To contact us Click HERE
This post was originally written for The Abortion Gang.
Anti-choicers are always trying to trick pro-choicers into saying something that makes them look bad. One such example is when anti-choicers bring up sex-selective abortions. “If you support girls/women, how can you support sex-selective abortions!?!” they ask (Don’t get me started on the fact that you cannot abort a woman. Physically impossible). They don’t ask these questions because they’re interested in reducing sex-selective abortions; they’re just interested in making pro-choicers seem coldhearted.
But what if they did want to reduce sex-selective abortions? How would they go about doing that? Pro-choice, of course, already has the answer: Feminism.
Sex-selective abortions happen because the pregnant woman’s culture favors one sex over the other- usually, male over female*. For instance, in China, families will abort a female fetus or abandon a female infant because they want a male infant. Males stay with the family, and carry on the family name while females are married off to another family and basically lose their birth family. For this reason, males are valued higher than females. And for this reason, sex- selective abortions occur.
This is where feminism comes in. Feminism says that both sexes are equal in value and worth. Men and women, with their differences and similarities, are not better than one another but standing on an equal plane. If feminist ideas were to become culturally normal, sex-selective abortions would not occur. Families would value and appreciate a fetus they wanted regardless of its sex. Not only would this apply to fetuses, but to children as well; families would be just as glad to have a daughter as they would be to have a son.
On top of that, feminism would give the opinions of women equal weight to men. Who knows- maybe women in China and other countries don’t want to have sex selective abortions, but their culture pressures them into that decision? Supporting feminism would support women who choose to not have a sex-selective abortion.
So next time an anti-choicer asks you what you think of sex-selective abortions, ask them right back: “What are you doing to prevent sex-selection?” Then ask them to support feminism, so that males and females will be valued equally.
* I understand there are other situations involved such as intersex –this post is a simple overview. I welcome others to write about the issues of feminism, sex-selection and intersex.
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
Blog for Choice: What is choice?
To contact us Click HERE
Today is Blog for Choice day. While there is a question that has been put out by prochoicers for us to answer, the antis have come up with what they consider a clever "come back" in which they ask "What is choice?"
Well, why not answer that straight off the bat?
When I say I support choice, that means I support each individual woman's ability to make a decision (after being informed of risks/benefits) about how she is going to responsibly care for her pregnancy.
When she first becomes pregnant, that usually means she is choosing between having an abortion and giving birth. If she chooses to have an abortion, then she gets to make a decision whether she wants to have a medical or a surgical abortion. She gets to choose the safest clinic setting for her (I would like to see there be no Hyde amendment forcing women into clinics like Gosnell's) and has someone she trusts to provide whatever she needs (driving, food, hugs, whatever).
If she chooses to carry to term, then she gets to make a decision about whether she wants to use a midwife or an OB/GYN. She chooses between a homebirth, hospital birth and birthing center. She chooses whether to have an all natural birth, whether to use an epidural, whether to be induced.
Towards the end of the pregnancy, if she has chosen to carry to term, she must make a decision about whether she wants to keep the infant after birth or give it up for adoption. If she chooses adoption, she gets to decide if she wants an open or closed adoption. She gets to choose which adoptive family her child will become a part of. If she chooses to raise the infant herself, she gets to choose her parenting style: will she breastfeed, co-sleep or babywear?
Of course, there are also choices to be made before a woman becomes pregnant. She has to choose what type of contraceptive (and I include abstinence among them) she wants to use, for instance.
As you can see, choice is about so many different things. But in the end, it really all comes down to supporting one thing: Trusting women to make the best decisions for themselves and their families when they're fully informed of all the risks and benefits associated with the possible options. This is Choice.
Today is Blog for Choice day. While there is a question that has been put out by prochoicers for us to answer, the antis have come up with what they consider a clever "come back" in which they ask "What is choice?"
Well, why not answer that straight off the bat?
