NY birth/abortion center hopes to “lessen stigma” of abortion
by Kelli
At a time when abortion rights are in jeopardy — Louisiana’s governor recently signed a bill that would close three of the state’s five clinics that offer abortions, Texas is likely to have only six clinics by September, because of a draconian new law, and other states are cracking down — fresh ideas like this might lessen the stigma of abortion….
Katharine Morrison [pictured to the left of certified nurse midwife Eileen Stewart], the doctor who presides over all the services at the Buffalo center, doesn’t think women should suffer for their reproduction, as she puts it. She is disturbed when women endure birth control with harsh side effects, state-appointed waiting periods for abortions and a lack of control over how they actually deliver their children.
From her perspective, anti-abortion efforts are not so different from, say, doctors who do not let women have the birth process they choose and instead pressure them to have cesareans. She regards both as strains of medical paternalism….
We now hew to religious rhetoric on one hand or rights-oriented rhetoric on the other. Seeing reproductive care as a continuum might rejigger our thinking and remind us that many of us experience both childbirth and abortion.
~ Alissa Quart, writing an opinion piece on New York’s Buffalo Womenservices, a “birth and [up to 22 weeks] abortion center in one”, The New York Times, June 14
[Photo via buffalonews.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
If being opposed to abortion is just a religious position, why are their prolife atheists?
Forgot to add — they’ve been trying to “lessen the stigma” for more than forty years now, and it hasn’t worked yet — well, there’s a first time for everything, I guess.
Some women want more control over their reproductive care and birthing experience. And some women are terrorized and pressured into killing their children. And some women experience both the good and the evil.
But that does not mean that abortion and life are the same thing, or even things on the same continuum.
========================
This obfuscation of reality is not clever or new. It is a rehash of the myth of “choice.”
The abortion industry is really struggling for new language that might recapture the public’s imagination in a way that “choice” did.
Wonder how many women will end up delivering there? I sure wouldn’t want to have a baby in the same place where abortions were taking place.
Oopsie -she didn’t even bother in that first sentence to say “Reproductive Rights”, she just came right out and said “abortion rights”.
Legal or not, you don’t have abortion “rights”.
It’s not a “right” to kill your child.
But that’s what they’re DEMANDING –
The “right” to kill their own children.
And to think…
They think abortion /childbirth are EQUAL ??? SMH
I know that I sound like a broken record, but have these people heard of adoption?
Of course, this is completely backwards. Women have, or should have, absolute rights to birth as they wish because, as the biological, natural, and legal guardians of both their own bodies *AND* their offspring’s body, they, and only they, have the right to make medical decisions regarding the care of both bodies during labor/delivery. If the mother is incapacitated, the Father/Husband takes the natural right as medical proxy for both mother/wife and child. This natural right to choose what is best for your child, however, is utterly destroyed by abortion. If a mother can choose to destroy her child, than obviously *her* medical opinion on what’s best for her child is not only suspect, but to be completely ignored. As long as mother’s have the right to kill their child for their own convenience, society as a whole and the medical field in specific will never actually believe they are capable of making the best medical choices for their child during labor/delivery. Want woman to have autonomy during labor and have her consent and non-consent actually respected? (which they absolutely should have) Step number one is to actually legally recognize that mother’s have their children’s best interest at heart, in other words, criminalize killing them. If only a criminal would harm their child for their convenience, than, until proven criminal in nature, all women must be respected in their right to determine care for themselves and their offspring during pregnancy, labor, and birth.
They will never get rid of the stigma try as they may. On the one hand todays feminists cry about how they dont want to be treated as sex objects and they want respect. On the other hand they are more than willing not to command respect and they have sex in a short period of time and dont take the time to get to know the man. Then they are dumped and angry adding ” Who needs marriage?” Aagh I hate to be repetative but look up Jessica Valenti or Lindy West. I just couldnt resist reading about the latter woman and her views. Twisted! Lindy talks right about the laws of attraction and how to score a date…possibly score some sex and from there she gets ahead of herself and jumps right to the abortion clinic. No talk of any other options. She is post abortive. She claims she is anti rape jokes….does that apply to Sara Palin? I doubt it. She goes on to tell women that if they find themselves pregnant not to “freak out”… she suggests 4 abortion clinics in Seattle and assures the women “you will be FINE” adding Do NOT go to a PCC because you will leave with pro life literature and no abortion. Duh…isnt that the idea? And I guess West hasnt read about women being butchered and killed in abortion clinics today. Shes also quick to assure the women “You are NOT a bad person for having an abortion so relax.” Women like her help our case. And shes a true man hater often calling men d****. Male anatomy. This woman does not speak for me.
