Author
|
Topic: Morgentaler Takes on Atlantic Canadian Governments
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 02 October 2002 02:10 PM
quote: He said Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are forcing women to pay hundreds of dollars for abortions at his clinics because of restrictions on the procedure at hospitals in the two provinces.“There’s four provinces against which action is being taken: Quebec and Manitoba, against which there are class-action suits, and I’m taking actions against New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,” Morgentaler said. “It’s good enough; if we win in any of these cases, it’ll be a precedent for the rest of Canada.” ... The clinic performs about 130 abortions a year. Ottawa deducts about $57,000 a year from transfer payments to Nova Scotia for not paying the facility fees.
Click!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 03 October 2002 01:09 AM
Good old Henry, straight shooter extraordinaire: quote: “The government is lying, lying, lying, and it’s about time that their lies be brought to justice,” Morgentaler said at a news conference held at one of his downtown clinics in Toronto.
Refreshing, bracing, to hear such plain talk in public from a noted public figure (or 'noted abortionist,' as the CanGlob Megalith unsubtly refers to him). It's hard to avoid the impression that the abortion-rights movement lost some political traction after the old abortion law was struck down. If so, perhaps it was inevitable to a certain extent, but perhaps also they erred on the side of caution.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 03 October 2002 01:36 PM
What I get a real morbid chuckle out of is Morgentaler talking about "lying, lying, lying". The abortion lobby has got a GREAT track record for the TRUTH, don't they? That's why they destroy anti-abortion displays on campuses and run around covering up pictures of abortion with SHEETS. What a bastion of truth and free speech they are! I'd post them here, but I'm certain it would violate some Babble policy. Morgentaler strikes me as a disturbed individual, and "plain talk" about abortion is his norm, not unusual for him in the least.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 03 October 2002 02:17 PM
Actually Audra, you're right, I think Morgentaler may be one of the few abortionists who admit they are killing a human. He's doing it for "humanitarian reasons" though. So that he can prevent another Hitler from being born. I guess I lumped him in with the the abortion lobby because, well, he is the most public spokesperson for it. My apologies. As far as your roomate goes, you may want to borrow some of her feotal development books. If they are human before being vaccuumed into a jar or cut to pieces and extracted, they most certainly are afterwards, even if the bodies aren't discernable any longer. Many times the bone structure isn't strong enough to withstand the "procedure" so it may take her a while to see a more human looking dead feotus. The photographs are real, they were taken at abortion clinics. I think there's a court case over them in California. You can read about it here, I do caution however that there is a small picture of two original film transparencies from the GAP displays. http://www.cbrinfo.org/authenticity.html PS: sorry for the kinda thread drift. [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ] [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595
|
posted 03 October 2002 03:27 PM
quote: As far as your roomate goes, you may want to borrow some of her feotal development books. If they are human before being vaccuumed into a jar or cut to pieces and extracted, they most certainly are afterwards, even if the bodies aren't discernable any longer. Many times the bone structure isn't strong enough to withstand the "procedure" so it may take her a while to see a more human looking dead feotus.
Are you suggesting every feotus you see used in text books, etc. is from an abortion? Or that all abortions are done just becasue a women accidental got knocked up and doesn't want to birth the next Hitler? What ever that is supposed to mean. I have seen the pictures being discussed and real or not you can't possibly tell if the feotes was still-born or aborted due to a health risk, like death, to the Mother. In Canada I can't just change my mind at 5 months and go have an abortion. What these people and their shocking photos don't show you is the beaten body of an unwanted child on a slab in the morgue. quote: The photographs are real, they were taken at abortion clinics.
You were there were you? I get the unpleasant feeling your not too keen on a women's right to have an abortion? Or are you?
