 12, 2016 by MSNative

[LucyStoner]

I doubt the poster thinks the woman isn't also a factor, the context of her statement didn't really require pointing it out though.

If someone thinks that having an abortion is always wrong, they are making the woman, and the woman's feelings and beliefs about her own pregnancy, a non factor. If the embryo/fetus/baby essentially has a right to be born that trumps the woman's decision as to if she wants to be pregnant or give birth, the woman is less valuable to the pro-life movement than the ideology or the child.

Edited May 12, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Likewise your experience doesn't mean that everyone universally had a positive experience. It confirms your experience. I'm happy that you got the help you needed there. Yours left you with a positive view of PP. Hers left her with a negative view. Both are valid and helpful to the discussion.

Uh, I agree.

 

I explicitly stated I didn't doubt her experience. There are bad affliates out there. She was speaking as though her singular experience was the only one and confirmed all criticism, I was not. I have had over a dozen positive interactions with PP, two of them truly transformative, and am not ok leaving remarks which paint the organization in one broad negative stroke unchallenged.

Edited May 12, 2016 by LucyStoner

[poppy]

If everyone agreed that an embryo was just a thing, there would be no ethical debate at all, it would be like having a tumor removed  .Logically speaking, if an embryo is not just a thing, then it is absolutely part of the equation.

 

That is the substance of the current debate about abortion, all you have done is assume your own position. 

 

I doubt the poster thinks the woman isn't also a factor, the context of her statement didn't really require pointing it out though. 

 

No, I disagree. 

The pregnant woman is the doctor's patient. The embryo, even if you think of it as a baby, is not the doctor's patient. 

If a doctor looks at a pregnancy first and foremost from a religious perspective, to convert her to his faith, that is a breach of trust and ,  I would argue,  unethical.

Now, the pregnant woman's pastor? Husband? Friends? Totally different story.  

 

Another perspective.  If a pregnant woman has cancer, the doctor's job is to tell the woman about her treatment options.   If he looks at it entirely from the perspective of "what can I do to ensure the baby's survival," without regard to the woman's safety, he is unethical.    The baby's survival is obviously a factor he will discuss with the mother - of course! - but his patient is the woman. 

[pinkmint]

Where did I say my experience of Planned Parenthood was the only one? I feel I made an effort to say it was my view and experience.

 

But just like those who report good experiences of PP that's not all there is to it. Am I not allowed to say that?

[Bluegoat]

If someone thinks that having an abortion is always wrong, they are making the woman, and the woman's feelings and beliefs about her own pregnancy, a non factor. If the embryo/fetus/baby essentially has a right to be born that trumps the woman's decision as to if she wants to be pregnant or give birth, the woman is less valuable to the pro-life movement than the ideology or the child.

 

 

Generally people who think abortion is always, or almost always wrong think that an unborn human is the same status as the mother - both are people, and that it is not or is almost never permissible to kill another person.

 

When rights seem to conflict in any case, we have to decide if one is more fundamental than the other, or how to balance them.  In this case it would usually be understood as the embryo's right to life and the mother's rights around bodily autonomy.

 

There are many cases where we consider in such conflicts that one right is fundamental enough that it overrides a particular expression of the other right.  We don't say that means we are making the rights of the second individual a non-factor.

[heartlikealion]

Uh, I agree.

 

I explicitly stated I didn't doubt her experience. There are bad affliates out there. She was speaking as though her singular experience was the only one and confirmed all criticism, I was not. I have had over a dozen positive interactions with PP, two of them truly transformative, and am not ok leaving remarks which paint the organization in one broad negative stroke unchallenged.

 

I think some of us were just reading between the lines, that you have an overall positive view of PP while the previous poster probably has an overall negative view. Despite the fact that you both might agree that there are different experiences had by different women.

 

[LucyStoner]

Generally people who think abortion is always, or almost always wrong think that an unborn human is the same status as the mother - both are people, and that it is not or is almost never permissible to kill another person.

 

When rights seem to conflict in any case, we have to decide if one is more fundamental than the other, or how to balance them. In this case it would usually be understood as the embryo's right to life and the mother's rights around bodily autonomy.

 

There are many cases where we consider in such conflicts that one right is fundamental enough that it overrides a particular expression of the other right. We don't say that means we are making the rights of the second individual a non-factor.

