Abortion (again)

Yes yes, I am aware that there is bigger news out there (namely, Boston Marathon bombing) but first let me get this article out of my system. I think it has brought forward some contentious issues and facts which I believe is useful for me to address here just so that my blog can act as another outlet/source that brings together this kind of information on abortion.

--- --- --- 

Full Article: http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/could-this-happen-here-20130415-2hvh5.html

I found the above article on Daily Life (Sydney Morning Herald) which, by the way, is increasingly becoming one of my favourite leisure time reading websites for their exploration of gender issues. The article is titled "Could this happen here?" - referring to the possibility of stricter abortion laws coming to Australia if the Abbot government gains power in the next election. And, with the advent of LifeChoice groups on NSW university campuses, I believe the abortion debate is very relevant to the present mindset of Australian youth.

The article first reflects on the current status of women's reproductive rights in America, and how conservative politics, particularly during George Bush's government, has encouraged states to limit abortion rights. Some means by which these restrictions have been implemented over the last 1-2 years include:

• Transvaginal ultrasounds - in Virginia, Arizona, Oklahoma, Louisiana - a bill was passed requiring that a forced 'diagnostic ultrasound' of the fetus be undertaken two hours prior to performing an abortion, in order to ascertain the age and viability of the fetus. 
• The article asserts that this method is a "vile abuse of power". A patient is subjected to an unnecessary medical examination that invades her body with the aim of 'humanising' the fetus and inducing her guilt.
• Restriction of state health funding for Planned Parenthood and other health centres that provide abortion services - in Arizona, North Carolina. 
• In actual fact, abortion makes up only 3% of PP's patient care services (see pie-chart below). The lack of funding not only curbs access to abortion, but also limits the ability of these centres to provide essential services like cancer screenings, contraception,  STD testing and pre-natal care for poorer women reliant on these facilities.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

• In 2011, South Dakota proposed a legislation that could potentially allow for the 'justifiable homicide'  or the killing of abortion providers. This is a tremendously regressive proposal that unjustly equates abortion to manslaughter.  
• Recently, North Dakota also passed the 'Heartbeat Bill' - a horrendously backward law that rules against the termination of a pregnancy if a heartbeat is detected (detection is possible as early as 6 weeks). This law is all-encompassing, meaning it is applicable even in cases of rape or genetic abnormalities in the fetus. 
• I am surprised at how this bill can be passed in light of the fact that an Irish-Indian woman died late last year from septicemia after being admitted to hospital for miscarriage pain. The hospital consultant had repeatedly refused the poor lady's request to abort her child based on the understanding that they had detected a fetal heartbeat and that Ireland is a "Catholic country" - Read: http://www.smh.com.au/world/irish-hospital-told-husband-foetus-would-die-20130409-2hi0q.html

All of this, for me, seems somewhat extreme for an Australian context. But I was surprised to learn that abortion laws in Australia are not as liberal as I had expected. Nevertheless, they are far more rational than the appalling Heartbeat Bill of North Dakota. Here is a quoted summary of Australian laws from http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au:

• Queensland & New South Wales: Abortion a crime (bad!) for women and doctors. Legal when doctor believes a woman’s physical and/or mental health is in serious danger.  In NSW social, economic and medical factors maybe taken into account. (good!)
• Australian Capital Territory: Legal, must be provided by medical doctor.
• Victoria: Legal to 24 weeks. Legal post-24 weeks with two doctors’ approval.
• South Australia & Tasmania: Legal if two doctors agree that a woman’s physical and/or mental health endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality. Counselling compulsory in Tasmania. (hmm...) Unlawful abortion a crime.
• Western Australia: Legal up to 20 weeks, some restrictions particularly for under 16s. Very restricted after 20 weeks.
• Northern Territory: Legal to 14 weeks if 2 doctors agree that woman’s physical and/or mental health endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality. Up to 23 weeks in an emergency.

It often seems like some pro-life advocates have cleverly sugar coated their misogynistic principles with slogans for preserving the sanctity of life. According to PP, the states with the strictest abortion laws also lack reform in areas concerning women in education, poverty, female-to-male income ratio, women in legislature as well as childcare/foster care/welfare/and education funding. These people cannot be pro-life, if they are disregarding women's lives. By contrast, the establishment of safe and reliable abortion practices in the US have shown social/mental and health benefits in families. For example, couples who were previously discouraged by the prospect of giving birth to a genetically abnormal baby are now hoping for a child with the assistance of amniocentesis (a test conducted by taking a uterine fluid sample and screening for unusual fetal developments) and abortion services. Women who are most affected by unwanted childbirth such as teenagers and single mothers now have the option of re-planning their life (Source: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/med_social_benefits_2009-11.pdf).

