They Had Abortions ("Speak out" event, part response to Clinton comments)

[truthpusher]

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0511/050316_news_abortion.php

They Had Abortions
-------------------------
A new film inspires women to stand by their choices and speak out. There's even talk of the moral complexities—up to a point.
-------------------------
by Nina Shapiro
-------------------------

Before a standing-room-only crowd of mostly young women last week, at the Capitol Hill Arts Center, a onetime "Riot Grrrl" named Hannah Levin was talking about an abortion she had nine years ago. Wearing a jean skirt and a tattoo, seeming as sassy and funny as the abortion doctor she described, Levin recalled a virtually pain-and guilt-free abortion that contradicted all she had heard about risks and emotional turmoil. "I felt downright angry that I had spent so many hours being anxious, depressed, and afraid," she said, reading from an essay she had written. "Since then, I've combated that reality the only way I know how: without apology, without shame, and"—here, she slowed to a defiant staccato—"without . . . one . . . ounce . . . of . . . regret." The crowd went wild.

(snip)

But there's also a lot you don't normally hear from the pro-choice side, namely recognition that abortion takes a life in the making and is therefore morally complex. The pro-choice movement has also been loath to discuss what the abortion procedure actually is, in detail. It's sensitive terrain, to be sure, but avoiding it has made the pro-choice movement seem less, not more, sympathetic. So a speak-out that delves into the unvarnished, unpoliticized truth about abortion is an exciting idea. This heavily politicized event was not exactly that. But while it might have begun with cheerleading, it grew profound as the evening wore on, thanks to Baumgardner's moving film.

The speak-out came at an interesting time. As the Democratic Party seeks to connect with those voters who made "moral values" a defining issue in President Bush's re-election, it has begun to talk about abortion in new ways. In a touchstone moment in January, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., delivered a speech in which she ardently defended abortion rights but also acknowledged that it was a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."

The senator's comments irritated some in the pro-choice movement, including Aradia's Bloom. Clinton "clearly has bought into the antichoice view of abortion as 'bad,'" Bloom wrote in an unpublished essay she sent me. She also forwarded a note from her cousin that she found astute. "I don't view abortion as a necessary evil, but a difficult choice, like so many other difficult choices in life . . . ," wrote the cousin. "Aborting a fetus is like aborting another part of oneself that could become something special."

complete story: http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0511/050316_news_abortion.php

[xxqqqzme]

1. clinton's remarks angered me!

I have never regreted my decision and was grateful that I had access to a doctor that explained the entire procedure. The staff @ the clinic was supportive and helpful. It is never a easy decision but it makes all the difference when no one lays a guilt trip on U or pressures U.

[CottonBear]

2. It was not a decision one makes lightly but it was MY choice.

The doctor and the staff were kind and explained everything.

No man will ever have to deal with the choices and issues that a woman will in her lifetime.

[Voltaire99]

6. Hillary: pro-war, anti-abortion

What a right wing job she's become.

[gatlingforme]

13. How do you get anti=abortion ?

[lancdem]

24. Hillary is not anti-abortion

She's as pro-choice as ever.

[ElectroPrincess]

3. This is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor ...

Get the government out of the business of controlling women's bodies.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. It was a simple decision

I never had a second of regret, either. I did what I had to do, what I wanted to do, and I never looked back.

Hillary has been sucking rightwing ass for quite a while now. I'm disgusted with her. I'm also done with her. This comment was the final straw. How dare she even try to characterize women's choices made freely and with great relief as "... sad, even tragic..."?

She's so full of shit. I could characterize her husband getting laid on the side as her living a "sad, even tragic" life, but I wouldn't be that condescending, because I respect her choice to remain married to a man who cheated on her.

Screw her. She's dead to me.

[REP]

5. 21 Years Later - Still Waiting For the Sadness and Tragedy

Of course, I'm undoubtedly in denial because I have no regrets or sadness about my abortion, and that I do not regard it as a tragedy or "taking of a life."

[JNelson6563]

7. Same here

some 20+ years. I too am still working through the denial, apparently.

Julie

[REP]

9. My Grandmother Died Before She Got A Chance To Have Denial

Poor thing - 70+ years of not regretting her abortions!

[booksenkatz]

8. This is why CHOICE is, and should be, the law

I think we're all pretty clear what abortion is physically, aren't we? The disagreements come about what abortion means, or does not mean, spiritually or emotionally or "morally." THAT IS WHY CHOICE IS THE ONLY POSITION THAT IS RIGHT FOR EVERYONE. What is right for me and my body may very well not be right for you and your body.

CHOICE.
CHOICE.
CHOICE.