If there is only one correct outcome you are making the girl or woman's life secondary to the unborn person. We won't agree. I am not someone who is pro-choice without reservations. I do believe that life begins sometime before birth and that for me, abortion would not be my personal choice. That said, I have seen enough gray in my life that I tend to think there is a time and place for most things. In a perfect world we would have no rape, no DV, no unwanted pregnancy. We live in a highly imperfect world. I can't extend my personal decisions (based on my personal privileges of a stable marital situation and a vast support network) to others. Edited May 12, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

I think some of us were just reading between the lines, that you have an overall positive view of PP while the previous poster probably has an overall negative view. Despite the fact that you both might agree that there are different experiences had by different women.

 

There is nothing in pinkmint's post that indicated she was aware of positive work by PP and there was the generalization that most women who have abortions are traumatized by it...that's not true statistically or in the group of women I know who have had them.

 

While I made it clear that I didn't discount her experience, my post was called out as though I thought my experience was the only valid one.

 

Tell me, does that sound like reading between the lines on both posts equally? Um. No.

[pinkmint]

And for the record there are actually pro life feminists out there who believe abortion causes more harm to women than carrying out a pregnancy does. That is where concern for the woman comes in.

 

There's New Wave Feminists- Destiny De La Rosa and Kristen Hatten... they are an organization of pro life feminists.

[Bluegoat]

No, I disagree. 

The pregnant woman is the doctor's patient. The embryo, even if you think of it as a baby, is not the doctor's patient. 

If a doctor looks at a pregnancy first and foremost from a religious perspective, to convert her to his faith, that is a breach of trust and ,  I would argue,  unethical.

Now, the pregnant woman's pastor? Husband? Friends? Totally different story.  

 

Another perspective.  If a pregnant woman has cancer, the doctor's job is to tell the woman about her treatment options.   If he looks at it entirely from the perspective of "what can I do to ensure the baby's survival," without regard to the woman's safety, he is unethical.    The baby's survival is obviously a factor he will discuss with the mother - of course! - but his patient is the woman. 

 

Would you say then, that if a doctors patient needs a heart transplant, and the only way to get it is to use an organ stolen from some person who is not the doctor's patient, the doctor's obligation is to go ahead and use it? 

 

No, of course not - it would be clearly both unethical and illegal, because that other person has his own intrinsic rights, which even the doctor cannot ignore in trying to help his own patient.  You can't fiddle the system to have your patient jump the line to get treatment earlier than other patients because it would put those people at risk.  In fact, there are all kinds of ethical lines that doctors are not allowed to cross, no matter what it the benefit would be for their patient.

 

All of these aspects of practice and law around considering only the women, in this discussion,  are really only true insofar as the law does not recognize any rights for the unborn in that instance.  So - it has no status, legally.  If the argument is that they should have some kinds of legal status or rights, saying that they don't is simply assuming your own position.

 

Now in many legal systems a third trimester fetus is recognized as having some rights, and logically enough, for a doctor to prefer his patient at the expense of the fetus would under many circumstances be illegal in those systems.  Even in my country which has no restrictions on abortion at any point, doctors who performed a third trimester abortion for no serious medical reason might face discipline from their professional organization, because people have a recognition that a 30 week fetus is not a nothing.

 

The case you mention of cancer is one where the debate is arguably a little different even if we grant an intrinsic right to life to both parties.  The difficulty is that for both, the right to life is at stake.  But that is really an aside - the idea that a doctor can or should ignore all other people or ethical principles to help his patient is simply untrue legally and few people would argue it morally.

[Carol in Cal.]

Wow. It happened again. We were talking about pregnant women and how they should be treated.  And then a poster replies with a comment that completely erases the woman from the conversation. Pretty amazing to see it happen over and over again.

 

You are pregnant. You have these options available to you. Simple and objective.

 

Nope.  Not even remotely.

What I am talking about is objectivity, a subject that you put on the table.

It is not objective to treat a pregnant woman as if she *can't be told/know* that she has a live human being inside of her.  That is neither truthful nor objective.  People should not be prevented from knowing what they are actually doing and what is actually going on in their bodies.  What could be more objective than that?

 

Just to be clear, I absolutely repudiate being dishonest with women.  If CPC's do that, they shouldn't.  However, if PP's do that, they shouldn't EITHER.

[Carol in Cal.]

