Abortion Isn’t a Necessary Evil. It’s Great

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36





Abortion Isn’t a Necessary Evil. It’s Great

Progressives should admit it: We like abortion.




Katha Pollitt’s Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights is a deeply felt and well-researched book which argues that abortion, despite what any of its opponents might claim, is a palpable social good. Progressives, Pollitt says, can and must treat abortion as an unequivocal positive rather than a “necessary evil”; there is no ethical, humane way to limit abortion rights. The fact that Pollitt needs to make this argument in 2014, however, seems to indicate that pro-choicers have long been a little too nice for our own good.
Which is something Pollitt herself points out, many times. There are the obvious truisms about abortion ideally being “safe, legal, and rare,” sure. Pollitt also cites Roger Rosenblatt's formulation of “permit but discourage,” which makes it sound like reproductive autonomy is a form of social faux pas, like taking the last slice of pizza at the pizza party. Not criminal, sure, but are you sure you need it?
But the language of apology for abortion has seeped ever deeper into our language:
Anywhere you look or listen, you find pro-choicers falling over themselves to use words like “thorny,” “vexed,” “complex” and “difficult.” How often have you heard abortion described as '”he hardest decision,” or “the most painful choice” a woman ever makes, as if every single woman who gets pregnant by accident seriously considers having a baby, only a few weeks earlier the furthest thing from her mind, and for very good reason?
The end of the line, Pollitt says, is the sort of ridiculous decision made by Planned Parenthood in 2013 to move away from the term “pro-choice,” which “was itself a bit of a euphemism: Choose what?” We can hardly be expected to defend abortion effectively if we can't even call the procedure by name.


Pollitt convincingly outlines the many reasons that abortion is not only necessary but good for society: “always a choice,” as she writes, “and often a deeply moral decision.”


First, and most obviously, if you have a uterus, your life depends on being able to control what goes on inside of it; giving birth necessarily represents a drastic lifestyle change and heavy financial responsibility, which lasts anywhere from nine months to the rest of your natural-born life. Therefore, in order to effectively plan a life and career, you must have some guarantee that you will never be forced to take on the risk or cost of childbirth unless you choose to do so. Birth control and abortion are the only ways to provide such a guarantee. If we are to have leaders and geniuses with uteruses, we must provide them with the reproductive freedom necessary to go to school and build careers.


Pregnancy is also a health risk: Women and girls can and do die from childbirth and pregnancy. There are plenty of other health risks, common and uncommon, that attend upon pregnancy. Michelle Lee, whose story Pollitt cites in her book, required a heart transplant, which she could not receive while she stayed pregnant. Yet doctors at Louisiana State Medical Center denied her the necessary abortion, and therefore also the transplant, because the hospital rules stated that the risk of death from her pregnancy had to be greater than 50 percent before they could abort.


Abortion saves lives, and even if your life is not directly or immediately endangered by your pregnancy, I don’t have the right to force you to risk life and limb, or go through drastic and painful physical experiences like labor, simply because I prefer that you stay pregnant.
And, finally, abortion prevents suffering—not only the emotional, physical and financial suffering of parents, but that of infants. Some fetal defects, such as bilateral renal agenesis (lack of both kidneys) or anencephaly (lack of an upper brain and skull) are simply not survivable. We’re not talking disabilities, we’re talking death sentences: If the pregnancy is brought to term, the child will die, usually within hours or days of birth.


Any reasonable person would presumably agree that it’s senseless and inhumane to force a family that is already losing a pregnancy to endure the longest and most painful version of that loss, or to condemn a child to unavoidable, lethal suffering, simply so that strangers can have the satisfaction of knowing it died outside the womb. Yet not only do anti-abortion advocates encourage women to carry non-viable fetuses to term, Pollitt unearths a horrifying story of a 17-year-old in Peru who was denied an abortion by Peruvian law, and who was therefore forced to give birth to, and breastfeed, an anencephalic child who lived for four days.
This, along with tales of women who entered sepsis or died because they could not receive abortions while they were miscarrying, constitutes the dark end of the road for anti-abortion arguments: The culture of “life” that anti-choice movements want actually brings tragedy and death by failing to recognize reality.


Pollitt’s arguments for abortion are convincing and thorough. The amount of time she spends logically deconstructing the “Biblical” arguments against reproductive choice alone is commendable. (And funny: “The Old Testament is a very long book, full of bans and pronouncements and detailed instructions about daily life—what to wear, what not to eat, how to harvest your crops. It condemns many activities. … But there is no mention of abortion.”)


She also outlines, in depressing detail, the impact of the misinformation promulgated by the anti-abortion lobby, convincing huge numbers of women that abortion causes cancer, or depression, or suicide. Yet many of those women seek out abortions anyway. Indeed, Pollitt argues, the fact that women are willing to have abortions that they believe might kill them (or, in pre-Roe v. Wade times, to have illegal abortions that did kill and drastically injure them) only demonstrates how urgent and necessary abortion is.