All of this harping on any other aspect of this topic is ultimately a waste of time. I don't care if you think that every sperm cell and egg cell is sacred; that is fine, as long as you don't impose that thinking upon my body and upon the bodies of those around you. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK; ARE YOU GOING TO CREATE LEGISLATION TO IMPOSE YOUR THINKING? Period. There is nothing else to say. Talking about morals and so on is secondary. It's fun for philosophy class, perhaps, or navel gazing, but it has no place in politics or legislation.

My greatest friends are Dems and are pro-choice. Some of them abhor abortion, several of them are actively pro-abortion (they are very much into population reduction), but what unites us as friends and as Dems is CHOICE.

[REP]

10. Sheesh, Don't You Get It YET? Women Are Morons!

Women need to be told what to think about abortion, and specifically, any abortions they may have had. Women need to be lied to, I mean, educated about what vile murderers and nasty sluts they are, and lots of handwringing needs to go on.

(In case I wasn't clear, I agree with you 100000%!)

[SemperEadem]

33. that's pretty much it in a nutshell

it's not enough for them to interfere in the decision between a woman and her doctor, but they also want to interfere in how she views it--dictate to her what it should mean to her.

[Larkspur]

11. I've never had an abortion, but my personal beliefs are

that it should be unrestricted in the first two trimesters. Fetal science has discovered that at least 2 thirds of fertilized embryos and zygotes are terminated naturally, so this fact pulls the rug out from underneath the anti-abortionist claim that life starts at contraception and it confirms what most doctors know, it's better for the woman's health to have an abortion as early as possible, if she wants to terminate her pregnancy. Also, since no on can tell which fertilized egg will go full-term, the first 2 trimesters are a morally ambiguous time period, so the woman should get unrestricted access, including federal funding if she is poor, to abortion services.

However, in the 3rd trimester, fetal science has discovered that the fetus around the 24th week begins emitting brain waves similar to that of a newborn. If science and in increasing numbers, state laws, are marking the end of life as the cessation of brain waves, then shouldn't we say that life legally begins after the celibral cortex is wired and begins emitting brain waves similar to a newborn?

In the 3rd trimester, abortion should be heavily regulated, which it is now I think, and allowed only when a woman's life or health is in danger or if the fetus exhibits disabilities incapatable with life. I'm not in favor of aborting fetus with disabilities per se because some disabilities, with government and social services help, are not counterproductive to a human being from being a responsible citizen and productive member of society.

If we accept the beginning of life starting after EEG's show the fetus' brain fuctioning similar to a newborn's, then pro-choice supporters should have no problem agreeing with laws that stiffen penalties for people who kill or abuse a pregnant woman or with pregnante woman who crimminally abuse their fetus. In the latter case, I'm not talking about woman, who are exercising to stay healthy, or cleaning house and have a mishap, which could harm the fetus. I'm talking about woman, who abuse drugs and alcohol and those woman, who for vanity sake, have the fertility clinic stuff their wombs full of fertilzed embryos and decided to give birth to a large number of babies, so that they can break some previously held record.

In regards to the article mentioned in this post, it's about time woman, who have had an abortion because it was the best choice for them and their familes speak out to counter the anti-abortionist propaganda.

[malestripper4u]

12. Life starts at contraception?

Oh hell, we are in trouble now!

lol, sorry couldn't resist

MS

[Larkspur]

19. Oops!

I meant conception.

[athenap]

14. There's still a problem with this -

"If we accept the beginning of life starting after EEG's show the fetus' brain fuctioning similar to a newborn's, then pro-choice supporters should have no problem agreeing with laws that stiffen penalties for people who kill or abuse a pregnant woman or with pregnante woman who crimminally abuse their fetus. In the latter case, I'm not talking about woman, who are exercising to stay healthy, or cleaning house and have a mishap, which could harm the fetus. I'm talking about woman, who abuse drugs and alcohol and those woman, who for vanity sake, have the fertility clinic stuff their wombs full of fertilzed embryos and decided to give birth to a large number of babies, so that they can break some previously held record."

The thing is--this makes sense when you think of it in terms of habitual hard substance abusers, or the obviously reckless/irresponsible. But it'll never stay limited to that, as there's never a clear line between what's irresponsible or reckless or intentionally harmful.

VBACs (Vaginal Birth After C-Section) are a perfect example. Many doctors will tell you that "once a C, always a C," but in reality, it's not accurate - many women can and do (and have done more in the past than the present, because more doctors and birth attendants had experience with doing so) go on to deliver babies naturally after a c-section. So...because her doctor recommends that she have another C-section, and the woman chooses to attempt a VBAC, is she then intentionally endangering/abusing a child?