If someone thinks that having an abortion is always wrong, they are making the woman, and the woman's feelings and beliefs about her own pregnancy, a non factor. If the embryo/fetus/baby essentially has a right to be born that trumps the woman's decision as to if she wants to be pregnant or give birth, the woman is less valuable to the pro-life movement than the ideology or the child.

Except that I never  said any of that stuff.  You are projecting here.

 

I do not believe that women are less valuable than babies.  But I do believe that all lives are valuable, even an unborn child's. And I don't think that pretending that a baby is not alive just because she hasn't been born yet is a favor to anyone.

[bolt.]

I'm sure there are coercive and non-coercive abortion providing places/people/organizations.

 

I'm sure that there are coercive and non-coercive pro-life counselling places/people/organizations.

 

I think coercion of people in crisis (with extra hormones, and other complications like nausea, pain, fear, abuse, sense of vulnerability, feelings of regret or sense of 'stupidity', need for secrecy) -- coercion *either way* (for/against) is bad... And that it is worse than 'general purpose coercision' of people who have all their faculties in place, who are not in crisis.

 

How does one-sided 'encouragement' or 'support' differ from coercion and manipulation? Does the vulnerability matter?

 

Presuppose that any woman can have a free (and confidential) pregnancy test, ultrasound, or referral to terminate a pregnancy (at another location) at her local all-purpose clinic where she receives her ordinary healthcare -- either by appointment or by walk-in. (Or she could go to another clinic if she prefers not to be known).

 

None of the 'we can save you money' factors are in play. What else is in play in the actual experience?

[Ananda]

Whose patient is the fetus?  As far as I understand it, the doctor/midwife is the care provider for both the mother & the fetus.  I think that is part of why I view pregnancy as inherently vulnerable.  Your body is inhabited by another being.  The pregnant woman's and the fetus's needs, medical care, rights & lives are intertwined.  It is difficult to talk about one without also discussing the other.

 

No, I disagree. 

The pregnant woman is the doctor's patient. The embryo, even if you think of it as a baby, is not the doctor's patient. 

If a doctor looks at a pregnancy first and foremost from a religious perspective, to convert her to his faith, that is a breach of trust and ,  I would argue,  unethical.

Now, the pregnant woman's pastor? Husband? Friends? Totally different story.  

 

Another perspective.  If a pregnant woman has cancer, the doctor's job is to tell the woman about her treatment options.   If he looks at it entirely from the perspective of "what can I do to ensure the baby's survival," without regard to the woman's safety, he is unethical.    The baby's survival is obviously a factor he will discuss with the mother - of course! - but his patient is the woman. 

 

[poppy]

Nevermind.
 

Edited May 12, 2016 by poppy

[Bluegoat]

If there is only one correct outcome you are making the girl or woman's life secondary to the unborn person. We won't agree. I am not someone who is pro-choice without reservations. I do believe that life begins sometime before birth and that for me, abortion would not be my personal choice. That said, I have seen enough gray in my life that I tend to think there is a time and place for most things. In a perfect world we would have no rape, no DV, no unwanted pregnancy. We live in a highly imperfect world. I can't extend my personal decisions (based on my personal privileges of a stable marital situation and a vast support network) to others.

 

 

If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of ethics around individual circumstances even when both mother and unborn are considered to have a fundamental right to life, you find there is plenty of discussion around the individual questions.  I think it's probably a little outside of the scope of the discussion here to go too far into that.

 

But  the terms you would be arguing on, just as if you were talking about two adults, would be the right to life, to not be killed deliberately, which  is the most fundamental right we have and the foundation of all the others.

 

So typically if that is the premise it will only be in conflicts with other very significant and fundamental rights of the mother, impacted in a substantial way, that abortion would be considered a correct or possibly correct possibility. 

 

Part of the reason this can be such a difficult area is that the biological relationship is so unique.  It can be hard to find things to compare it with.  But if we think in terms of normal adults or children, and what kinds of cases would we consider that it might be reasonable or sufficient to allow us to override their right to life, that would I think give us a sense of the seriousness involved.  How serious would it have to be before we decided that we should not extend our personal views to others, or compel them by law?  How would DV, lack of a support network, or rape play into it?  Career aspirations or poverty? 

[poppy]

Nope.  Not even remotely.

What I am talking about is objectivity, a subject that you put on the table.

It is not objective to treat a pregnant woman as if she *can't be told/know* that she has a live human being inside of her.  That is neither truthful nor objective.  People should not be prevented from knowing what they are actually doing and what is actually going on in their bodies.  What could be more objective than that?

