Everyone agrees there's a gap between the information a woman needs before getting an abortion and the information she gets, but all sides don't agree what that information should be, when it should be presented, where the gap is or how to fill it. My mother was a devoted Catholic who lived the juxtaposition of her belief in the right to life and the right to live life as one sees fit. Her decisions best illustrate how one side of the information gap is, well, just a position.
In 1970, my mother was 32 years old. She survived an extended radical mastectomy to rid her of breast cancer. Common through the 1970s, this draconian approach to breast cancer was followed up with radiation treatments. (She died of liver cancer in 1999.) In 1971, two years before abortion would become legal in the United States, her periods stopped. Treatment was initiated under the assumption the cancer had spread. A teenaged hospital volunteer suggested to my mother she might be pregnant. The teenager was right.
My mother's physicians encouraged her to terminate the pregnancy even though it didn't put her life at risk. Because of the radiation treatments, they were sure she'd miscarry or give birth to a child with severe problems. Before pro-choice became a common term in the American vernacular, my mother chose to carry the child to term. Her child was born healthy the following year and is now a well-respected teacher.
Six years later, in 1978, I was 16. Unlike her peers, my mother began telling me how my body worked at age eight. Like her peers, she forbade premarital sex and opposed abortion. She reluctantly advised condoms if I "acted against God." When a condom failed, her adherence to Catholic doctrine and opposition to abortion screeched to a halt.
Seven days after telling her I was pregnant, she directed me to my seat in the abortion clinic. Her speed was suspicious. How did a financially strapped Catholic mother know the cost of an abortion, where to get one and have the money to pay for it; all in a timely manner? Legal abortion was only five years old, but the information network among women of all political and religious stripes was well-established and older than any law.
My mother's hypocrisy aside, my issue is that the decision to terminate my pregnancy was made for me, not by me. (Anyone who thinks I should've defied her wasn't raised in a strict Catholic home or has forgotten what it was like.) I don't regret the procedure and wasn't scarred by it. I was scared of having a child so young and had already been told by the young man who got me pregnant that I was on my own. Whether or not my mother exploited my fear by confirming it is relative, but not irrelevant. She used my fear to play fast and loose with my reproductive rights. This game is still being played today, which brings me to the "Woman's Right to Know" act.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
Diana - brilliant, brilliant article!
I'm not a woman, of course, but I know of a good Christian woman who faced the same dilemma...and made the same choice. and I'm sure that in her opinion, considering her situation, she really didn't have a choice.
And so, while she abhors the idea of abortion, she supports people having that right - despite the tenets of her religion. I suspect most women (including religious women) feel the same way...and IMO I don't think men should even have a vote when it comes to this matter.
Again, great article!
2 - Arch Conservative
"I suspect most women (including religious women) feel the same way...and IMO I don't think men should even have a vote when it comes to this matter."
What kind of dumbass logic is that?
By that logic I guess women do not get o have an opinion when it comes to war seeing as they don't have to register with Selective Service and cannot serve in forward infantry units right?
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Um, Arch - for fully half of America's history, women had ZERO vote at all, much less on whether or not we should go to war.
Women CAN pick up a gun and shoot and DO fight in wars ancient or modern as any historian will tell you...but I have yet to see any man have to face a choice whether to abort a fetus growing in his uterus.
How about you? Do you know of any?
4 - Arch Conservative
We're not discussing ancient wars we're discussing present day America and in present day America women are not actively placed in combat roles, although the y may find themselves in combat situations due to the nature of their support roles.
If you believe a man should have no opinion as to the abortion debate then maybe men should also not be forced to pay child support if the woman decides to have the baby and they are not married. If it ONLY concerns the woman at the time the decision is made than it ONLY concerns the woman afterward too.
5 - zingzing
got to side with archie on this one, glenn. abortion has ramifications for both men and women. also, having only one sex vote on a particular issue has got to be unconstitutional... and, you know, even if you could get the dems to see the light on this one, you'd never convince the gentlemanly gop to keep its paws off the female crotch.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch -
That doesn't matter at all. Women DO get involved in war whether they want to or not - just ask any woman who lived in Baghdad when we invaded. Not only that, but if you'll ask Dave and Clavos, they'll tell you that it wasn't unusual to find that Vietnamese women were among the Viet Cong...or do you think Full Metal Jacket was just based on a fantasy? There were female snipers among the Soviets in WWII.
And there ARE women in combat roles today - just ask the Israelis.
On the other hand, I'm still waiting for you to show me an example of a man who had to have an abortion. Ever.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
zing -
I'm only speaking of my particular opinion - I know very well that allowing women only to get a vote on the abortion issue would be considered unconstitutional.
even if you could get the dems to see the light on this one, you'd never convince the gentlemanly gop to keep its paws off the female crotch.
QUOTED FOR TRUTH!
8 - El Bicho
Maybe you don't know how babies get made, Arch, but the man decides to have a baby when he has unprotected sex so he's already made his decision.
9 - Arch Conservative
Helloy Mcfly...
We're talking about this country. Not Israel or Vietnam.
Think McFly think!