Definitions of choice on the Web:
* the act of choosing or selecting; "your choice of colors was unfortunate"; "you can take your pick"
When I say I support choice, that means I support each individual woman's ability to make a decision (after being informed of risks/benefits) about how she is going to responsibly care for her pregnancy.
When she first becomes pregnant, that usually means she is choosing between having an abortion and giving birth. If she chooses to have an abortion, then she gets to make a decision whether she wants to have a medical or a surgical abortion. She gets to choose the safest clinic setting for her (I would like to see there be no Hyde amendment forcing women into clinics like Gosnell's) and has someone she trusts to provide whatever she needs (driving, food, hugs, whatever).
If she chooses to carry to term, then she gets to make a decision about whether she wants to use a midwife or an OB/GYN. She chooses between a homebirth, hospital birth and birthing center. She chooses whether to have an all natural birth, whether to use an epidural, whether to be induced.
Towards the end of the pregnancy, if she has chosen to carry to term, she must make a decision about whether she wants to keep the infant after birth or give it up for adoption. If she chooses adoption, she gets to decide if she wants an open or closed adoption. She gets to choose which adoptive family her child will become a part of. If she chooses to raise the infant herself, she gets to choose her parenting style: will she breastfeed, co-sleep or babywear?
Of course, there are also choices to be made before a woman becomes pregnant. She has to choose what type of contraceptive (and I include abstinence among them) she wants to use, for instance.
As you can see, choice is about so many different things. But in the end, it really all comes down to supporting one thing: Trusting women to make the best decisions for themselves and their families when they're fully informed of all the risks and benefits associated with the possible options. This is Choice.
Sex Trafficking and Clinic Responsibility: What Would You Do?
To contact us Click HERE
Originally posted at the AbortionGang site.
If you were an employee at a reproductive health care clinic and someone came in and asked you about obtaining abortions for women being sex trafficked, what would you do?
Here’s what I would do: Lie. Lie, lie, and then lie some more.
Why?
There’s one thing for certain: If you tell the person “No, we will not give these women healthcare” then you will never be able to find them. You will never be able to help them get out of being trafficked, help them get their lives back.
And if you tell this person “That’s against the law! I’m calling the cops!”- then you might just lose your life.
Everyone knows that in a bank robbery, you’re supposed to do whatever the bank robber tells you. The bank robber doesn’t care about the law or your life, (s)he just wants the money and to escape. Doing anything to prevent that puts you in danger.
The same thing applies with someone who trafficks people. This person abuses women for their bodies- (s)he’s not interested in your morals or the law.
The BEST way to ensure those trafficked girls are found? Lie. Tell the person that you can provide the girls with healthcare services, that you wont tell anyone, that its all perfectly legal. And then after the meeting, go tell your superiors and the law enforcement. When the person comes again with the women (s)he is trafficking, law enforcement can be there to arrest the person. The girls can be provided with healthcare (which they will need), counseling, a place to stay, etc. Dare I sound too forward- they can be rescued.
Of course, if the person coming in to ask about healthcare for sex trafficked women is really just a fake undercover anti-choicer, this type of situation may lead the employee and the clinic to look bad.
But personally, I’d rather look bad and rescue women from sex trafficking than look good and never have the chance to save them. Being a reproductive justice activist isn’t about looking good, it’s about helping other people.
What would you do in this type of situation?
If you were an employee at a reproductive health care clinic and someone came in and asked you about obtaining abortions for women being sex trafficked, what would you do?
Here’s what I would do: Lie. Lie, lie, and then lie some more.
Why?
There’s one thing for certain: If you tell the person “No, we will not give these women healthcare” then you will never be able to find them. You will never be able to help them get out of being trafficked, help them get their lives back.
And if you tell this person “That’s against the law! I’m calling the cops!”- then you might just lose your life.
Everyone knows that in a bank robbery, you’re supposed to do whatever the bank robber tells you. The bank robber doesn’t care about the law or your life, (s)he just wants the money and to escape. Doing anything to prevent that puts you in danger.
