Kathy T. has a thoughtful post about abortion today. I disagree with her (of course) but I’m not really interested so much in that as in looking at how complicated these discussions are.
Kathy T. is talking about how she maybe supports laws that would require women to look at ultrasounds of their fetuses because she’s done some research and
While I don’t believe all abortions should be banned because no law is absolute, I am deeply troubled by the sheer number of abortions performed each year. According to this Real Choices site, the number is a staggering 1.2 million in the U.S. Medscape Todayof WebMD stated in 1999 that between 1.3 and 1.5 million are performed each year. (See? I tried to cite some sources.)
Now, Kathy T. has done the right thing. She did some research. She found some numbers that, to her, to any of us, seem credible. But the feds keep track of this stuff, so we know that, in the year 1999, for instance–theyear that MedScape Today gave her the 1.3 to 1.5 million abortions number–there were 861,789 abortions reported from 48 areas. Even assuming that the other reporting areas were rife with abortions, we’re still talking right around a million, if that many.
Not that a million isn’t a lot.
But it’s less than 1.3 million and it’s far less than 1.5 million. And the number of abortions in the U.S. has steadily declined since 1990.
The other thing Kathy T. says which I think is important to address is this:
I don’t think there would be enough of them, though, to care for 1.2-1.5 million unwanted babies each year, but I don’t think all abortions will stop as a result of viewing an ultrasound. But maybe enough would so that some of these people can become the amazing parents that I know they will be.
There’s two things here. One is this idea that you either choose to have an abortion or you choose to be a parent, that those are mutually exclusive decisions. And yet, (and maybe Rachel will look into this) I find no evidence that, over all, women who have abortions have fewer children than women who don’t.
The other thing is that pregnancy is dangerous and painful and it doesn’t always work out how we want it to. Any woman who would choose to have a child is to be commended and any woman who would choose to have a child and then place it up for adoption has amazing strength of character.
The government should not be able to compel you to be a hero.
At a very basic level, you must be free to do with your body what you’d like, if you are to be a full citizen. Any kind of legislation that infringes on a woman’s right to decide what we’ll do with our own bodies–when we are not criminals–means we’re not free.
And third, babies are not magic. Yes, some women you’d think would make shitty moms get that baby plopped down in their arms and they pull it together.
But most don’t.
Babies cannot magically transform shitty women into good mothers. Forcing shitty women to have babies…
Very little good can come of that.
My point is that it’s hard to have meaningful discussions about abortion because it’s complicated. Can we trust the numbers? Is being born always better than not being born? If a woman has to be forced to have a baby, why do we assume she’ll be a fine mother? Does compulsory childbirth infringe on a woman’s freedom? If so, what does that mean for our ability to be citizens? If abortion is murder, will we start executing women who have them? And so on.
Everyone on both sides, even me, would like for this to be an easy discussion. It’s not.
Filed under: America how can I write a holy litany in your silly moo
Excellent post. My favorite ine? “Babies cannot magically transform shitty women into good mothers.”
Amen.
Um, that would be “line” not “ine”
Here’s what I think about the “option ultrasound” movement, from an old post – “On one hand, abortion is a serious decision, and perhaps ultrasounds help women more fully understand their pregnancy while making their choice. On the other hand, is this a form of emotional blackmail? A woman may feel warm and fuzzy at the point of the ultrasound, but that feeling is not going to support her through the pregnancy, is not going to erase poverty, abuse, rape, or health concerns that may cause a woman to choose abortion. It’s not going to help her finish high school. It’s not going to be accompanied by information on all of her options, but is going to be used as part of a campaign to get her to have a baby. Is coercion with no intent to fully inform [I would add "or support" here] an ethical use of medical technology?”
Also, I’m against subjecting people to mandatory medical procedures (even if they’re relatively safe) for purposes that are idealogical and manipulative rather than for medical care.
As for numbers, I haven’t seen anything on future family size after abortion, but did find this tidbit from the CDC’s 2003 abortion surveillance summary – “For women who obtained legal induced abortions and for whom data on previous live births were adequately reported (42 reporting areas), 39% were known to have had no previous live births, and 32% had two or more previous live births (Table 12). The abortion ratio was highest for women who had three previous live births (283 per 1,000 live births) and lowest for those who had one previous live birth (190 per 1,000).”