 

Just to be clear, I absolutely repudiate being dishonest with women.  If CPC's do that, they shouldn't.  However, if PP's do that, they shouldn't EITHER.

 

I think this view of women is so condescending.

[pinkmint]

Abortion does hurt women. I'm a woman and abortion hurt me mentally, physically, emotionally profoundly. My experience matters even if it's not shared. But it is by many women out there and we matter.

 

It hurts unborn women too. Where are their rights? Why don't we talk about that?

[Pam in CT]

re balancing rights

Generally people who think abortion is always, or almost always wrong think that an unborn human is the same status as the mother - both are people, and that it is not or is almost never permissible to kill another person.

 

When rights seem to conflict in any case, we have to decide if one is more fundamental than the other, or how to balance them.  In this case it would usually be understood as the embryo's right to life and the mother's rights around bodily autonomy.

 

There are many cases where we consider in such conflicts that one right is fundamental enough that it overrides a particular expression of the other right.  We don't say that means we are making the rights of the second individual a non-factor.

 

 

For many, this tricky business of balancing competing rights is the crux of the issue.  

 

There are other circumstances when the life or health of one is dependent upon the bodily autonomy of another.

 

If person A needs a bone marrow transplant and person B is found to be a match, person B is not legally compelled to provide it... nor do we commonly call for such sacrifice on an ethical basis (even though it could well be necessary to sustain life).  Similarly a person who could provide a needed kidney or lung... or just donate a rare blood type (my mother is 0-).... we don't call for coercion to compel such sacrifice... even though donating blood is a small sacrifice indeed compared to the physical and emotional toll that some mothers endure during (and after) pregnancy.

 

Situations where the life of one person depends on the bodily sacrifice of another are (fortunately) rare and always difficult.  I cannot think of another example where one person is EXPECTED, legally or socially, to surrender their own bodily autonomy or self-defined well-being for the sake of another.  (Of course parents and spouses and siblings etc do so voluntarily all the time.  That is quite a different thing.)

 

 

This sort of reasoning is how many of us in the "safe, legal and rare" camp get there.  And why once we're there, we care so much about good information and good access to contraception, and women's unfettered autonomy in making contraception choices.  

[SKL]

"My patient is the pregnant woman, not her child" is an ideological stance.  I think legally it works under current law, but I understand why many disagree with it.

 

If I were a counselor and I knew my client was abusing his/her child, would it be ethical to ignore that since the child is not my client?

 

So it comes down to whether you believe the unborn have rights.

 

Obviously if your calling is to perform abortions, or to refer people for abortions routinely, you probably don't have any personal hangups about rights of the unborn.  But if your calling is to advise women about their reproductive choices and future, you might be on either side of the ideological discussion.  And that being the case, it is ethical to speak honestly (and compassionately) in line with your beliefs.  It's fine as long as it still leaves the woman free to make an informed decision herself.

 

SInce we know people are being told all kinds of things, ethical and unethical, during crisis pregnancies, let's make sure we educate our daughters about their options (including who they can talk to) before they get to that point.

[Carol in Cal.]

Where are those hundreds of kids now?

Here's one.  This photo was taken in 2014 in my hometown.  I saw an interview of this family online, and they seem pretty happy.

 

[poppy]

re balancing rights

 

 

For many, this tricky business of balancing competing rights is the crux of the issue.  

 

There are other circumstances when the life or health of one is dependent upon the bodily autonomy of another.

 

If person A needs a bone marrow transplant and person B is found to be a match, person B is not legally compelled to provide it... nor do we commonly call for such sacrifice on an ethical basis (even though it could well be necessary to sustain life).  Similarly a person who could provide a needed kidney or lung... or just donate a rare blood type (my mother is 0-).... we don't call for coercion to compel such sacrifice... even though donating blood is a small sacrifice indeed compared to the physical and emotional toll that some mothers endure during (and after) pregnancy.

 

Situations where the life of one person depends on the bodily sacrifice of another are (fortunately) rare and always difficult.  I cannot think of another example where one person is EXPECTED, legally or socially, to surrender their own bodily autonomy or self-defined well-being for the sake of another.  (Of course parents and spouses and siblings etc do so voluntarily all the time.  That is quite a different thing.)

 

 

This sort of reasoning is how many of us in the "safe, legal and rare" camp get there.  And why once we're there, we care so much about good information and good access to contraception, and women's unfettered autonomy in making contraception choices.  