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 03 October 2002 04:11 PM
I can't begin to put myself in the shoes of a woman who nerves herself up to get an abortion.All I know is that it appears to be one helluva big decision, full of heartbreak in a lot of cases, and the last thing that I can imagine a woman getting an abortion needs is some self-righteous anti-abortionist insisting that she keep the child through childbirth. Is that self-righteous anti-abortionist gonna put his or her money where the rhetoric is and personally commit to adopting that kid? Cuz if not, then someone's talking the talk and not walking the walk and it ain't the woman getting an abortion. If I were rich I'd give every woman getting an abortion 500 bucks and a limo ride to the clinic and back to hopefully make up for all the crud that gets dumped on them by people who wouldn't give a damn about her if she weren't getting an abortion.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 03 October 2002 04:50 PM
quote: Are you suggesting every feotus you see used in text books, etc. is from an abortion? Or that all abortions are done just becasue a women accidental got knocked up and doesn't want to birth the next Hitler? What ever that is supposed to mean.I have seen the pictures being discussed and real or not you can't possibly tell if the feotes was still-born or aborted due to a health risk, like death, to the Mother. In Canada I can't just change my mind at 5 months and go have an abortion. What these people and their shocking photos don't show you is the beaten body of an unwanted child on a slab in the morgue. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The photographs are real, they were taken at abortion clinics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were there were you? I get the unpleasant feeling your not too keen on a women's right to have an abortion? Or are you?
Hi Scout. I usually don't pull-quote from posts, as I find it combative, but since you asked several questions, I'll put it there for reference when answering your questions.
Yes, I am against abortion. I'm a feminist too. There aren't many on Babble, but there are some. I'm against it because I don't think anyone has the right to end the life of another human being. We can't claim to live in a peaceful and just society if we permit humans to be killed. The human feotus is human, and it is alive. Therefore it is wrong to kill it. There are rare execeptions when the woman's life is in danger. I don't know where I stand on the cases of rape. I can't think of a more horrific thing than rape, yet I know that the feotus is a human life. So, there I'm stuck. The vast majority of abortions are performed for elective reasons. No, of course I'm not suggesting that the pictures in the feotal development books are aborted. The reason why I suggested audra look at the feotal development books is because they have really good photographs of the living feotus at every stage of development, including the stages feotuses are most often killed. Their humanity is biological fact from conception, yes, but they begin to take on a more human appearance after a while, and it is easily recognizable from photgraphs. If one wants to, one can compare the in-utero photographs to those of aborted feotuses. That's what I was trying to get across. As far as women getting "knocked up", I would never say such a thing. I thought I was pretty clear in my post, but anyway, Henry Morgentaler wants to prevent the next Hitler from being born, thus he feels he is doing a great service to all humanity. There is no law in Canada regarding terms when abortions can be executed. Only that a woman cannot do it to herself, and nobody else may do it other than an abortionist. So *technically* you could change your mind at 5 months and get an abortion. Though I feel focusing only on late term abortions, however ghastly they are, detracts from the main point that feotuses are human at every stage, including the stages when most abortions are performed. Back to the pictures. During natural miscarriages of feotues the arms and legs aren't usually missing or removed, from what I would gather, so I would highly doubt that the photos are from natural miscarriages caught on camera. It's a red herring anyway, because the feotus looks the way it looks, period. It wouldn't matter if it were aborted for elective reasons, health reasons, etc. It would still accurately represent an aborted feotus at it's corresponding stage of development. I think that covers most of it. Trin.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 03 October 2002 05:11 PM
quote: Actually Audra, you're right, I think Morgentaler may be one of the few abortionists who admit they are killing a human. He's doing it for "humanitarian reasons" though. So that he can prevent another Hitler from being born.
A-OOO-GAH! A-OOO-GAH! GODWIN'S LAW INVOKED GODWIN'S LAW INVOKED THREAD SELF-DESTRUCTION IMMINENT THREAD SELF-DESTRUCTION IMMINENT
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 03 October 2002 05:47 PM
Trinitty: When a baby dies in-utero, they have to remove it. That's what the majority of those pictures are.Michelle: I'd reprimand them, but calling pro-choicers liars sort of sets her up for that kind of treatment. To be fair, though, Morgentaler brings up Hitler himself, here. [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: audra estrones ]
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 03 October 2002 05:58 PM
I did not intend for this to become a discussion about Morgentaler. I feel sorry for him actually, as I think he is a very troubled individual. Of course I know that his parents were murdered by Nazis, I wouldn't bring Hitler up lightly or apply to to him out of context... not on purpose anyway. "Children that are born and loved and well nurtured don't build concentration camps." - Dr. Henry Morgentaler "Over the course of shooting the film he opened up to me in ways I had never thought possible. He was nearly in tears as he described his need to redeem his life, to make his survival of the Nazi death camps count for something in this world," describes director/producer Audrey Mehler, who gained unprecedented access to the controversial Morgentaler. http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1A234FF1 It's very clear in the documentary that Morgentaler feels driven to do "something" as a result of his experiences at the Death Camps. I feel his energies are terribly misdirected. It's a tragic story all 'round really.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 03 October 2002 06:10 PM
Audra, If the feotus at 10 weeks died on its own, and were removed with a D&C it would look like that. If the feotus at 10 weeks spontaneously miscarried whole, it would look somewhat like that, perhaps less damaged. If the feotus at 10 weeks is aborted, it would look like that. It's still a dead 10 week feotus, no matter how it died or left the womb. Therefore, even if the people distributing the CBR photos are lying morons and they REALLY took those pictures of feotuses that died naturally and not from abortion, it wouldn't matter. A dead feotus is a dead feotus. It's not like just because the feotus is unwanted or aborted that it suddenly takes on some form other than what it is.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 03 October 2002 06:20 PM
quote: While everyone's making fun of Trinitty and laughing over a maybe injudicious invoking of "Hitler" (even though she did it to support someone she very strongly disagrees with), did everyone agree that every other point she made was invalid and therefore ignorable because she disagrees with the majority of the people in the thread? You don't have to be pro-choice to be a feminist.