The same thing applies with someone who trafficks people. This person abuses women for their bodies- (s)he’s not interested in your morals or the law.
The BEST way to ensure those trafficked girls are found? Lie. Tell the person that you can provide the girls with healthcare services, that you wont tell anyone, that its all perfectly legal. And then after the meeting, go tell your superiors and the law enforcement. When the person comes again with the women (s)he is trafficking, law enforcement can be there to arrest the person. The girls can be provided with healthcare (which they will need), counseling, a place to stay, etc. Dare I sound too forward- they can be rescued.
Of course, if the person coming in to ask about healthcare for sex trafficked women is really just a fake undercover anti-choicer, this type of situation may lead the employee and the clinic to look bad.
But personally, I’d rather look bad and rescue women from sex trafficking than look good and never have the chance to save them. Being a reproductive justice activist isn’t about looking good, it’s about helping other people.
What would you do in this type of situation?
Ralph Lang, Attempted Anti-Choice Terrorist
To contact us Click HERE
Cross posted from AbortionGang.
Thank God, or Lady Luck, or whomever you like: yesterday reports went out of a man arrested BEFORE he murdered a law-abiding doctor, instead of after.
The quick details: Ralph Lang, 63, drove up to Madison with a gun with the clear intention of murdering at least one abortion-providing doctor, and possibly other nurses and employees. His handgun discharged while he was at a motel, and the police were called. Upon hearing his plans, he was taken into custody.
I’m so thankful that Lang’s gun went off in his motel room. I’m also thankful he wasn’t “100 percent in sync with God” when he was in Madison last week and didn’t kill anyone. I’m thankful that he didn’t get to go to the clinic, “line [the employees] up all in a row, get a machine gun, and mow them all down” as he said he wished he could.
The other information you should know: Ralph Lang is not a “lone wolf” or a “fringe member” of the antichoice “pro-life” community. He is a sidewalk counselor (read: harasser) and was arrested previously in 2007 outside of a Planned Parenthood. He was part of a Catholic prayer vigil (read: more sidewalk harassment) in 2006, at which time he said, “it’s nice to be a part of a movement like this.” I’m sure as we learn more details we will see more connections between Ralph Lang and well known anti-choice groups.
Of course, Lang’s language is gleamed from common anti-choice propaganda. He planned “to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies”- words used by many so-called peaceful anti-choicers. These ‘peaceful’ antis claim they don’t actually want anyone hurt, yet continue to repeat these phrases until they’ve convinced someone- like Ralph Lang, or Scott Roeder- to do the dirty work for them. When they call doctors murderers over and over and over again, they set the kindling and strike the match for others to take those words and follow through with them.
It’s long past time for antichoicers to stop their violent rhetoric. It was long past time two years ago, when Dr. George Tiller was murdered in his church. It was long past time in 1998 when Dr. Slepian and a security guard were killed, in 1994 when two clinic receptionists, Dr Britton and an escort were killed, in 1993 when Dr. Gunn was murdered. It’s been nearly 20 years of murders- when will anti-choicers actually take a prolife stance and stop the violence?
Thank God, or Lady Luck, or whomever you like: yesterday reports went out of a man arrested BEFORE he murdered a law-abiding doctor, instead of after.
The quick details: Ralph Lang, 63, drove up to Madison with a gun with the clear intention of murdering at least one abortion-providing doctor, and possibly other nurses and employees. His handgun discharged while he was at a motel, and the police were called. Upon hearing his plans, he was taken into custody.
I’m so thankful that Lang’s gun went off in his motel room. I’m also thankful he wasn’t “100 percent in sync with God” when he was in Madison last week and didn’t kill anyone. I’m thankful that he didn’t get to go to the clinic, “line [the employees] up all in a row, get a machine gun, and mow them all down” as he said he wished he could.