 

Exactly.

I would not get an abortion. I am not pro-abortion.

I just do not think it is the government's role to make these decisions for women.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Would you say then, that if a doctors patient needs a heart transplant, and the only way to get it is to use an organ stolen from some person who is not the doctor's patient, the doctor's obligation is to go ahead and use it? 

 

No, of course not - it would be clearly both unethical and illegal, because that other person has his own intrinsic rights, which even the doctor cannot ignore in trying to help his own patient.  You can't fiddle the system to have your patient jump the line to get treatment earlier than other patients because it would put those people at risk.  In fact, there are all kinds of ethical lines that doctors are not allowed to cross, no matter what it the benefit would be for their patient.

 

All of these aspects of practice and law around considering only the women, in this discussion,  are really only true insofar as the law does not recognize any rights for the unborn in that instance.  So - it has no status, legally.  If the argument is that they should have some kinds of legal status or rights, saying that they don't is simply assuming your own position.

 

Now in many legal systems a third trimester fetus is recognized as having some rights, and logically enough, for a doctor to prefer his patient at the expense of the fetus would under many circumstances be illegal in those systems.  Even in my country which has no restrictions on abortion at any point, doctors who performed a third trimester abortion for no serious medical reason might face discipline from their professional organization, because people have a recognition that a 30 week fetus is not a nothing.

 

The case you mention of cancer is one where the debate is arguably a little different even if we grant an intrinsic right to life to both parties.  The difficulty is that for both, the right to life is at stake.  But that is really an aside - the idea that a doctor can or should ignore all other people or ethical principles to help his patient is simply untrue legally and few people would argue it morally.

 

You have a fatally flawed understanding of medical ethics.

[poppy]

"My patient is the pregnant woman, not her child" is an ideological stance.  I think legally it works under current law, but I understand why many disagree with it.

 

If I were a counselor and I knew my client was abusing his/her child, would it be ethical to ignore that since the child is not my client?

 

So it comes down to whether you believe the unborn have rights.

 

Obviously if your calling is to perform abortions, or to refer people for abortions routinely, you probably don't have any personal hangups about rights of the unborn.  But if your calling is to advise women about their reproductive choices and future, you might be on either side of the ideological discussion.  And that being the case, it is ethical to speak honestly (and compassionately) in line with your beliefs.  It's fine as long as it still leaves the woman free to make an informed decision herself.

 

SInce we know people are being told all kinds of things, ethical and unethical, during crisis pregnancies, let's make sure we educate our daughters about their options (including who they can talk to) before they get to that point.

 

My stance is this:  Do not lie to women to get them to come to you so you can explain your religious beliefs to them. I can't believe that's controversial.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Abortion does hurt women. I'm a woman and abortion hurt me mentally, physically, emotionally profoundly. My experience matters even if it's not shared. But it is by many women out there and we matter.

 

It hurts unborn women too. Where are their rights? Why don't we talk about that?

 

Do you matter more than the women who believe they were better off for having an abortion?

 

And I believe both the pro-choice and pro-life sides agree that no one should be forced to have an abortion.

[Carol in Cal.]

My stance is this:  Do not lie to women to get them to come to you so you can explain your religious beliefs to them. .

Actually, as I have said elsewhere, this is my stance also.

However, it is only part of my stance.

My stance also includes:

Don't lie to women about what a pregnancy actually is.

Don't lie to women to get them to have an abortion.

 

[MSNative]

Uh, I agree.

 

I explicitly stated I didn't doubt her experience. There are bad affliates out there. She was speaking as though her singular experience was the only one and confirmed all criticism, I was not. I have had over a dozen positive interactions with PP, two of them truly transformative, and am not ok leaving remarks which paint the organization in one broad negative stroke unchallenged.

As I sadi, I'm glad you had great interactions with PP. Doesn't mean that others who have negative experiences aren't just as affected by them.

"Don't tell me your experience though is the only experience anyone has ever had there." This is the part of your original post that caused me to respond. At no point did I read Pink's comment as saying that hers was the only experience women had had there.

You had great experiences and therefore understandably get defensive if others criticize PP. As you said, you won't even let her comment with her negative experience go without challenging it. She and other women who have had horrible experiences at PP don't need their experiences challenged.