I'm not sure what other points she made, other than that "abortion is wrong," which I can't argue against and won't bother trying. I'm certainly no judge of who is and who isn't a feminist, and would never presume to make such a judgement even if better qualified. But if someone wants to wrap their arguments up in such absurd, inflammatory and irrelevant rhetoric, I feel quite comfortable ignoring whatever 'points' they want to make.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 03 October 2002 06:29 PM
quote: How was my arguement absurd, inflammatory (I'd say the issue is inflammatory in and of itself) and irrelevent?
I understood you to be suggesting that Morgentaler was thinking along these lines: if I kill off enough children, then there's less likelihood, statistically, of a profoundly evil one being born. Sorry to misundertand your paraphrasing of Morgentaler. But at the same time, you misrepresent, or represent incompletely, his position: quote: Most of the serial killers were neglected and abused children, deprived of love. Both Hitler and Stalin were cruelly beaten by their fathers and carried so much hate in their hearts that when they attained power they caused millions of people to die without remorse. It is accepted wisdom that prevention is better than a cure. To prevent the birth of unwanted children by family planning, birth control and abortion is preventative medicine, preventing psychiatry and prevention of violent crime.
To him, abortion is only one method among several to prevent the birth of unwanted children. Having said that, and rethought it, no, I don't like his invocation of Hitler and Stalin. [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 03 October 2002 06:46 PM
So, killing feotuses who might be neglected or abused as they age, and that might be severly twisted as a result of such abuse, is a sound method of preventing serial killers and despots?Can anyone else see how.... f'cked-up that thinking is? What if they're killing the human who would discover a cure for cancer? Or solve our pollution problems? Or be nice to animals, watch wrestling and have an allergy to peanuts? There are people who are raging murderers who had loving supportive families, and there are people who are compassionate, empathic and peaceful who were beaten as children. Killing them before they're born in order to prevent either of their existences is not a sound practice in my books. Not one for a peaceful society anyway.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 03 October 2002 06:47 PM
quote: So, killing feotuses who might be neglected or abused as they age, and that might be severly twisted as a result of such abuse, is a sound method of preventing serial killers and despots? Can anyone else see how.... f'cked-up that thinking is?
Fine, Trinitty. It's fucked-up thinking. I've come around to agree with you. Now, how does this equate to an argument that access to abortion should be restricted? [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cate
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2958
|
posted 03 October 2002 06:58 PM
quote: What if they're killing the human who would discover a cure for cancer
Except abortion providers are not in the business of killing humans. They're removing a foetus that had the potential to be a human. There's a huge difference. Whatever the reason is that a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, it is her choice and perfectly legal. I've read a couple of very convincing papers that have described not only the state's responsibility to ensure that this choice is available (and safe and accessible etc.) but also a doctor's legal and moral obligation to provide all options, including termination, to pregnant women. Hitler, personal sympathy for Dr. M., wrongful life suits etc. are red herrings. The bottom line is accessibility to safe choices.
From: out in the west | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170
|
posted 03 October 2002 07:37 PM
Michelle I have to disagree with you on a point you made above quote: Also, she did not directly call pro-choicers "liars" (nor did she call them "pro-death" which would be the equivalent of pro-choicers calling pro-lifers "anti-choice").
