“It was a big crisis. It’s a major thing when you’re growing something with a woman, but they convinced us that it would never work out and would ruin our lives… . You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I…
Okay, time to de-bunk a myth here. There is no such thing as “Post-Abortion Trauma” or “Post-Abortion Syndrome.” Check with various mainstream medical associations, such as the American Psychological Association, and you’ll find that they agree. This is a lie spread about by the anti-choice community in an attempt to demonize abortion further, and is not grounded on any empirical evidence whatsoever. Anti-choicers avidly seek out women who have had negative emotions regarding an abortion—all the while knowingly or unknowingly attempting to shame the woman whom they interviewed—and use this anecdotal evidence as if it shares the same weight as proven research.
A significantly “traumatic” psychiatric response in women who have abortions generally occur with women who have a history of psychological or emotional disorders. Furthermore, statistics show that the most common feeling a woman has after an abortion is relief.
Shockingly enough, more women suffer more stress and trauma through the process of adoption rather than with abortion. Emotions and difficulties brought on by an abortion are generally very acute, whereas a woman struggles throughout her life after an adoption, constantly fretting over the well-being of the child.
This by no means is meant to bash adoption, simply a fascinating bit of information I came across during my research. It also helps dispel some of the rumours that women are psychologically “better off” having to undergo the pregnancy and give up the unwanted child rather than having an abortion performed.
To wrap this up, I’d like to proffer a quote from leading specialists in the field who conducted their own research. Russo and Dabul shared their findings of an eight-year study in Professional Psychology:
"Although an intensive examination of the data was conducted, controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent: The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any, independent role in women’s well-being over time, regardless of race or religion. The major predictor of a woman’s well-being after an abortion, regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming pregnant…Our findings are congruent with those of others, including the National Academy of Sciences (1975), and the conclusion is worth repeating. Despite a concerted effort to convince the public of the existence of a widespread and severe postabortion trauma, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma, even though abortion occurs in the highly stressful context of an unwanted pregnancy.”
[Russo NF, Dabul, AJ. “The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?”Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997, 28(1): 1-9.]
-BrittaniBotulism, blogging for Choice from Louisville, KY.
An interesting article that challenges using the Bible as a valid argument against abortion. Written by a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights it not only offers a beautiful argument, but also explains a few of the finer points in the Bible that some of the religious, apparently, cannot understand.
Randall Balmer revealed that the religious right seized upon abortion as a wedge anti-feminist issue to leverage their racist, sexist, pro-corporate agenda, which they deemed “family values.” They’ve done their best to prove that the only “pro-life” position is to shut down abortion providers. They cite the sixth commandment “do not kill” as unequivocal proof of a biblical ban on abortion.
The religious right is wrong. The sixth commandment does not prohibit abortion. It’s quite clear that the intended audience for the Ten Commandments is men: the last one prohibits the coveting of a neighbor’s wife, who is on a list with his donkey and house. Even though women could own property in Moses’ time, they did not have wives. I’m usually in favor of inclusive language, but sometimes, it is best to note when the Bible really is speaking to men, a point Jewish theologian Judith Plaskow made in Standing Again at Sinai.
The Commandments are not consistently sexist, however. Numbers five to 10 govern human relations, and the first on the list, number five, commands men to “honor your father and your mother so that your days may be long in the land.” Honor, kaved, means to respect parents to the point of accepting responsibility for their well being, even when it creates a burden, all year round. “Do not kill,” number six, follows this commandment.
Jesus’ discussion of the sixth commandment (Matthew 5) makes it very clear that it prohibits revenge, murderous anger against another and other nasty forms of men behaving badly. In Mark 10, in a conversation with a rich young (male) ruler, Jesus lists the five commandments governing human relationships and adds another, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
The Bible does not mention abortion. Using the Bible to prohibit it, as if the intimate, tangled relationship of mother and fetus were an equivalent to battle begins with the wrong premise. It treats the two parties as independent adult human beings at war.
This relationship does not apply to abortion.
Hey there, BrittaniBotulism here to make a quick comment!
The petitions like the one recently reblogged do work, and our members of Congress do listen. I have signed countless petitions (and will now begin posting all of the petitions I receive here for accessibility) and have received three responses from Congress—John Yarmuth, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell have responded.
Even though Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell obviously did not agree with what I had to say (in the petitions there is an option to personalize your message, though be sure to always remain polite!) however the point is that they did get the message, and my voice was heard.
So, please! Sign any further petitions to alert our Congress that women will NOT be silent, and we ARE going to fight ANY and ALL injustices against Women and our right to Choose!
When you visit the majority of the sites on which the Petitions are located, there is usually an option to sign up for the mailing list. I would HIGHLY recommend it! They provide links to share the Petition on your Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr accounts—plus, you are constantly kept up-to-date on Anti-Choice legislations happening in your area and what you can do about it!
Since the start of this Congress, House leadership has pursued an agenda seeking to reduce women’s access to reproductive health care services. Now they are pushing H.R. 3, a bill that proposes dangerous restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion.
H.R. 3 would harm women’s health and would even raise taxes on individuals and small businesses to punish private health care decisions. Now we are hearing that this bill may come to the House floor for a vote as early as next week. We must stop them.