“Legal or not, you don’t have abortion “rights”. – there is no other source of ‘rights’. It’s a legal right or it’s not. Other than that it’s a matter of personal choice.
“It’s not a “right” to kill your child.” – but it is a legal right to terminate a fetus.
“But that’s what they’re DEMANDING” – they’ve got reproductive rights, they’re demanding it remain so. Because they’ll do it anyway.
“The “right” to kill their own children.” – why does the word ‘fetus’ exist?
“And to think……..They think abortion /childbirth are EQUAL ??? SMH” – it’s womens reproductive freedom and choice which is the right. Birthing or aborting are equal choices under that premise.
As a pro-life woman who gave birth at home with the aid of certified nurse midwife, medical doctor, and lay midwife, I first heard this argument back in 1985. I dismissed it merely as an attempt to get pro-choice folks on board with the home birth movement, which is fine with me. However, I hoped abortion proponents would come to realize bodily autonomy and parental rights have the necessary limitation against deliberately and directly causing deadly harm to oneself or one’s child.
Dr. Morrison and Ms. Stewart are on the right track, but they need to take it one step further. Women do not need to pit themselves against their pre-born children to achieve control. It seems rather childish to use abortion to rebel against medical paternalism. “I am proving my independence by aborting this child.”
I too hate seeing women screw up their bodies and be at war with their natural fertility. Thus, I advocate for natural family planning, which is both empowering and free of harsh side effects.
Reality says:
June 19, 2014 at 7:08 pm
why does the word ‘fetus’ exist?
The word “fetus” exists for the same reason that we have words such as “infant,” “adolescent,” “adult,” “middle-aged,” “elderly,” and so forth. We like to talk about human beings with precision concerning our development.
We have explained this to you before.
I am becoming more convinced that you are not educable.
Good for you Del. I have explained the very same thing here myself previously. Yet people here seem terribly reticent to apply that ‘precision’, obviously in their desire to present fetuses as more than they are. Let’s hope that you and I can indeed deliver a little education here :-)
I am quite educable when it comes to facts and truth, not so much when people dish up fantasy and wishful thinking ;-)
Reality,
You wouldn’t know “facts” and “truth” if they hit you in the face.
You’ve been presented with both. You accept neither.
Del is correct.
Oh yes, tell me which ‘facts’ and ‘truth’ I don’t accept. Go on.
Now who was it who recently told us that an early fetus is exactly the same as a post-birth infant? (hint – it wasn’t me) How facty, truthy is that?
Yet today I agreed with Del on the ‘facts’ and truths’. Did you not note that Pamela? So who would be in denial there, Del or me? Or both of us?
Reality–you contradicted yourself. You said rights become so from being legal. Then you said that women will always have the right to have abortions and want it to remain legal.
Actually, let me explain something to you. Our rights do NOT come from government. Therefore I will always have the right to free speech and the right to arm and protect myself even if some fascist overlord takes office and tries to take these rights away. Because as our founding fathers asserted, rightly so, our rights come from our Creator. NOT the government. If rights come from a governing body they can be given and taken away at whim.
However, since our rights come from God we have no right to deprive others of their rights. TRUE rights, not made up rights. The right to LIFE is a basic, inalienable right. The right to hack someone to pieces is a made up right. It has temporary been granted by the governing body of our land but we shall soon make sure it is taken away so that the REAL right, the right to LIFE is not unjustly stolen from innocent human beings in their mothers’ wombs.
Scuse the typos. I’m too lazy and tired to edit it tonight.
No Sydney M, I did not contradict myself.
I said “they’ve got reproductive rights, they’re demanding it remain so. Because they’ll do it anyway.”, meaning they’ll do it whether they have the legal right or not. Just as has always happened and always will. But in the instances where they have the legal right they demand that it remain because most folk would rather not break laws, no matter how stupid a law may be. I did not say that they will always have the right. They just will.
“Our rights do NOT come from government.” – Oh well then, in that case women will always have the right to abortions. I suppose you could say that my rights come from my mom and dad, my creator, because they are the generation before me who are the product of eons of human development and social configurations.
My rights don’t come from something which doesn’t exist. But if you wish to assert that your ‘rights’ and ‘non-rights’ are derivitaves of a god then there’s an awful lot of confusion and contradictions going on! How’s that death penalty thing working out?
Reality…why do people even try to help you understand? Fetus is Latin for little one. Little one what? A fish? Also doctors alternate fetus and baby when a woman is pregnant. Sorry youre just trying to dehuminize an unborn BABY like so many pro choicers do. Gah!
Heather, Sydney M, Pamela, et al. I suggest just skipping over Reality’s posts.
I know MoJoanne, lol. I’m drawn like a fly to a pile of….