There are plenty of women who have an abortion and go on to be damn fine parents. There are just as many women who decide not to have an abortion and are completely terrible parents. You shouldn’t be forced to have a kid if you don’t want one, bottom line.
I really like how you put that. There is so much emotion tied to this, and you did a wonderful job in paring it down to the very root problem of the whole idea. Thanks for that.
They’re trying to pass a law in GA, mandating the ultrasound too. The other aspect to this is that it adds a financhial hurdle to any abortion providers. I don’t know what an ultrasound machine costs, but I’m guessing it’s pretty expensive. If you’re just a one-doctor clinic, you may decide that it’s not worth the cost, and stop doing abortions.
Aunt B, I saw a story on this last night (Nightline?) and the last thought I had before zonking out was, “I wonder if Aunt B knows about this?” Of course, I should have known you would be all over it. Now, I am not the most versed in the status of the debates and proposed laws surrounding abortion.
I have to say, though, that I was stunned to the bone by that report.
I couldn’t believe that some states force health care workers to tell women they are at increased risk of breast cancer if they have abortions. And in some states they have to tell women that they will have mental problems as a result of an abortion. I’m sure that breast cancer, depression, and anxiety have occurred in women who have had abortions. But does anyone know if there is reliable data stating if there is any higher incidence in women who have had abortions versus women who carried to term, or women who have never been pregnant?
And that wasn’t even the main thrust of the story. I agree that ultrasounds should be available to anyone who wants to see what is going on inside their uterus. Absolutely. And I’m sure some women would see that as an added piece of information to use in their process of decision making. But this proposal makes my skin crawl. I’m not quite sure how to put it into words, it just makes me shiver.
OK, sorry to rant all over you B. But thanks for being one step ahead of me, and thanks for saying it better than I could.
There’s a lot of unequivocal information on the breast cancer question: women who have had abortions do not have a higher rate of breast cancer than women who have not. Now that the anti-choice folks have started claiming that there is a post-abortion-depression syndrome, statisticians will have to spend a few months combing through the data to come up with information on that question, but it will almost certainly be equally clear that abortion does not cause depression. They just make this stuff up.
I would venture that being in a circumstance in life that would cause me to think seriously about abortion — more kids already than I could support, or suddenly lacking the support of a partner, or unexpectedly pregnant from assault, or strung-out on drugs, or young and poor and sure to be kicked out of my house because I’ve shamed my parents if they find out, or any of the thousands of other conditions that cause women to consider pregnancy termination — would also be sufficient to push me into depression. I would not be surprised if women who get abortions are more likely to be depressed, but I’d see that as indicative of a host of other problems in their lives that made abortion seem the best of bad options rather than a consequence of abortions in and of itself. That doesn’t fit in with the “you’re going to be sooooo crazy guilty over this, you slut, you” shaming that the PADS people want to throw down, but they often confuse correlation with causation.
That’s exactly what I think, bridgett and nm. The whole “omg abortion causes mental illness!1!!one!!” thing is really stupid. It wouldn’t be at all surprising to find a higher incidence of mental illness, especially depression, in women who have abortions – even for the people who are absolutely fine with it as an ideological choice and who have supportive friends and family, the societal-level shaming (and fear of violent action, depending on how much of a target your clinic/doctor is) could surely contribute to higher incidence rates. It is, however, a crock to assume a causal connection in the direction stated. There are tons of reasons someone might be depressed post abortion*, but the actuality of the procedure isn’t one of them.
* Most of which are strongly tied to the extremely hostile climate surrounding the whole issue (on both sides, honestly – though neither symmetrically nor equally), and many of the rest of which are strongly tied to the absolutely boneheaded lack of any sort of social safety net that might prevent them from being necessary. The rest are generally attributable to, well, the fact that women who get abortions are human, and have human problems.
Ah, and to address the post… way to go, Aunt B! I love the way you find people to talk with all over the place, and how you can consistently engage different points of view without getting dogmatic or judgemental.