Or a woman who chooses to birth at home, rather than in a hospital (where all sorts of freaky, resistant virii and bacteria are a lot closer to her than her own home, and where hospital policy dictates when and how she has to birth her baby) - is she endangering the life of her child?

I'm really not sure how to work this out logically--the penalty for injuring or killing a pregnant woman *should* be harsher, for the double heartbreak. But the government shouldn't become a nanny state, telling people they have to listen to the government rather than their own bodies, hearts, minds, or consciences.

[booksenkatz]

16. Even ***IF***

one believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that an embryo should have the 100% equal rights of an adult human being, then there is still the rather, um, HUGE problem in that this embryo-person depends upon an adult human being for its existence for 9 months -- that means it is a 100% parasite for 9 months. Sorry about that term, but it's the truth. Some women want the parasite, others do not. Do we legislate that every human being has the right to latch onto another human being's body against the second human being's will, simply because it needs something from that second human being in order to live? That surely means that we must all be forced, then, to donate kidneys and bone marrow, etc., whether we want to or not, at the whim of the government, right? Our bodies, then, would belong to the government. Our pregnancies, then, would also belong to the government, and the government, then, could also decide that you MUST have an abortion when you do NOT want one. That is surely the only natural conclusion.

Until they find a way to take that embryo and place it elsewhere when a woman does not want it living inside of her as a parasite, then CHOICE must remain the law.

Personally, I don't think -- think -- that I could have an abortion. I had two scares when I was young, but never had to make that ultimate decision. Nevertheless, I am thankful that CHOICE is the law, and I will continue to fight for it to remain so. It doesn't matter what you or I believe morally, and it doesn't matter what scientists learn about embryos at this stage or that stage, blah blah blah, as long as that embryo must live as a parasite inside of someone who does not want it to be there.

CHOICE.

[Larkspur]

18. A fetus is not always a parasite...

as long as that embryo must live as a parasite inside of someone who does not want it to be there.

Starting around the 3rd trimester and after the celebral cortex has been wired, the fetus' chances of surviving outside the womb increases exponentially.

[booksenkatz]

20. Then they can take it out and put it, ummm....

where? In another woman? In an artificial womb? If science has advanced that far, then great, I'm all for it. I seldom hear about such procedures, though.

I still say that as long as it requires the body of a woman who does not want it, it's a parasite. As long as she can't take it out of her body at will, it's a parasite.

Making abortion impossible at any stage doesn't save a life, because a desperate woman is going to get that embryo/fetus/parasite/tissue/baby out of her body, whatever she has to do, legally or illegally. And likely, it will take her life, too. So I still say...

CHOICE.

[Larkspur]

21. Pre-mature births is already a fact and technology is getting better

to help premies survive longer and develop naturally.

Abortion done late in a woman's pregnancy is more risky for the woman than if done in the early trimesters. That's a fact.

I favor unrestricted access to abortion in the first 2 trimesters and heavily regulated access in the last trimester. If a woman waits til the last trimester to have an abortion, she's waited too long, unless it really is to save her health or life.

[booksenkatz]

25. I just can't do it

Inasmuch as I fundamentally agree with you (I don't like the idea of abortion after 12 weeks, myself, unless someone absolutely must): I can't bring myself to force a fellow American citizen to do something medically against his/her will, especially to attach himself/herself to another human being against his/her will. I just can't. For two reasons: 1) it's none of my business, and 2) that fellow American would then have the right to turn around and tell ME what to do with MY body. So part of it is altruistic and part of it is selfishness, I admit it! But I just can't do it.

[Larkspur]

34. Well, look at it this way, Pro-choice can put anti-abortionists on

permanent retreat with sound fetal science and that will be a bigger help to women's reproductive rights than getting out heads stuck in the "partial birth abortion" wars.

Late-term abortions are restricted anyway, and it is better for the health of the woman if she has an abortion within the first 2 trimesters. I never suggested prohibiting late-term abortions but clarifying that they should only be used for an extreme emergency -- life and health of the mother and fetal abnormalities incompatable with life.

The advantage for pro-choice supporters of using what fetal science has discovered is that we can put the anti-abortion mob on PERMANENT retreat with sound science and thus make BIG GAINS in securing UNRESTRICTED access to abortions in the first 2 trimesters. This means that we can target for elimination those stupid laws that have women listen to diatribes of anti-abortionists telling them that they are killing human beings, when science proves that most fertilized eggs/zygotes are terminated by Nature anyway. We can also penalize Walmart and any pharmacist, who refuses to give women birth control pills.