It's not a perfect organization. It has problems and women have had bad experiences there. It's great you and your friends havent. Doesn't mean others haven't or that their experiences shouldnt be shared. Your great experiences don't mean it's perfect. Their awful ones don't mean it's horrible.

Edited May 12, 2016 by MSNative

[SKL]

My stance is this:  Do not lie to women to get them to come to you so you can explain your religious beliefs to them. I can't believe that's controversial.

 

I agree with the words bolded.  I see very few comments even remotely suggesting that lying to get women to come to you might be OK.

 

[Bluegoat]

re balancing rights

 

 

For many, this tricky business of balancing competing rights is the crux of the issue.  

 

There are other circumstances when the life or health of one is dependent upon the bodily autonomy of another.

 

If person A needs a bone marrow transplant and person B is found to be a match, person B is not legally compelled to provide it... nor do we commonly call for such sacrifice on an ethical basis (even though it could well be necessary to sustain life).  Similarly a person who could provide a needed kidney or lung... or just donate a rare blood type (my mother is 0-).... we don't call for coercion to compel such sacrifice... even though donating blood is a small sacrifice indeed compared to the physical and emotional toll that some mothers endure during (and after) pregnancy.

 

Situations where the life of one person depends on the bodily sacrifice of another are (fortunately) rare and always difficult.  I cannot think of another example where one person is EXPECTED, legally or socially, to surrender their own bodily autonomy or self-defined well-being for the sake of another.  (Of course parents and spouses and siblings etc do so voluntarily all the time.  That is quite a different thing.)

 

 

This sort of reasoning is how many of us in the "safe, legal and rare" camp get there.  And why once we're there, we care so much about good information and good access to contraception, and women's unfettered autonomy in making contraception choices.  

 

On the other hand, you aren't allowed to actively terminate those people either - your refusal to give blood might cause death but it would be passive.

 

But generally speaking I think this perspective is actually much closer to that of most people who would broadly be considered pro-life than it is to the "no moral status" position where often the moral status of the action is decided on an a priori basis.

[heartlikealion]

There is nothing in pinkmint's post that indicated she was aware of positive work by PP and there was the generalization that most women who have abortions are traumatized by it...that's not true statistically or in the group of women I know who have had them.

 

While I made it clear that I didn't discount her experience, my post was called out as though I thought my experience was the only valid one.

 

Tell me, does that sound like reading between the lines on both posts equally? Um. No.

 

We're doing a lot of reading between the lines lol. I didn't claim to read the posts evenly but do admit I see a stark contrast in them. Your post kinda came across (to me) as patting someone on the head and saying, "now now, I know you didn't have a great time at this place, but lots of people do" and then citing statistics for all the people that had a pleasant experience. Okay, well, I don't think anyone argued actual stats. And I don't know that many women that have emotional baggage from either having or not having a child necessarily air those thoughts. I knew a girl in high school that told me about her abortions with an air of regret basically saying she felt she had to do that (reason had to do with children being accepted into society. She had concerns about race). Likewise I know someone else that had one that I never directly asked about it and I don't know that she has any regrets. I've heard some stat that gays make up 3% of the population and my first thought is, "but that's only the ones out of the closet, right?" I just take stats with a grain of salt on many topics.

 

I don't doubt there are good and bad experiences at PP. I said as much a few posts back... I was typing that before I even saw Pinkmint's follow up to her experience post.

 

*Edited: likewise her post came across as "I had a terrible time there" and did leave me wondering how training was handled with that employee and the practice.

Edited May 12, 2016 by heartlikealion

[poppy]

Actually, as I have said elsewhere, this is my stance also.

However, it is only part of my stance.

My stance also includes:

Don't lie to women about what a pregnancy actually is.

Don't lie to women to get them to have an abortion.

 

So, if you are opposed to lying to women, are you in favor of changing the deceptive practices crisis pregnancy centers use  to draw women in?

Rename "Pregnancy Choice Center" to "Pray with Me Pregnancy Center".

I am sure there are women who go to those places looking for support in pro-life stance. The centers do perform an appropriate service for those patients.  Let them be the patients.  Take down the billboards and ads that do not reveal that agenda.

 

Edited May 12, 2016 by poppy

[SKL]

No, you don't get to change the meaning of the word "choice."

 

Not everyone who doesn't want an abortion is Christian.  Not everyone who counsels in favor of birth is Christian.

[Ananda]

Do you matter more than the women who believe they were better off for having an abortion?