The other information you should know: Ralph Lang is not a “lone wolf” or a “fringe member” of the antichoice “pro-life” community. He is a sidewalk counselor (read: harasser) and was arrested previously in 2007 outside of a Planned Parenthood. He was part of a Catholic prayer vigil (read: more sidewalk harassment) in 2006, at which time he said, “it’s nice to be a part of a movement like this.” I’m sure as we learn more details we will see more connections between Ralph Lang and well known anti-choice groups.
Of course, Lang’s language is gleamed from common anti-choice propaganda. He planned “to lay out abortionists because they are killing babies”- words used by many so-called peaceful anti-choicers. These ‘peaceful’ antis claim they don’t actually want anyone hurt, yet continue to repeat these phrases until they’ve convinced someone- like Ralph Lang, or Scott Roeder- to do the dirty work for them. When they call doctors murderers over and over and over again, they set the kindling and strike the match for others to take those words and follow through with them.
It’s long past time for antichoicers to stop their violent rhetoric. It was long past time two years ago, when Dr. George Tiller was murdered in his church. It was long past time in 1998 when Dr. Slepian and a security guard were killed, in 1994 when two clinic receptionists, Dr Britton and an escort were killed, in 1993 when Dr. Gunn was murdered. It’s been nearly 20 years of murders- when will anti-choicers actually take a prolife stance and stop the violence?
Choosing Birth after Rape
To contact us Click HERE
Crossposted from the AbortionGang.
I would like to give an often ignored perspective of rape, pregnancy and abortion (this is your trigger warning, though I don’t plan to be graphic).
I often see tweets, blog posts and comments from women and men (and people who identify as neither of the above) sharing their horror at the thought of carrying a pregnancy conceived in rape to term. They proudly and strongly say they support abortion, because it’s horrific, gruesome, disgusting, and cruel to force a woman to carry to term after she was raped (or, “give birth to her rapist’s child”). Now maybe I’m not paying attention, but it seems that all of the feminist discussion around rape and pregnancy decisions is focused around how awful it is for women to give birth after rape. Yet one study in 1996 (old, but the only reliable one I could find) said 32.2% of raped women chose to birth and keep the child (50% had abortions, 5.9% participated in adoption and 11.8% had miscarriages). 32% is a substantial portion of women that it seems many feminist forget about.
I 100% agree that it’s wrong to force a woman to carry to term when she wants to abort.
But I have to wonder: how does this type of language (horrific, disgusting, cruel) affect women who choose to carry to term after rape?
I wonder how a single mother of a beautiful two year old who happened to be conceived from rape feels when she reads that it’s “barbaric” to “force a woman to give birth to the child of her rapist.” Does she feel like she was supported in her choice? Doubtful.
We always need to be considerate of who we talk about and who we talk to. While it may seem clear that the barbaric part is the force of rape, denying the woman her access to decide to have sex, if we only talk about how wrong it is to force birth instead of how wrong it is to force abortion, or force any unwanted choice, then others may start reading it as the birth of a child as disgusting. And I certainly hope no one actually thinks choosing to give birth is disgusting.
I know a lot of this language choice is based upon our hatred of rape, and it would make sense to have a second discussion about rape here, but I’m not going to do that. All I ask is that we default to the individual woman’s opinion before we share our own feelings when dealing with issues of pregnancy, abortion and rape, because everyone should feel supported in their decisions.
I would like to give an often ignored perspective of rape, pregnancy and abortion (this is your trigger warning, though I don’t plan to be graphic).
I often see tweets, blog posts and comments from women and men (and people who identify as neither of the above) sharing their horror at the thought of carrying a pregnancy conceived in rape to term. They proudly and strongly say they support abortion, because it’s horrific, gruesome, disgusting, and cruel to force a woman to carry to term after she was raped (or, “give birth to her rapist’s child”). Now maybe I’m not paying attention, but it seems that all of the feminist discussion around rape and pregnancy decisions is focused around how awful it is for women to give birth after rape. Yet one study in 1996 (old, but the only reliable one I could find) said 32.2% of raped women chose to birth and keep the child (50% had abortions, 5.9% participated in adoption and 11.8% had miscarriages). 32% is a substantial portion of women that it seems many feminist forget about.