And yet none of this is likely to convince dyed-in-the-wool abortion opponents. Dismantling fetal “personhood” with logical or scientific (or even Biblical) arguments does nothing to convince those who believe a fertilized egg is a human being, because those beliefs have never been founded on logic or science. They’re emotional. You can’t argue emotions.


But you don’t necessarily have to respect them, either—particularly not when they require you to behave in ways that cause harm.


Pollitt’s most piercing argument is that progressives have given too much ground on this issue, to their own detriment: “For years,” she writes, “a robust school of progressive thinking called women who were alarmed about the future of reproductive rights naive.



The Republican Party isn’t serious about restricting abortion, they claimed, politicians just talk like that to keep the base motivated.”


This isn't ancient history; Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, one of the books she cites as having argued this, appeared in 2004 and was a bestseller throughout that decade. We argued that abortion opponents weren't really serious right up until the time that we found ourselves fighting not only for legal abortion, but for the continued legality of birth control.


In other words, trying to be compassionate, to give anti-choicers the benefit of the doubt, has only resulted in progressives failing to make their own case. We’re dealing, Pollitt says, with “40 years of apologetic rhetoric, 40 years of searching for arguments that will support legal abortion while never, ever implying that it is an easy decision or a good thing,” and this has only gotten us stuck “making the same limited, defensive arguments again and again.”


Progressives have apologized for being right. But we don’t have to. Abortion saves lives, improves lives, and makes for a stronger society. The facts are decisively on our side.


Most profoundly, Pollitt’s book is a call for us all to reclaim and speak out about the truths we know. Personally, I like abortion. I've never needed one. I'm still glad to have the option. I'm glad for the people I've known who got pregnant at the wrong time, with the wrong people, and didn't have their lives ruined by it.


If Pollitt gets her way, more of us might feel free to admit that, hey: We like abortion.

Abortion Isn’t a Necessary Evil. It’s Great - In These Times
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Great sign, does the flip side have a price range?
The only one dead set against are the unborn babies and you don't hear them complaining. Before we destroy things over the ones that didn't draw a breath how about making it a better place for the ones who weren't that lucky?
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
Evil is a man made word to control what others do.

Nature doesn't work in good and evil. Just in what is necessary. Man should be careful about removing himself from what is natural and what is nature.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
5,723
3,597
113
Edmonton
yeah, me too. Totally out of line. Wonder now, that's he's not of this world, if he's changed his mind? lol
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
The Subject of the matter may not think so! -:)
You forget or will not accept, that the subject doesn't exist until it can live outside the human body.


That video fails to mention that the subject may have survived birth only to face starving to death like the 15 children that die every minute of every day worldwide. What is better to die unaware or to suffer greatly first and then die??
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
You forget or will not accept, that the subject doesn't exist until it can live outside the human body.


You didn't actually write that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If it doesn't exist what's the need for an abortion? Does something that doesn't exist start kicking at 15 weeks? Does something that doesn't exist cause morning sickness? Fail!
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
The whole issue is a case of flogging a dead horse but some keep digging up the horse
to beat the skeleton. Abortion is what it is, The Law let us move on to finding solutions to
say the hungry who are here alive. We have a group of people who insist on trying to turn
back the clock, not only on abortion but some in religious communities want to go back
two thousand years that is in their minds eye but please leave the cell phone alone.
I want to pray and live in the fifteenth century but I still want my e mails texts and games.
It is time to move on
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
You forget or will not accept, that the subject doesn't exist until it can live outside the human body.


That video fails to mention that the subject may have survived birth only to face starving to death like the 15 children that die every minute of every day worldwide. What is better to die unaware or to suffer greatly first and then die??


Woe there bessy! you are defending the rights of Canadian women who would otherwise starve their baby if it had been carried full term? With arguments like that, you really don't leave much need for others to oppose you.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
You didn't actually write that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If it doesn't exist what's the need for an abortion? Does something that doesn't exist start kicking at 15 weeks? Does something that doesn't exist cause morning sickness? Fail!
Come on....do you contend, an embryo actually thinks?? How does that happen when the brain does even start to develop until the around the 27th to the 30th week. There are NO thoughts.


As far as morning sickness goes.......sometimes the female body is smarter than the female and isn't happy having a foreign body taking up residence.

Woe there bessy! you are defending the rights of Canadian women who would otherwise starve their baby if it had been carried full term? With arguments like that, you really don't leave much need for others to oppose you.
No, I am simply stating how many children world wide starve to death every day. We have over populated the earth, we have upset the world balance and either we (humans) very shortly limit our breeding to the detriment of all nature, nature will do it for us. Being one of the better off nations, do we not have an obligation to control our effect on the world??