I have written about this issue before, and I will say again, that my pro-choice stance is in no way founded upon disrespect for human life, motherhood or for children. But there are numerous possible scenarios that may necessitate abortion. The availability of safe, legal and accessible abortion clinics is therefore essential, particularly so that the less privileged in society are not driven to seek attention from the likes of Kermit Gosnell - a freak doctor in Pennsylvania who was charged with "delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them" (Details: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/kermit--gosnell-charged_n_810976.html)

--- --- ---

Further information on anti-choice measures that have been enacted in 2012 can be found in The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the USA report by NARAL Pro-choice America at the following link: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/download-files/2013-who-decides.pdf.

B&!*hes Be Crazy

A few months ago I came across the podcast based bloggers "Godless Bitches" who are a group of females who discuss various issues and events from a secularist (if that's the right term) standpoint. The three main speakers are Beth, Jen and Tracie. I think all of these girls feature occasionally on the show "The Atheist Experience" - IMO, Matt Dillahunty, one of the main hosts of this show, is an amazing personality and I have never seen him fail at making an argument. He is a well read, very knowledgeable and an incredibly wise person and if anybody is interested in pro-secular morality then do visit one of their episodes on YouTube.

Getting back to my story, when I was on the ladies' blog a few months ago I was surprised by one of their segments on pro-choice for women seeking abortion. I am definitely pro-choice, but it saddened me to see these girls strip away all emotion when discussing the concept of having an unplanned baby. Really girls, are babies THAT bad?

The bulk of the discussion was centered around the logic that:

• A woman should have all the right to decide what she does with her body
• Nobody has the right to use her body and the nourishment it provides without her consent 

I think their choice of words seemed frigid and mechanical. Topics like these are delicate, and although I'm all for rational and logical discourse, the way abortion was talked about was a bit strange. 

Firstly, referring to a fetus as some kind of squatter or parasitic organism that occupies a woman’s body without “consent” is an absurd and irrelevant comparison to make, specially considering that a fetus is in no position to seek “consent” in the first place. You cannot say the fetus is not a person until born, and then accuse it of being inside you without consent as though it is a fully functioning person separate from the mother. That is contradictory to the pro-choice argument.

If we are talking about consent, the two people answerable to this question are the parents - by engaging in intercourse knowing very well the probability of falling pregnant (which will vary according to what contraceptive method you’re using) is a form of indirect consent. There’s no paper signing here, it's all about reading the fine-print and being aware of the possibilities of your actions before taking them. I say scrap this confusing "the fetus is like a parasite" line of debate and instead focus on why we need abortion in the first place so that we can defend the rights of those who really need it.

I am pro-choice simply because I understand that there are women who have been raped or sexually used and abused, are too young/poor to mother a child, or are under a health risk due to the pregnancy. All of these situations and others can be helped by abortion. If having a child is detrimental to the mother's health/well being, then of course the sole decider is the mother. But for self-sufficient, educated and Godless women, who have no fear of being judged by religion/society for having illegitimate children - the decision should be made by both parents and rests on their individual and emotional discretions. 

We often forget the role of the father in this issue. Why is the decision to abort or not abort only given to the woman, when the father has just as much right to WANT the child? Men don’t have the option of carrying a child, and this is reality. If you can’t handle the responsibility, but the father can and is willing, then why not let him? I'm always reminded of the situation between Christina and Owen in Grey's Anatomy. I think it was unfair of Christina to crush Owen's dream of becoming a father simply because of her career, even though he agreed to take full responsibility for taking care of the baby.

Beth and Tracie also discussed whether the same logic would still stand if we extended it to a new born baby. She suggested a situation where a mother and her new born is stranded on a deserted island where food is scarce, and hence breastfeeding the baby would be energy-draining for the mother. Would it then be logical for the mother to deny the baby its right to breast milk  in order to keep herself alive, as it is her body and she can choose what to do with it.

I thought it was useless trying to compare a fully functioning newborn to a fetus. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure such a case would most likely be related to man-slaughter! So I will leave out my verdict on the case.

You can’t judge every situation with a legal definition of “freedom of choice, or freedom to use my body as I please” - our humanity is our litmus test. Laws change from country to country, but any decent human being should know when it is right to keep a child. I think the law should trust that base instinct, and allow people, both men and women if the father is available, to make that choice through a negotiation process.

Full episode: http://godlessbitches.podbean.com/2012/06/24/episode-215/