[booksenkatz]

35. Nice points

Thanks for the kind exchange -- so rare at DU lately, LOL!;)

[Mandate My Ass]

15. "pro-choicers appear unsympathetic" Don the sackcloth and ashes

You can't win for losing. Either you wail and rend your clothing so they can "save" women from eternal despair by banning abortion. Or you say you're comfotable with the decision and feel there should be no value judgment from those outside the process and you're in denial about the moral complexity and tragedy of the issue and choice should be taken from you.

Why is this event deemed "heavily politicized" but when people call it sad and tragic, that's not political?

I call bullshit.

[noonwitch]

17. I'm 100 % pro-choice, but have no problems with what Hillary said

For a lot of women, it is a sad, tragic choice.

I've never had an abortion, I hope to never be in a situation where I have to make a choice like that. The circumstances in which I would have an abortion would be sad and tragic-rape, or finding out that the fetus was horribly deformed, or that following through on the pregnancy could cost me my life. If I found myself in that situation, I would not want to have any legal barriers in obtaining an abortion.

This doesn't mean that I think that any other reasons a woman has for having an abortion aren't legitimate, nor do I think that anyone should regret pursuing that option. I don't have the right to judge anyone's reasons for having an abortion.

What Hillary is saying is that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I don't have a problem with that, either. The problem is not that abortion is legal (as the allegedly pro-life side claims), it's that too many women who don't want to be pregnant are getting pregnant. If those factors could be addressed, abortion may become something that happens rarely. That would not be a bad thing.

[CBHagman]

22. Also, the context of her remarks matters.

Wasn't she speaking TO abortion rights supporters, not those opposed to choosing abortion?

[rinsd]

23. I would agree....

Many women do feel the way Hillary put it about abortion. Many women feel the same way about adoption.

What we don't do enough of is make sure that counseling is available for these women.

[Arkansas Granny]

32. I'll have to go along with that.

I'm pro-choice, have never had an abortion and can't imagine the circumstances that would have made me decide to have one. However, that's me and my business and not for me to decide for someone else. I know women who have had abortions and some harbor more regret than others.

For the pro-lifers out there I will say this. I don't believe anyone is "pro-abortion". I don't know any woman who has thought "Oh goody, I'm pregnant. Now I can have that abortion I've always wanted."

[cynatnite]

26. I'm not proud of it, but

I felt I did what I had to do.

It's odd, you know, I've never spoken of this openly before and it happened almost twenty years ago. Maybe it's the kind of family I was brought up in.

I didn't feel I had any other choice but to have an abortion and when I look back on it I honestly can't see me making any other decision but this one.

I'm not proud of it, but I can't feel the shame I'm sure my family expects me to feel. The only way I can look at it is that I did what I had to do.

I still feel some guilt and at times I get tired of carrying it around.

It's nice to have a place where I can talk a little about it and not feel stigmatized.

[truthpusher]

27. Thanks for what you had to say....

...it has been so beat into my head that tremendous guilt, pain and suffering are to be associated with people having an abortion. This story and the comments in this thread are telling me that this is not always the case.

[Mandate My Ass]

29. Thank you for sharing

It can't be easy to share something that personal.

Obviously there will be as many reactions to abortions as there are women having them. Personally, I believe HC's remarks on this issue were tantamount to saying all abortions are tragedies, when obviously they're not. It's not only a wild assumption, but it plays into the anti-choicers new method of attack on abortion rights, that they want to save women from the tragic consequences of their choice.

You won't hear any politicians pontificating about the tragic consequences or moral complexity of other perfectly legal decisions that apply to both genders. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

[cynatnite]

31. You hit it right!

I used to be anti-abortion up until I was in a position of having to have one. It was a tough decision and a personal one.

I became pro-choice because of this. It's a personal one that's never easy and no one has the ability to walk in my shoes.

It's a black and white issue for anti-abortionists. That's so far from the truth and it always amazes me they can just ignore the complexities.

My distaste for the RW continues to grow because of this and other issues.

[Emillereid]

28. Hillary speaks from the repuke frame on abortion -- as soon as she

agrees that abortion is bad or sad or whatever, she is speaking from their paradigm no matter how many caveats and qualifications she later adds. God, I wish these democrats understood Lakoff. Abortion is a private decision that a woman makes with her doctor -- might be a difficult one, might not be. It's not a necessary evil -- it's not evil at all. It's one of life's choices -- it's neither good or bad. The main point is that it's no one else's business but the woman's -- the only role the government should play is insuring that women's have access to safe practitoners.

[Ilsa]

30. I'm also unhappy with the way Sen. Clinton has been

framing debates. I feel like it is either that she really is more RW than I thought, or she is positioning herself in the middle for a run in 2008. I'd rather she fight for the rightness of the principles of the Democratic Party, not do a sales job. Democrats will never convince people that liberal principles are reasonable if they keep denying them as Hillary has been.