So the man decides to have sex? So doesn't the woman? But then the man has no say in whether or not the baby is born despite the fact that he helped make it and may be vested in it emotionally? The woman gets to choose whether or not she wants to be a mom but the man's choice as to whether or not he has to be a dad by the woman and the state that tells him he must support it? That makes about as much sense as Glenn's idiotic arguments about most women supporting abortion. The only reason Glenn thinks most women support abortion is because he does and, being a narrow minded leftist, his immediate knee jerk reaction is to demean anyone with a differing opinion.
10 - Arch Conservative
The author makes a very valid point in that many on the pro life side do not support education and birth control before it has reached the point where an abortion is considered. I, though pro life, believe we as a society should be doing everything we can to educate women regarding sexual health and birth control.
It is also worth noting that those that call themselves pro choice oppose anything and everything that might cause a woman to make a choice other than abortion. They are not actually pro choice but pro abortion. With any major medical procedure (which abortion most definitely is) there is no question as to whether or not the patient should have "informed consent," (ie an complete and thorough understanding of all possible ramifications of the procedure and alternatives options) yet every time measures are taken to provide a woman with the information needed to arrive at "informed consent" where abortion is concerned, the so called pro choice crowd opposes them. We're not talking about someone actually taking the choice away from the woman but rather providing information about the possible negative physical, psychological and emotional side effects of abortion as well as alternatives to abortion. Yet this is entirely unacceptable to the so called pro choice crowd. They'd rather the women not have this information whilst they accuse those who would rather the woman have this information as engaging in a "war on women."
How unbelieavbly absurd.
11 - zingzing
archie, that "mcfly" shit has to end.
"It is also worth noting that those that call themselves pro choice oppose anything and everything that might cause a woman to make a choice other than abortion."
you do realize that's completely stupid, right? you could choke on your own rhetoric, and in fact, you do. if you would stop frothing at the mouth and actually say what you mean, you wouldn't come off like such an idiot.
"We're not talking about someone actually taking the choice away from the woman but rather providing information about the possible negative physical, psychological and emotional side effects of abortion as well as alternatives to abortion. Yet this is entirely unacceptable to the so called pro choice crowd."
i don't see a problem, if that's what it really is. you can obviously see how that could be abused, right? you must be able to see that.
calm the fuck down, archie. if you did, you might be able to make a point.
12 - Arch Conservative
you do realize that's completely stupid, right? you could choke on your own rhetoric
It's not rhetoric. It's reality. It happens out there in the real world far far away from BC. Every time a law or some other measure is put forth to allow women to gain a greater understanding of the potential negative impact of abortion and to enlighten them as to what other possible options there may be, Planned Parenthood, Naral and the rest of the gang oppose it.
Consider this for a moment and then tell me who is using overblown rhetoric.
I could be a husband and father of three daughters, doing my best to make the lives of my wife and daughters as happy and secure as can be. I also make it a point of showing all women that I come in contact with the same level of decency and respect that I'd like others to show me. Yet if I happen to espouse pro life views, I am, according to Planned Parenthood, Naral and their supporters, guilty of hating women and engaging in a "war on women."
The so called pro choice crowd has taken a single issue and said anyone that does not share their views is engaging in a war to subjugate and diminish all women.
And I'm the one in danger of choking on my own rhetoric?
Your homework assignment for the weekend Zing is to find a dictionary, look up the words rhetoric and irony and then reread my posts.
While you're doing it...have a happy 4th.
13 - zingzing
hey, ad people. autoplay sucks. fucking cut it out.
anyway.
"It's not rhetoric. It's reality. It happens out there in the real world far far away from BC. Every time a law or some other measure is put forth to allow women to gain a greater understanding of the potential negative impact of abortion and to enlighten them as to what other possible options there may be, Planned Parenthood, Naral and the rest of the gang oppose it."
but why, archie? do you even slow down to consider that? planned parenthood already gives women the exact kind of information you're referring to. strange, isn't it? why would they want to do that? you seem to think that it's an abortion mill, but nothing could be further from the truth.
"Your homework assignment for the weekend Zing is to find a dictionary, look up the words rhetoric and irony and then reread my posts."
and yours is to realize what you come off like. your use hyperbole and invective shows your ignorant anger, but little else.
14 - zingzing
stick an "of" in there.
15 - zingzing
and the 4th's on monday.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch -
So the man decides to have sex? So doesn't the woman?
I guess you've never heard of the single most underreported crime: rape.
And perhaps you haven't heard of the NEWEST form of "small government" by the GOP: Forcing women who miscarry to PROVE that the miscarriages occurred naturally...or be charged with murder.
Again, they have to PROVE the miscarriage occurred naturally, or be charged with murder:
At least 38 states have introduced fetal homicide laws that were intended to be used against violent attacks by third parties like abusive male partners. But in South Carolina, only one case has been brought against a man for assaulting a pregnant woman, while up to 300 women have been arrested under the law, according to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
Yes, we see how the conservatives believe in freedom and small government! Go get 'em, Arch!
17 - El Bicho
Newsflash: Life's not fair