I 100% agree that it’s wrong to force a woman to carry to term when she wants to abort.
But I have to wonder: how does this type of language (horrific, disgusting, cruel) affect women who choose to carry to term after rape?
I wonder how a single mother of a beautiful two year old who happened to be conceived from rape feels when she reads that it’s “barbaric” to “force a woman to give birth to the child of her rapist.” Does she feel like she was supported in her choice? Doubtful.
We always need to be considerate of who we talk about and who we talk to. While it may seem clear that the barbaric part is the force of rape, denying the woman her access to decide to have sex, if we only talk about how wrong it is to force birth instead of how wrong it is to force abortion, or force any unwanted choice, then others may start reading it as the birth of a child as disgusting. And I certainly hope no one actually thinks choosing to give birth is disgusting.
I know a lot of this language choice is based upon our hatred of rape, and it would make sense to have a second discussion about rape here, but I’m not going to do that. All I ask is that we default to the individual woman’s opinion before we share our own feelings when dealing with issues of pregnancy, abortion and rape, because everyone should feel supported in their decisions.
27 Haziran 2012 Çarşamba
Trying Not to Erase Grief: Miscarriage and Abortion
To contact us Click HERE
Crossposted from AbortionGang.
Over here at the AbortionGang we recently came across a tumblr post about the “baby vs. fetus” debate that ends with the following:
I think this is extremely important and something all feminists and pro-choicers should consider.
As the anti-choicers continue to propose and pass antichoice legislation, post racist, anti-choice billboards and try to send women to jail for having abortions, I believe the political pro-choice stance and the personal abortion stories are becoming more and more distant. Listening and considering the real lives of women who have abortions and women who deal with fetal loss will help us stay grounded against the insanity of the anti-choice position.
Legally, fetuses are not infants, are not considered persons, and thus, having an abortion is not murder. But we must remember, the personal is different from the legal. Pregnancy is different for every single woman- and one woman may experience multiple pregnancies in very different ways. A woman may consider her fetus to be ababy, or already a person, because she plans to carry to term. Another woman may consider her fetus to be a baby even though she is planning to have an abortion. Those feelings and beliefs are normal, valid, and should be perfectly acceptable.
Using the term “baby” doesn’t hurt the pro-choice position at all. If a woman believes that abortion is the best option for her baby, then we should support her in her choice.** It does us no good to get into a battle over the word (the same applies if she wants to carry her fetus to term).
On the other end of the spectrum are women who have lost pregnancies, both wanted and unwanted, planned and unplanned, through miscarriage. Just as with abortion, some women may feel relieved and think of the fetus as just a fetus. Other women may feel they lost a member of their family. None of these feelings hurt the pro-choice position, and all should be taken into consideration when we’re writing, blogging, speaking and protesting.
I always try to make an effort to let the woman in question decide what type of language will be used, and allow her feelings to control the situation instead of mine. For her, my opinion on the baby vs. fetus debate isn’t relevant. Making sure she feels loved and supported is most important.
**This does not only apply to women terminating wanted pregnancies due to fetal abnormalities.
Over here at the AbortionGang we recently came across a tumblr post about the “baby vs. fetus” debate that ends with the following:
So while we are wont to scream so loudly that a fetus is not a baby and therefore it is not murder for the person carrying them to decide for themselves if they wish to continue to do so or not – and I agree with this – could we take a moment to realize that saying they are not babies also erases the experience of people who miscarry and are grieving over their loss(es)?
I think this is extremely important and something all feminists and pro-choicers should consider.
As the anti-choicers continue to propose and pass antichoice legislation, post racist, anti-choice billboards and try to send women to jail for having abortions, I believe the political pro-choice stance and the personal abortion stories are becoming more and more distant. Listening and considering the real lives of women who have abortions and women who deal with fetal loss will help us stay grounded against the insanity of the anti-choice position.