I'm going to say nuh-uh on this one in that I believe in the phrasing anti-choice, because in many cases those opposed to abortion do not want women to have the choice to have an abortion. Let me elaborate. There are people who want to limit a pregnant woman's options to only one choice, that being, squeeze it out. There are of course those in the movement who wish to even further reduce the level of choice for women, that being restrict or eliminate access to birth control, so that there is no choice before or after conception. Thus, it is not equivalent opposites to call people "pro-death" and "anti-choice" - most people who support the right to abortion are not for abortion. Rather, they are for women having the option of abortion, which they can then choose based on their circumstances and conscience. Therefore, they are not for death. Whereas SOME people who are against abortion are against women having the option of abortion. Therefore these people are against women being able to make the choice (in spite of the fact that there are women who will choose abortion no matter how access is limited or the act punished). So, after all that, to keep rhetoric to a minimum, I see anti-choicers as a section of those who are anti-abortion, specifically those who would deny women the choice and harshly judge those who do, rather than those who weep when the choice is made, but also work to see that the circumstances that led to a woman choosing that option are eliminated, and pledge themselves to supporting women who choose childbirth (including by ensuring that the govt gives women on social assistance enough money so that raising a child well in these circumstances is an option). And I see no problem with being a feminist and anti-abortion, but I do see a problem with being a feminist and being anti-choice (as defined above).
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 03 October 2002 07:38 PM
Cate, The feotus is not a "potential human". It is human. Even at the single cell level it has all of the 46 human chromosomes, is male or female, and nothing will be added to it at any other time. It is complete. Left unhindered it will continue to develop into a bigger human not dependant on another body. This isn't a political opinion, it's a biological fact. Defining when human life begins at any OTHER time is philosphical. "Removing a feotus" See, this is where the abortion lobby really loses their steam. Many resort to calling killing something other than killing. If I stomp on an ant, I've killed it. A human feotus is alive, and "removing it from the uterus" by sucking it into a jar, or cutting it to pieces and removing it is certainly killing that human feotus. You can "choose" to wear pink, eat chocolate, cross the street, or remove a kidney. "Choosing" to kill a feotus is still killing. I'm not trying to condemn women. Many of them are told that it's not alive, that it's not human, that it's a blob of tissue, that it's legal so go ahead and do it, that those who would try to talk you out of it are religious zealots who hate women. I'm trying to have folks look at an issue which is the antithises of what compassionate people would otherwise support and say that there MUST be a better way than abortion. I'm not one of those people who thinks women should be wet-breasted-tied-to-the-stove-broodmares. I fully support the use contraception and other aspects of feminism. We can do much much much better. Edited to add: Swirrlygirl, I hadn't ever heard that definition before, it clarifies things somewhat in the label realm. Though I'm sure some would still call me "anti-choice" rather than "anti-abortion". [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ] [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 03 October 2002 07:46 PM
HEY! I use it because it's British. I guess it's the anti-manifestdestiny in me. I don't spell encyclopedia that way though... that's just going too far.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 03 October 2002 07:50 PM
Anyhow. I feel guilty about the thread drift.I think it's terrible that a legal procedure is not being funded by Atlantic Canadian provinces, and that women have either no access or very restricted access to abortion. Maybe we could take the pro-anti-abortion debate somewhere else and go WITH the underlying assumption in this thread that women should have access to abortion no matter where they live in Canada since it is a legal procedure. I also think it's great that the Atlantic Canadian governments are getting spanked for their actions.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 03 October 2002 11:49 PM
If you MUST use the British spelling of "fetus" it's "f o e t u s", not "f e o t u s".Trinitty, a fetus is a potential human being because it can, for whatever reason, fail to successfully become a viable baby. What else do you think a spontaneous miscarriage is? Or a stillbirth? Those two are examples of where a potentially viable fetus fell on the wrong side of "potentially viable".
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
peripatetic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1957
|
posted 04 October 2002 10:04 AM
Doc, a child is a potential human being because it can, for whatever reason, fail to become a viable adult.The child can die from many diseases, from abuse, by accident, or may be infertile. These are examples of where a potentially viable child fell on the wrong side of “potentially viable.”