 

And I believe both the pro-choice and pro-life sides agree that no one should be forced to have an abortion.

 

I assumed as much about pro-choice people.  Just out of curiosity, what do we call someone who IS pro-abortion.  Pro-life people value the lives of fetuses, pro-choice people value reproductive choices for women.  A significant number of people advocate for abortion because a pregnancy will "screw up your life".  Often girls/women are pressured into abortions by their families or partners.  What do we call their stance?

[Bluegoat]

You have a fatally flawed understanding of medical ethics.

 

Do you have some specific point to make about what I actually said, or should we take your word for it?

 

For example - do you feel that a doctor is allowed to ignore the rights of those who are not his patients in the service of those who are?

[pinkmint]

Do you matter more than the women who believe they were better off for having an abortion?

 

Would you be asking me this question if I said "Black lives matter"?

[Carol in Cal.]

So, if you are opposed to lying to women, are you in favor of changing the deceptive practices crisis pregnancy centers use  to draw women in?

 

So, if you are opposed to lying to women, are you in favor of changing the deceptive practices that abortion providers use to convince women that abortion is their only real choice, or their best choice?  Are you in favor of halting the characterization of human lives with hearts already beating as 'just cells'?  

[LucyStoner]

As I sadi, I'm glad you had great interactions with PP. Doesn't mean that others who have negative experiences aren't just as affected by them.

"Don't tell me your experience though is the only experience anyone has ever had there." This is the part of your original post that caused me to respond. At no point did I read Pink's comment as saying that hers was the only experience women had had there.

You had great experiences and therefore get defensive if others criticize PP. As you said, you won't even let her comment with her negative experience go without challenging it. She and other women who have had horrible experiences at PP don't need their experiences challenged.

It's not a perfect organization. It has problems and women have had bad experiences there. It's great you and your friends havent. Doesn't mean others haven't or that their experiences shouldnt be shared. Your great experiences don't mean it's perfect. Their awful ones don't mean it's horrible.

If defensiveness is what you are getting from my posts, I am clearly not communicating my thoughts that well.

 

I said that I didn't doubt her experiences. Where you read in that I think everyone has a universally positive experience with PP, I do not know. I believe women when they tell me they have had bad experiences there. I wish people would return the favor.

 

I do know that I only have a healthy marriage because I got help with my child rape experiences and I only got that help because of PP. I do know that I have an awesome nearly 13 year old son because the woman at PP discussed the ways o could make parenting work with my college studies etc. Perhaps instead of criticizing me, you could acknowledge the significance of those things and try l understand where I am coming from without condemning me as defensive or dismissive or only seeing one side.

 

If you still think that I was dismissing her experiences rather than sharing mine, please do not respond to this post. Thanks.

Edited May 12, 2016 by LucyStoner

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do you have some specific point to make about what I actually said, or should we take your word for it?

 

For example - do you feel that a doctor is allowed to ignore the rights of those who are not his patients in the service of those who are?

 

A doctor cannot violate the legal rights of a person to benefit his patient.  Your question in the previous regarding stolen organs was a clear display of your lack of understanding medical ethics, or even the law.  There really isn't much else to say when you start from a position that is as flawed as the one your presented.

[poppy]

So, if you are opposed to lying to women, are you in favor of changing the deceptive practices that abortion providers use to convince women that abortion is their only real choice, or their best choice?  Are you in favor of halting the characterization of human lives with hearts already beating as 'just cells'?  

 

Yes, I think it is wrong for doctors to tell women abortion is their only real choice or best choice (unless medically necessary, of course). I said so earlier.

 

I notice you didn't answer my question.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Would you be asking me this question if I said "Black lives matter"?

 

That doesn't even make sense.

 

You said abortion was bad for you, and therefore bad for women.  Other women clearly and vehemently disagree.  What that has to do with Black Lives Matter has me completely befuddled.

[poppy]

I agree with the words bolded.  I see very few comments even remotely suggesting that lying to get women to come to you might be OK.

 

 

 

No, you don't get to change the meaning of the word "choice."

 

Not everyone who doesn't want an abortion is Christian.  Not everyone who counsels in favor of birth is Christian.

 

Irony alert!

[SKL]

 I do know that I have an awesome nearly 13 year old son because the woman at PP discussed the ways o could make parenting work with my college studies etc. Perhaps instead of criticizing me, you could acknowledge the significance of those things and try l understand where I am coming from without condemning me as defensive or dismissive or only seeing one side.