Legally, fetuses are not infants, are not considered persons, and thus, having an abortion is not murder. But we must remember, the personal is different from the legal. Pregnancy is different for every single woman- and one woman may experience multiple pregnancies in very different ways. A woman may consider her fetus to be ababy, or already a person, because she plans to carry to term. Another woman may consider her fetus to be a baby even though she is planning to have an abortion. Those feelings and beliefs are normal, valid, and should be perfectly acceptable.
Using the term “baby” doesn’t hurt the pro-choice position at all. If a woman believes that abortion is the best option for her baby, then we should support her in her choice.** It does us no good to get into a battle over the word (the same applies if she wants to carry her fetus to term).
On the other end of the spectrum are women who have lost pregnancies, both wanted and unwanted, planned and unplanned, through miscarriage. Just as with abortion, some women may feel relieved and think of the fetus as just a fetus. Other women may feel they lost a member of their family. None of these feelings hurt the pro-choice position, and all should be taken into consideration when we’re writing, blogging, speaking and protesting.
I always try to make an effort to let the woman in question decide what type of language will be used, and allow her feelings to control the situation instead of mine. For her, my opinion on the baby vs. fetus debate isn’t relevant. Making sure she feels loved and supported is most important.
**This does not only apply to women terminating wanted pregnancies due to fetal abnormalities.
Abortion, Disability, and Coercion
To contact us Click HERE
Crossposted from AbortionGang.
I recently read an article on the DailyMail website which has me infuriated.
Six years ago, a woman in the UK learned she was pregnant and the fetus had Down syndrome. While the woman and her husband were confused and nervous about coping with a child with special needs (on top of caring for their other six children), they never considered having an abortion. They wanted to continue the pregnancy and give birth.
And yet the woman had an abortion.
According to the article (and we have to take the Daily Mail with a grain of salt), she and her husband were bullied by their doctors and nurses. When they went in to discuss how “to be prepared for the fact we might have a disabled child,” the nurse only counseled her on a termination. The nurse continuously pushed abortion even after the couple told her they wanted to continue the pregnancy. Eventually, with a nurse and a consultant bombarding her to terminate, the woman was in a state of shock, and began the abortion.
This is infuriating. This is disgusting. This is anti-choice.
There are actually two problems going on here. First, there is discrimination against people with special needs. As a pro-choice advocate, I support a woman’s right to choose. Without taking away that support, I also question why so many people are afraid to have a child with special needs. In recent studies, researchers have found that 79% of the responding parents “felt their outlook on life was more positive” because of having a child with Down syndrome. In fact, “only 4% said they felt sad about their life.” While more challenging at times, life with a child with special needs is not the horror story many people imagine.
The difference between the viewpoints of families with children who have Down syndrome, and the women who are considering termination because of Down syndrome is huge. It leads me to question if the pregnant women are fully informed about their decisions, or if they’re just basing their ideas on popular cultural views (I am not trying to imply that women are choosing termination lightly or ignorantly–just that people in positions of power are not giving them the full picture, and they have no way of knowing this).
The way to fix this is clear: stop discriminating against people with special needs. Instead, value those with special needs within our society. Do not just try to make them fit in, but let them excel, stand out and be leaders. In this way, we
can make having a special needs child less terrifying than it seems to be today.
If the above seems like a daunting task, we can always start smaller. Host educational seminars for OB/GYNs about how to support a family that’s going to have a special needs child. Form resource networks between doctors and Down syndrome support groups, so an pregnant woman has someone she can talk to about what to expect. These are simple steps to ensuring that women are fully informed, so they can decide the absolute best choice for their family.