From: hogtown-on-don | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 04 October 2002 10:17 AM
I believe that women have the right to control their own fertility.I will no more tell a woman that she can't have an abortion than I will tell her that she cannot have more than one child, or that she can't have any because of economic, social, or intellectual standing. Nor will I tell her it is her duty to produce as many children as possible. I don't believe in this "potential human" stuff though. Having lost two children to miscarriage I can tell you that I have never said , "Oh I lost two potential human beings" I lost two children. As anyone who has ever had children knows the minute you know you are pregnant that child becomes a reality. Even for women who choose abortion after all if they only thought they were 'potential' why not continue the pregnancy and see what happens? No the child is a reality and for some that is joyous news and for others it is a painful reality which requires a difficult decision be made.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 04 October 2002 10:50 AM
I've always had decidedly mixed feelings about abortion. Even more so now that I have two kids.I'm glad that Trinitty is able to express her views without being ostracized. Too often in the U.S., people left of center will not tolerate those who deviate from the pro-choice line. I believe a fetus is life with the potential of viability. While I believe in a woman's right-to-choose, I would hope the decision to abort such life is never taken lightly. My wife had a miscarriage in between our two kids, when the fetus was only eight weeks. Because it was so early, it never really bothered me. But she still cries when the subject is brought up. [ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: josh ]
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 04 October 2002 11:04 AM
"What else do you think a spontaneous miscarriage is? Or a stillbirth?"A dead human foetus. Peripatetic answered in the manner I would have though, so I won't repeat. "I'm glad that Trinitty is able to express her views without being ostracized. Too often in the U.S., people left of center will not tolerate those who deviate from the pro-choice line." Me too josh. Sorry about the thread drift, and for the spelling, I was writing on the fly. If anyone would like to discuss this with me further, feel free to email or private message me. [ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Trinitty ]
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 04 October 2002 11:27 AM
I read an article in Ms. Magazine last year about how pro-lifers and fundamentalist Christians have completely invented "Post Abortion Syndrome" out of whole cloth, and how it's completely a sham. They say that if any of those symptoms (guilt, sadness, trauma) DO exist it's a result of stress felt by women who encounter pickets when they walk into a clinic, or that it is purely physical, from the hormone change, or whatever.I believed it. I even used to tell that to my pro-life friends when the issue came up. Then I talked to a couple of pro-choice people who have had abortions, who told me that they cried long and hard after their abortions. That they had terrible feelings of guilt, and that their whole outlook on abortion had changed - not in that they moved from being pro-choice to pro-life, but in that they no longer argued that the fetus is just "a bunch of cells" or a "potential life", but that it was a very real life inside them. Personally, while I guess if pressed on the issue I would have to say I'm a nose-holding pro-choicer who would support any of my friends through an abortion completely non-judgmentally, I cannot reconcile the absolute experiential knowledge from the day I found out, at two or three weeks pregnant that I had a real live BABY at its earliest stage inside me, with the idea that a fetus is just a bunch of multiplying cells. I can't say to myself, "Well, for me it was a baby, but for someone who doesn't want a baby, it's just meat." For me, it has to be one or the other - there is a reality there. The same thing doesn't become living or dead at my say-so, or with the changing of my perception. I'm all for subjectivity to a certain extent, but at that point it doesn't fly for me. I've been criticized for this opinion before, in fact, I think here on babble, by people who say to me, "Sure, easy for you to say. You were pregnant with a baby you WANTED. So there's no way you can say you would feel the same way if you were pregnant with a baby you DIDN'T want." Well, I had nothing to say back to that before, but now I do. Because a couple of months ago, my period was about 4-5 months late. At around the 2-3 month mark, I was quite concerned, because a few months before I had had an "accident" - and not only that, but with the one person I feel I should never have been sleeping with, a person that, were I to get pregnant by him, would have sparked a WHOLE OTHER custody fight and would have let everyone in my family and my life know what a DUMBASS I was to get involved with him. As most of the regulars here know, the LAST thing I want is another baby. The very thought horrifies me. And here I thought I was pregnant. So during one of my sob-sister chats with a couple of babblers, it was suggested that I might drink a certain type of tea that is known for flushing out late periods or inducing very early-term miscarriages. At this point, counting from the date of the "accident", I would have been between 4-8 weeks along. I told them I couldn't do it. They didn't understand why it was that I couldn't do it, because either way I would never know whether I was pregnant since my period would come and it would just seem like a normal period. But I couldn't do it, because I knew that if I WAS pregnant, it would not be just a normal period, it would be a period that contained a fetus that I was consciously flushing out of my system. And I couldn't do that. Luckily I wasn't pregnant, which I finally found out for sure about 4 months into it, after conflicting home pregnancy tests. But the experience really tested whether I believe that an unwanted pregnancy is just as "alive" as a wanted one, and the answer is, yes, I do believe that.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192