H.R. 3 reduces women’s access to abortion care in many ways, but here are some of its most outrageous provisions —
- Raises taxes and increases costs on many individuals and small businesses with insurance plans that cover abortion, which could force individuals and employers to drop abortion coverage from their health insurance plans. It could even shut down the entire private market for insurance coverage that includes abortion.
- Writes into permanent law a ban on abortion coverage for ALL women who depend on the government for their health care. This includes low-income women currently covered under Medicaid, women who will become eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, women serving in the U.S. military, federal employees, residents of the District of Columbia, women in federal prisons and women covered by the Indian Health Service.
- Unbelievably, H.R. 3 contains no exceptions for circumstances where a woman faces serious health consequences, even if continuing the pregnancy could cause permanent damage to her heart, lungs, or kidneys.
We refuse to stand by as they continue their outrageous attack on women’s health. Tell your Representative to vote NO on H.R. 3 and its dangerous restrictions on women’s health care coverage today.
Author unknown, quoted in The Torch, 14 September 1987
|—||Katha Pollitt. (via brittanibotulism)|
|—||Margaret Sanger. (via brittanibotulism)|
|—||Susan Faludi. (via brittanibotulism)|
Some of the actual regulations are almost this ridiculous.
Idiots: Any anti-choicers want to explain to me how they reconcile their philosophy with the fact that when abortion is illegal, more people die?
It’s true. It’s called back-alley abortions.
No matter what legislation is passed, abortion will still happen. You might as well keep it safe so fewer people have to die in the first place. Allowing that to happen is rather anti-life, don’t you think?
Wrong - what if scales reported that more people die when murder is illicit as opposed to government-induced death camps? Nice try (and fail)
To begin with, your response has little to do with the initial argument you provide. You are, quite simply, offering up a generic red herring of an argument. The initial argument is:
A) We ought to allow abortions to be legal, because statistics prove that whether abortions are legal or illegal they will still occur, and this inevitably implies that even if abortions were outlawed in the U.S. they would still happen, only more women would die because of botched back-alley procedures.
You offer the argument (as best as I understand):
B) If statistics reported that more peopled died while murder is illegal, what’s the point in keeping murder illegal, and why oppose death camps?
These are two completely separate arguments. By providing the second “argument,” you are beginning an entirely new debate entirely unrelated to abortion. For starters, abortion is a different matter entirely than murder. In its lawful definition, murder is “killing another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.” Abortions are legal, they do not break the law, and they are not killing a fully-functioning, self-aware human being with aforethought-malice. An abortion is a completely legal medical procedure performed by health professionals on a client who is quite obviously giving her consent.
The facts that the “idiots” presented were 100% correct, also. A minuscule amount of effort put into researching proves that Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence.
Comparing legal, safe abortions which in some cases save a woman’s life to governmentally-regulated death camps is both over-done and an absurd comparison. Abortions are not infanticide. Abortions are not genocide. Were they, entire generations would not exist. Don’t understand? Don’t believe me? Look up exactly what these two terms actually mean.
Finally, I would strongly advise you alter your language. You ought to consider just who it is you are calling the idiots, when you fail to connect two arguments together and offer your opinion in a rather willfully ignorant fashion.
Defending Your Right To Choose, Whether You Like It Or Not,
-brittanibotulism, guest blogging from Louisville, Kentucky.
Thanks to Jay Tea at www.wizbangblog.com for doing some math for us all.Amplify’d from wizbangblog.com
Nobody with half a conscience left could possibly support tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood (the name of which is such a ruse).
Well now, I feel like a broken record.
Due to the Hyde Amendment, federal funding for abortions through Planned Parenthood is federally prohibited. Planned Parenthood does not simply run around the Country handing out free Abortions to every pregnant woman on the street.
Planned Parenthood also offers many counseling services which aid the woman in deciding whether or not Abortion is right for her. There are many women who thought of having an Abortion due to financial reasons, but upon arriving at a Planned Parenthood Health Center discovered many methods by which to afford her pregnancy and baby. Planned Parenthood avidly advocates W.I.C., adoptions, and when in the correct circumstances—yes, Abortion.
Furthermore, even if federal funding for Planned Parenthood ceased, taxpayers would still be funding Abortions. Abortions are only federally funded when in the case of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger—and her insurance will not cover the procedure. Thus, with or without Planned Parenthood, you would have hospitals and other Health Centers who perform abortions which would, in the specific cases I listed, be funded by the taxpayer’s dime.
In truth, the number of these actual cases are incredibly low. As a result, the individual taxpayer pays roughly less than $1 to “fund Abortions.” Now, let’s take a look at the numbers you decided to cite, shall we?
While true, the number of deaths in the Iraq war were fewer than the number of successful abortions, you’ve obviously got your panties in a bunch regarding the taxpayer funding here. And, according to Congressional Budget Office report released in 2007, the Iraq war could cost taxpayers roughly $2.4 Trillion by 2017.
If you would seek to de-fund Planned Parenthood on the simple basis that it performs Abortions—not that it is federally funded to perform abortions—and would seek to rid many women and men of various other methods of affordable birth control, reproductive health care and general health care, it would lead me to believe you are an incredibly naive and blinded individual—despite your “research.”