The second issue at hand is the violation of this woman’s right to choose. Forcing or coercing a woman into abortion Is. Not. Pro. Choice. This is an anti-choice behavior. Any pro-choice person who sees someone trying to coerce a woman into a specific decision should immediately speak up against this action. Every pro-choice person should be just as quick to stand up for a woman’s right to continue to term as (s)he is for a woman’s right to terminate.
Anti-choicers are quick to pick up an article like this and claim it proves abortion is absolute evil. Yet it is clear that our world is not that black and white. What the article proves is wrong is coercive practices. For some women, abortion is the wrong choice, while for other women birth is the wrong choice. Neither event- abortion nor birth- is bad in and of itself. But both can be bad when forced upon the woman. This is why antipchoicers are wrong when they call us “pro-abortion” and mean that we only want women to abort. I most certainly do not want every woman to abort. I want every woman to make whichever choice is best for themselves and their families, and to have the support and access to complete that choice.
I recently read an article on the DailyMail website which has me infuriated.
Six years ago, a woman in the UK learned she was pregnant and the fetus had Down syndrome. While the woman and her husband were confused and nervous about coping with a child with special needs (on top of caring for their other six children), they never considered having an abortion. They wanted to continue the pregnancy and give birth.
And yet the woman had an abortion.
According to the article (and we have to take the Daily Mail with a grain of salt), she and her husband were bullied by their doctors and nurses. When they went in to discuss how “to be prepared for the fact we might have a disabled child,” the nurse only counseled her on a termination. The nurse continuously pushed abortion even after the couple told her they wanted to continue the pregnancy. Eventually, with a nurse and a consultant bombarding her to terminate, the woman was in a state of shock, and began the abortion.
This is infuriating. This is disgusting. This is anti-choice.
There are actually two problems going on here. First, there is discrimination against people with special needs. As a pro-choice advocate, I support a woman’s right to choose. Without taking away that support, I also question why so many people are afraid to have a child with special needs. In recent studies, researchers have found that 79% of the responding parents “felt their outlook on life was more positive” because of having a child with Down syndrome. In fact, “only 4% said they felt sad about their life.” While more challenging at times, life with a child with special needs is not the horror story many people imagine.
The difference between the viewpoints of families with children who have Down syndrome, and the women who are considering termination because of Down syndrome is huge. It leads me to question if the pregnant women are fully informed about their decisions, or if they’re just basing their ideas on popular cultural views (I am not trying to imply that women are choosing termination lightly or ignorantly–just that people in positions of power are not giving them the full picture, and they have no way of knowing this).
The way to fix this is clear: stop discriminating against people with special needs. Instead, value those with special needs within our society. Do not just try to make them fit in, but let them excel, stand out and be leaders. In this way, we
can make having a special needs child less terrifying than it seems to be today.
If the above seems like a daunting task, we can always start smaller. Host educational seminars for OB/GYNs about how to support a family that’s going to have a special needs child. Form resource networks between doctors and Down syndrome support groups, so an pregnant woman has someone she can talk to about what to expect. These are simple steps to ensuring that women are fully informed, so they can decide the absolute best choice for their family.
The second issue at hand is the violation of this woman’s right to choose. Forcing or coercing a woman into abortion Is. Not. Pro. Choice. This is an anti-choice behavior. Any pro-choice person who sees someone trying to coerce a woman into a specific decision should immediately speak up against this action. Every pro-choice person should be just as quick to stand up for a woman’s right to continue to term as (s)he is for a woman’s right to terminate.
Anti-choicers are quick to pick up an article like this and claim it proves abortion is absolute evil. Yet it is clear that our world is not that black and white. What the article proves is wrong is coercive practices. For some women, abortion is the wrong choice, while for other women birth is the wrong choice. Neither event- abortion nor birth- is bad in and of itself. But both can be bad when forced upon the woman. This is why antipchoicers are wrong when they call us “pro-abortion” and mean that we only want women to abort. I most certainly do not want every woman to abort. I want every woman to make whichever choice is best for themselves and their families, and to have the support and access to complete that choice.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)