|
posted 11 October 2002 11:11 AM
It may be legal to get an abortion at 5 months (and I do think we need some actual laws on abortion - having no law at all is just asking for trouble), but that doesn't mean it's easy. My impression is that doctors don't like to do it past three months.Anyway. I can believe that women suffer after having abortions, although I don't believe it happens to all of them, and I think the emotional pain, like the physical pain, probably fades. I believe the foetus is human. But someone brought up something on another board, a while ago, that stays with me. If I had a child who was dying of kidney disease, and I could save her by giving her one of my kidneys, no one could legally force me to do it. It would be wrong for me not to do it, mind you, but I could not be forced. A baby can live without its mother, but a foetus - especially in the first two trimesters - is absolutely dependent on its mother's body. We cannot be made to give our bodies, in whole or in part, to anyone. And that is how it should be. If I got pregnant now, I would panic. It ultimately wouldn't matter whether I thought I had a baby or a blob of tissue inside me, because I absolutely cannot have a baby at this point in my life. It would be a disaster for me, and most likely for it as well. And I think abortions are sad, and I'm all for good, accessible birth control, and anything we can do to make parenthood a more viable option is fine by me, but I never want to see abortion banned, because I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have that choice. So I'm glad Morgentaler is there, and I'm glad he's taking on the Atlantic Canadian governments. I'm immensely grateful to him.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170
|
posted 11 October 2002 12:38 PM
I second that emotion Smith. Childbirth by Choice! And a society that allows women to make that choice based on conscience, not bank account. And it is incredibly difficult to find a provider who will provde an abortion after about 4-5 months. The level of risk goes up, its true, as well as the amount of skill needed to perform the procedure, but considering the barriers in place to women accessing abortion, and the fact that circumstances change, for some women it is and will continue to be necessary. I'll always remember the press conference Clinton held with several women who'd had late term abortions, and it was really clear it was a choice none had made lightly. I also think the situation in Canada is very interesting - feminists like Nina Baehr were calling for the absolute removal of all laws around abortion aside from those that regulate safety (she compared it to how we regulate orange juice as compared to alcohol), but its pretty clear that it hasn't led to fabulous access. At the same time, though, the unwillingness of Canadian lawmakers to deal with it legislatively has prevented restrictive laws from being put in place, eroding access by a thousand cuts like has happened in many parts of the US, or regressive measures like the Hyde ammendment. Considering the different political cultures, I'm not sure which would be of more harm to Canadian women.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170
|
posted 11 October 2002 02:03 PM
Re: gestational limits, 20-26 weeks sounds a bit high for the "average" provider - as I understand 2-3 months (8-12 weeks since last menstrual period, or LMP) is more common, and the link below provides a 1998 study on Ontario hospital's gestation limits. Ontario study Of course it doesn't cover clinics, or the rest of the country, and my mind is blanking right now on whether clincs tend to go longer or shorter than hospitals usually, so maybe you're right Cate (I'd love it!). Do you have a source at all on clinic limits? You're very right in that waiting limits are totally a concern.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 09 August 2008 07:26 PM
quote: A New Brunswick court has cleared the way for Henry Morgentaler to challenge restrictions on abortion funding in the province.Madam Justice Paulette Garnett of Court of Queen's Bench has granted Dr. Morgentaler "public interest standing" to represent women in his lawsuit against the province. Dr. Morgentaler, 85, is trying to force the New Brunswick government to pay for abortions at his clinic in Fredericton, but it has steadfastly refused to do so. About 700 women a year pay between $550 and $750 for an abortion at the Morgentaler clinic. The cost depends on how far along they are in their pregnancies. "There are many valid reasons why women who have had abortions at the Fredericton clinic would not or could not bring this challenge," Judge Garnett wrote in her decision made public this week. "Dr. Morgentaler is therefore a suitable alternative person to do so." New Brunswick is the only province that has a private abortion facility that is not publicly funded.
Globe
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|