Well, that, and you’re usually right. The bit about babies not automagically making people into upstanding Good Mothers is a really important one.
It helps refocus the conversation, especially in conjunction with that bit about people not having fewer children because of abortion; the choice isn’t just between being born and not being born, it’s the choice between being born into a (relatively) stable/loving/planned environment,* being born into a (relatively) less stable/loving/planned environment; or between being born to a person who wants to be a mother/sees herself as capable of being a (relatively) good mother being born to a person who does not want to be a mother/sees herself as not being capable of being a (relatively) good mother; [the rest of the dynamics usually discussed] or not being born at all.
While one may debate the relative worth of individual sets of cases (it might be “better” to be born into a family that isn’t as well off as it would like to be, but which is still well enough off that the child’s wellbeing is not adversely affected, than to not be born at all, for instance, or a mother might believe herself unfit for mothering but turn out to be wonderful), but none of them negates the fact that this issue is more complicated than born/not-born, and that what happens once the baby is born matters.
And while viewing an ultrasound might be the bit of information/reassurance/guilt necessary for a woman to change her mind (one of those people who “didn’t think it was real” until then, perhaps), or to make it up in the first place, it’s not going to solve any of the real, physical and societal problems that are involved. Making a woman who can’t even afford to feed herself view her fetus on an ultrasound isn’t going to feed her baby once it’s born, it’s just going to make her feel bad. Making a rape victim view the results of her violation isn’t going to heal her mind, it’s just going to compound the stress she’s already under. Making a woman who really wants to fit into that little red dress view her fetus isn’t likely to make her change her mind,** it’s just going to waste everyone’s time. The option should absolutely be there for anyone who asks, but forcing it on women who don’t want it will at best annoy them, and at worst traumatize and insult them.
*Yes, I know, not all pregnancies carried to term fit into this category! But within the context of selection for circumstance (“I want to have kids but can’t afford them right now”), the selected-for pregnancies will have a relatively higher chance of having these things be true.
** Face it, if we’re already at the point where this mythical Callous And Superficial Woman is sitting down to have this procedure done, she’s not likely to change her mind just because she saw a fuzzy image on a screen. If this person is convinced that what she is doing is just like clipping her fingernails, and has persisted with that through all of the hoopla involved in getting there, figuring out the payment, avoiding the protesters, and listening to the doctor’s “Here’s what the procedure looks like” speech, she’s not ‘on the edge’ or ‘undecided.’***
*** (Is it weird to have footnotes coming out of your footnotes?) Actually, I’d love to put that in a paragraph itself, but can’t figure out how to smoothly integrate that without referring to the footnote in the body text. Ahem. The point being that it seems like proponents of the “make abortion-seekers look at their ultrasound” idea aren’t paying much attention to the timeline. If awareness of the fetus could somehow be beamed into a woman’s mind at the time of formation (as distinguished from conception, since it takes a while to get to fetus-hood anyway), or whenever she started thinking about abortion, it might work the way they say it will work. But since most people don’t walk around with ultrasounds strapped to their abdomens, that’s pretty unlikely.
By the time you’ve professed your interest in abortion, and are at a place with an ultrasound machine, especially given all of the pressure and shaming and money and time involved, it’s probably a little late for that specific bit of information. That’s not to say that there aren’t women who waver up to the moment the procedure starts, but rather that the proportion of them in relation to women who have already made up their minds (even if only on the basis of blind fear) is probably skewed by virtue of the timeline involved. Put more simply: they’re not going to reach most of their target audience.
[...] Carolina wants to force women to look at ultrasounds before having an abortion. Thoughts on that at Aunt B’s and in this previous post. Also, the underlying assumption that these silly women just [...]
[...] Carolina wants to force women to look at ultrasounds before having an abortion. Thoughts on that at Aunt B’s and in this previous post. Also, the underlying assumption that these silly women just [...]
Why would a woman not want an ultra sound as it only serves to provide her with all the information needed to make the right choice.
perhaps because she doesn’t think she needs that information in order to make the right choice?
who are you to presume to know exactly what information some random woman needs before she can make some random choice?