BlogHer - The new abortion ban is anti-family - Comments

Self correcting

heivilinj — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:39:42 -0500

Such an idea, when carried to it's logical extreme, is a self-correcting situation. Eventually the target population will die out, perhaps for the benefit of the species.

Sad that the "target population" is American Society.

On the other side of the coin, I heard about the exact same situation (albeit forced abortions rather than forced pregnancy) happening in the Shandong province in China.

Cases of Forced Abortions Surface in China

Is this the model that forced pregnancy proponents desire in America? I wonder ...

Jim Heivilin

I don't know what we're supposed to do

Morra Aarons Mele — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:25:06 -0500

And now married, straight couples who don't necessarily even intend to have abortions are indeed inpugned in the latest abortion ban. That's it, no sex for anyone. We'll be Shakers. That worked well.

Good points

jnoveck — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 03:40:04 -0500

These are really good points. How unfair to a couple, a family who wants and needs to grieve their dead child to not be able to.

I guess I am confused about what the government really wants Americans to do. The radical right doesn't want unmarried women to have sex, they don't want pharmacists to dispense birth control, they preach abstinence which has been proven time and time again to be ineffective, yet they are against sex ed, they are against abortion, they say that they are for alternative methods such as adoption but they continually cut funding for social welfare programs and education programs.

So what is their solution? No sex for anyone, even married straight couples, ever?

I think the thing that is

viciousrumours — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:30:33 -0500

I think the thing that is really upsetting for me about this is the fact that the ban ignores the larger picture. The "pro-life" camp is in such a hurry to make an end run around Roe v. Wade that they are ignoring the fact that banning individual procedures isn't going to prevent abortions or stop unplanned pregnancies from happening.

The more that things like this occur, the harder it's going to be to make the changes that are going to really make a difference. Education and real social change in the lives of young women so that one day no woman feels the need to have an abortion for any reason other than life or death. Wouldn't that be something worth putting energy into? I'd much see a story about a new program implementing sex education and self-esteem for teenagers than read about another program preaching empty statistics to a room full of kids who won't even pay attention.

It's just sad.

I Could Never Imagine

teacherinheels — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:03:22 -0500

I could never imagine the set of circumstances that would make me want to have an abortion. When I hear stories such as the man with the ill baby I realize that I am truly blessed to not have to make these decisions.

Thank you for that perspective.

The new abortion ban is anti-family

Morra Aarons Mele — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:15:07 -0500

I cannot get Ronni Bennett's post about her experience with an abortion before Roe v Wade out of my head.
Ronni wrote:

"I remember it well in my teens and twenties. Not to be too graphic about it, imagine sticking a wire coat hanger up your vagina and poking around with it through excruciating pain and bloodletting risking failure and a mangled embryo or fetus, infection and hemorrhage. Some died."

Another haunting voice I hear is that of a caller into the Diane Rehm show on NPR the other day. He spoke so movingly about his family's struggle with infertility. His wife had 3 miscarriages and one stillborn. Her last pregnancy lasted 6 months until the doctors discovered the baby had Trisomy 13, a fatal condition. As the man described it, his wife had IDX, or a late term, intact abortion. He said it was so so important to this grieving couple: they needed to hold their baby, grieve it, mourn it.

Under this new ruling, this grieving couple would not have such an option.Suzanne Reisman put it well:

"In the same way that I would never force a woman to have an abortion to save her life or preserve her health, I deeply resent that others now can put my life and health in jeopardy because their religion says it must be so."

This decision is a new front in the war on reproductive rights. And its intent affects a new sector of women, men and families. I just got married. I will never say never, but at this point I cannot imagine having a pre-viability abortion, because I want to have children. As a dedicated pro-choice activist, I march with NARAL and send checks to Planned Parenthood, but certainly parental consent and interstate laws do not impact me right now. This ruling is different. But what if my husband and I were the couple with the Trisomy baby? What if my health depended on having an IDX?

Melinda Casino quoted BitchPhD: "Because there are other surgical options for late-term abortions, it is highly unlikely that banning IDX will prevent a single abortion. It may, however, prevent some women from having the safest procedure for their particular circumstances."

This ruling takes away not only women's rights, it takes away family rights. Men should be mad about this ruling too. The mere spirit of this ruling takes away the right for families to make decisions with dignity and self-reliance.