Until we care enough about our earth and the rest of the inhabitants (other animal species and sea creatures, as well as our fellow humans) we will continue to use war and aggression for more oil, food or whatever other excuse we use to keep our own little part of the world functioning.. Eventually nature will catch up with us. Our world is very interconnected..... plagues like the one now threatening us may not be the final nail, and It seems to me we need to care for those already living more than those "possible unwanted beings"


What excuse can there be for refusing to give control over one's body as long as those who want children are allowed to have them??
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
Come on....do you contend, an embryo actually thinks?? How does that happen when the brain does even start to develop until the around the 27th to the 30th week. There are NO thoughts.


As far as morning sickness goes.......sometimes the female body is smarter than the female and isn't happy having a foreign body taking up residence.


No, I am simply stating how many children world wide starve to death every day. We have over populated the earth, we have upset the world balance and either we (humans) very shortly limit our breeding to the detriment of all nature, nature will do it for us. Being one of the better off nations, do we not have an obligation to control our effect on the world??


Until we care enough about our earth and the rest of the inhabitants (other animal species and sea creatures, as well as our fellow humans) we will continue to use war and aggression for more oil, food or whatever other excuse we use to keep our own little part of the world functioning.. Eventually nature will catch up with us. Our world is very interconnected..... plagues like the one now threatening us may not be the final nail, and It seems to me we need to care for those already living more than those "possible unwanted beings"


What excuse can there be for refusing to give control over one's body as long as those who want children are allowed to have them??

wow, I think I understand you loud and clear. To you, it is all about using the atrocities in undeveloped and oppressed countries to justify the widespread culling of the herd in developed countries.

As a man, I have a different perspective. Society is very insensitive and closed minded with men that choose to have unsafe sex. It doesn't matter if men don't want a child, society says keep it in your pants or pay child support for 25 years. However, the woman that they just f**ked ( in this hypothetical story of unsafe sex that is a two way street ) can easily dodge 25 years of child support merely by going to a clinic and getting a procedure done on taxpayer dime. They talk about rape and incest victims, and they talk about their own narcissistic rights, but they don't ever want to talk about accountability. Grow it and abort it is the new politically correct mantra these days.
 

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
wow, I think I understand you loud and clear. To you, it is all about using the atrocities in undeveloped and oppressed countries to justify the widespread culling of the herd in developed countries.

As a man, I have a different perspective. Society is very insensitive and closed minded with men that choose to have unsafe sex. It doesn't matter if men don't want a child, society says keep it in your pants or pay child support for 25 years. However, the woman that they just f**ked ( in this hypothetical story of unsafe sex that is a two way street ) can easily dodge 25 years of child support merely by going to a clinic and getting a procedure done on taxpayer dime. They talk about rape and incest victims, and they talk about their own narcissistic rights, but they don't ever want to talk about accountability. Grow it and abort it is the new politically correct mantra these days.
Come on ....... It is a 4 to 1 chance, the woman would be raising and supporting that unwanted child alone. I know of several dead beat dads and the government is not exactly on the ball with child support even in a marriage. That two way street doesn't exist. How many men do you know who are single dads??


Birth control pills can fail and so can condoms. Better the abortion is on the public dime rather than the 25 years on Welfare rolls. A teacher was telling me only last week about two of his students voicing the wish to be old enough to leave school and join the Welfare rolls.





The number of homes led by a lone-parent in Canada has been on the rise for the last four decades. Research continually bears out the fact that lone-parent homes are at an economic disadvantage compared to common-law and married couples, with or without children.


Lone-parent families accounted for 16.3 percent of all census families in 2011, up from 15.7percent in 2001. In 1961, only 8.4 percent of census families were headed by lone parents.1
In 2011, there were 1,527,840 lone-parent families in Canada accounting for an eight percent change since 2001.2
There are four female lone-parent families for every one male lone-parent family in Canada.3








 
Last edited:

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
Come on ....... It is a 4 to 1 chance, the woman would be raising and supporting that unwanted child alone. I know of several dead beat dads and the government is not exactly on the ball with child support even in a marriage. That two way street doesn't exist. How many men do you know who are single dads??


Birth control pills can fail and so can condoms. Better the abortion is on the public dime rather than the 25 years on Welfare rolls. A teacher was telling me only last week about two of his students voicing the wish to be old enough to leave school and join the Welfare rolls.





The number of homes led by a lone-parent in Canada has been on the rise for the last four decades. Research continually bears out the fact that lone-parent homes are at an economic disadvantage compared to common-law and married couples, with or without children.


Lone-parent families accounted for 16.3 percent of all census families in 2011, up from 15.7percent in 2001. In 1961, only 8.4 percent of census families were headed by lone parents.1
In 2011, there were 1,527,840 lone-parent families in Canada accounting for an eight percent change since 2001.2
There are four female lone-parent families for every one male lone-parent family in Canada.3









Hmmmm.... your words have an uncanny resemblance to the words in this link: Canadian Single Parent Families | Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

Strictly a coincidence, right?