Reality, rights come from God, not government. Do you REALLY think God grants the right to tear children limb from limb? Please.
Rights are something I possess because they are inherent to human beings and I am a human being. The first and foremost right–and the right that must be retained or all other rights mean nothing–is the right to LIFE. Yet abortion takes that right away from human beings at the earliest stages of development. It isn’t rocket science really.
I’m female. I have been from conception. But my “women’s rights” would have meant nothing if my mother had exercised her made up “right” to kill me before birth–which was totally legal when she carried me in her womb. You can’t howl about rights for women when you deny millions of women the right to exist in their mother’s wombs. They will never get to enjoy all the “rights” feminists drone on and on about if they aren’t even allowed to retain their most basic right of LIVING.
Somewhere a bridge is missing its troll. Ignore it and perhaps it will find its way home.
Reality, 12:16am
So using your rationale shouldn’t we also legalize rape? Its gone on since the beginning of time, not everyone agrees there is anything wrong with it, heck its usually the victim’s fault and what better than when your victim “asks for it”, and no law will ever stop it. I’m not suggesting this is right, just that rapists will continue to do what they have always done.
I don’t suppose these guys want to break laws either so why should we force them to?
Reality…why do people even try to help you understand? Fetus is Latin for little one. Little one what? A fish?
Heather, why do you lecture people when you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about? “Fetus” in Latin means “offspring,” “progeny,” or “produce.” It is frequently used as a collective noun, and can refer to fruit, animals, or a horde of people. It has nothing to do with size. The Latin substantive noun deriving from “little” is parvulus/parvula/parvulum.
The link below is to the entry for “fetus” in what was the authoritative Latin dictionary before it was superseded by the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which is not in the public domain. IIRC, the OLD’s definition of “fetus” was about the same. Click on the link to Lewis & Short if you don’t see the full definition from my link.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=fetus&la=la#lexicon
The last pro-lifer I had this discussion with did not know what a dictionary was. Let’s hope that you can do better, Heather.
“Reality, rights come from God, not government.” – those who believe in a god may think that, the rest of us know the facts.
“Rights are something I possess because they are inherent to human beings and I am a human being.” – mmm, I thought you said they came from god? And how well does that work when the neighboring tribe comes over the hill and kills or enslaves your tribe? We have rights through the advent of organised, civil society.
“So using your rationale shouldn’t we also legalize rape?” – no, rape, murder and stealing are acts which civil societies have found detrimental to the society. Abortion doesn’t fall into that category.
Reality,
Not so fast.
Laws concerning rape have varied from society to society, even state to state. Rape has not always been found detrimental to society. Victims “asked for it”. Those committing rape have not always viewed themselves as criminals. Men viewed themselves as having a “right” to rape.
I’m using your arguments and rationale from you post of 12:16am.
Why shouldn’t they apply to rape?
Yes, laws vary. Show me where rape is legal.
“Rape has not always been found detrimental to society.” – citation please. And if such is the case then that was what that society found. So what.
“Those committing rape have not always viewed themselves as criminals. Men viewed themselves as having a “right” to rape.” – and? As I said “rape, murder and stealing are acts which civil societies have found detrimental to the society.” Some within those societies may have different views but guess what.
“I’m using your arguments and rationale from you post of 12:16am.” – no you’re not.
“Why shouldn’t they apply to rape?” – I explained that just above.
Reality,
I didn’t say it was legal, I said laws varied. Prior to the women’s movement, which I am certain you are very sensitive to, prosecuting rape was difficult to say the least. Victims “asked for it”. A woman’s sexual history was fair game, and got more than a few rapists off the hook.
Rape has all too often been viewed as the bounty of war. Men couldn’t be blamed for taking what was “theirs. In WW2 Berlin, German woman committed suicide rather than be raped by the Russian conquerers who seemed to think raping German women was their “right”.
Yes Reality, I am using your arguments. Rape is as old as the human race, not all rapists thought they were committing any crime, and many societies, while condemning it, “understood” why men raped.
Then it’s even more a case of so what then isn’t it. Rape is illegal. Just like murder and robbery. For the reasons I stated. Abortion doesn’t fall into the same category.
You are not using my arguments. You are misrepresenting them in an attempt to support your own.
Some murderers don’t feel they’ve committed a crime. You know, like the guy who killed Tiller. Society disagreed. There are those who feel they are free to take what they want from others. Society says no. Once again, abortion isn’t in that category.
You can waffle on all you like about the realities of rape but it is illegal. Society has ordained it so. Abortion isn’t.
“Reality” is just a person who enjoys imposing acts of violence on defenseless human beings. Nothing more to see here, folks.