 

And some people might say that about their experience with a CPC.  But a CPC is assumed to be lying and manipulating.

[Liz CA]

Clearly saying that pregnancy is more work than YOU think means I am supportive of infanticide and killing slow potty trainers.

 

Excuse me, I think my son wet the bed. Before I wash his bedding, I have to go kill him.

 

Come.off.of.it.

 

A child who is viable outside the womb has more legal rights than an embryo. Your claim that an embryo and fetus don't require anything but to be left alone is flatly incorrect.

 

I know you seem to love playing devil's advocate like some 19 year old in a college dormitory lounge at 2am scarfing down greasy pizza and on your fourth Corona but seriously, no one else here is that ridiculous.

 

Ad hominem attack. Let's debate; not take cheap shots.

[LucyStoner]

We're doing a lot of reading between the lines lol. I didn't claim to read the posts evenly but do admit I see a stark contrast in them. Your post kinda came across (to me) as patting someone on the head and saying, "now now, I know you didn't have a great time at this place, but lots of people do" and then citing statistics for all the people that had a pleasant experience. Okay, well, I don't think anyone argued actual stats. And I don't know that many women that have emotional baggage from either having or not having a child necessarily air those thoughts. I knew a girl in high school that told me about her abortions with an air of regret basically saying she felt she had to do that (reason had to do with children being accepted into society. She had concerns about race). Likewise I know someone else that had one that I never directly asked about it and I don't know that she has any regrets. I've heard some stat that gays make up 3% of the population and my first thought is, "but that's only the ones out of the closet, right?" I just take stats with a grain of salt on many topics.

 

I don't doubt there are good and bad experiences at PP. I said as much a few posts back... I was typing that before I even saw Pinkmint's follow up to her experience post.

 

*Edited: likewise her post came across as "I had a terrible time there" and did leave me wondering how training was handled with that employee and the practice.

Please show some sensitivity to the experiences I shared. Thank you. Overcoming the trauma of child rape to go on and become a wife and mother is...not where I would be without PP. If you didn't see the significance in what I said I think you were skimming and reading your opinions of what you assumed I was saying into my post. Opinions that I didn't relate or express. That's not especially compassionate considering what I shared.

 

People can share all the negative posts they want about PP. They ideally should allow for others to have had different experiences. Which I do. And expressed clearly in my first post.

Edited May 12, 2016 by LucyStoner

[bolt.]

And some people might say that about their experience with a CPC. But a CPC is assumed to be lying and manipulating.

I didn't see any posts that said or implied that "a CPC" is assumed or presupposed to be lying and/or manipulating.

 

I think everyone has said, basically, 'some do, some don't: those that do should stop.'

[SKL]

Well I didn't see a lot of compassion for people who aren't able to have wanted children because they were talked into an abortion they didn't want.  It should go both ways.

[Carol in Cal.]

I didn't see any posts that said or implied that "a CPC" is assumed or presupposed to be lying and/or manipulating.

 

There were, however, posts that criticized CPCs for being oriented toward encouraging women to carry their babies to full term.  That would have the same outcome, which was the OP's point.

[Pam in CT]

balancing rights, and passive v active measures

 

On the other hand, you aren't allowed to actively terminate those people either - your refusal to give blood might cause death but it would be passive.

 

But generally speaking I think this perspective is actually much closer to that of most people who would broadly be considered pro-life than it is to the "no moral status" position where often the moral status of the action is decided on an a priori basis.

 

Right, and once we go down the passive/active bunny trail we quickly get to Sophie's Choice / Trolley Dilemma ramblings that are oh-so suitable for 2 am college lounge discussions around greasy pizza and Corona...  :lol:

 

... which is not really my style.

 

 

 

We "safe, legal and rare" types actually have a whole lot of common ground with a certain sub-set of "pro-life" advocates.  There's a Catholic convent in my town, for example.  Nuns rock. 

 

That label in the US has unfortunately been largely coopted by folks who oppose women's autonomy in other areas, including contraceptive choice and sexual autonomy... and too rarely focus on structural / systemic measures to help poor women and their babies AFTER birth, including family leave / child care / wage levels etc.  

 

I wish there were more ways to focus on the common goals (which exist) rather than dwelling on black and white absolutes.  The whole issue is intrinsically gray.  The only way to force-fit into black and white is to deny the existence of one of the parties.