No Barb, I do not and have not. Your comment demeans itself.
Nor am I someone who enjoys forcing other people to adhere to and/or comply with the ways that I believe people should live their lives. How about you?
Heather and LisaC you add this one to your vocabuly.
“Talitha kum” – Aramaic for ‘arise little girl’.
And for the pro-aborts on the blog….
‘Puella Mortuus’ Latin for ‘Die little girl’
Truthseeker, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Reality,
According to you it isn’t a matter of legality, its that people will do what they have always done.
“…meaning they’ll do it whether they have the legal right or not. Just as has always happened and always will…”
OK. Rape has always been and always will be. Whether or not it was or is legal has never been relevant as far a rapists have been concerned. Society and circumstances have not always condemned it.
You were saying something about waffling Reality?
Reality 9:11PM
“Nor am I someone who enjoys forcing other people to adhere to/and or comply with the ways that I believe people should live their lives.”
Really? So you oppose the existence of state legislatures, police forces, prosecutors and prisons?
LisaC,
Which of the phrases do you find embarrassing to read?
The pro-life Aramaic one ‘Talitha kum’ which Jesus used to resurrect a dead girl or the Latin pro-abort one ‘Puella mortuus’ which pro-aborts could use while talking to their unwanted female fetus while they are laying down on the gurnee and raising their knees up and putting their feet into the stirrups and getting ready to commit abortion?
Which of the phrases do you find embarrassing to read?
I don’t find either embarrassing to read. I would be embarrassed if my fatuous language “instruction” demonstrated that I didn’t know the difference between a verb and an adjective, but that’s your department.
“Fatuous language instruction”
It was rich. I like to choose the “talitha Kum” path over the “puella mortus” path.
Verbs or nouns or adjectives can be just as offensive.
Die little girl or dying little girl or dead little girl. It is all the pro-abort path.
wait, dying is an adverb isn’t it?
‘Dying’ is a participle functioning as an adjective. I didn’t want to bring it up, but your adjective conjugation is also pretty pathetic.
But not quite as pathetic as your desire, Lisa C, to make sure women can kill their unborn children.
The point Lisa C is that to a pro-abort they wish the unborn baby would die, wish the unborn baby was dying and wish the unborn baby was dead. You are being petty when proper conjugation of that phrase is of more import to you then such a heinous act that is the subject of discussion.
“You were saying something about waffling Reality?” – yes I did. If you revisit where I was making my original point that rights are conferred by civil society and its legislature you’ll note that you took off on a journey of irrelevant obfuscation.
“Really? So you oppose the existence of state legislatures, police forces, prosecutors and prisons?” – did the point really whizz past you that fast or did you choose to ignore it for the sake of argument? Like most of us, I adhere to the laws of the land as determined and enforced by the relevant parties. People such as anti-choicers and wannabe theocrats who want to force others to live in a certain manner don’t fit into aren’t the relevant parties. Hence my words.
“If you revisit where I was making my original point that rights are conferred by civil society and its legislature you’ll note you took off on a journey of irrelevant obfuscation”. Uh no Reality, I just quoted you.
As for your second point, its obvious that you support laws and law enforcement. So do I. The state imposes laws through your elected representatives. Not everyone will agree with or like these laws, or consider them fair. However, we agree they must be imposed, i.e. morality must be imposed.
Not all may agree that you, through your elected representatives, have any right to enforce your morality on them. Thus the need for police, courts, and prisons.
So unless you never vote, nor write your representatives, and would never dream of calling the police to help someone being victimized or to protect yourself, then I would agree you are not “someone who enjoys forcing other people to adhere to and/or comply with the ways that I believe people should live their lives”.
Mmm, indeed. The piece you quoted said they would do so even without being given the legislated right as conferred by civil society.
The whole point has been about the source of rights. Yet you’ve gone off on some tangent trying to compare rape and abortion as approached by society. Nup.
“However, we agree they must be imposed, i.e. morality must be imposed.” – you can’t impose morality. All you can do is use law to force people to comply with morals they don’t agree with. Then there are those who wish to force others to comply with their morality despite having no legal support, like anti-choicers and wannabe theocrats, as I said.
Mary said: “OK. Rape has always been and always will be. Whether or not it was or is legal has never been relevant as far a rapists have been concerned. Society and circumstances have not always condemned it.” No, it still does not. A nice republican (rapeublican?) quote :”If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman?” Lawrence Lockman, republican (what else?), Maine
GL,
“Put ice one it”.
Bill Clinton, Democrat(what else?) Arkansas, after raping Juanita Broderick and causing some sort of facial injury in the process.
Reality,
You argue that people will continue to do what they have always done, legal or not.
Laws vary, punishments vary, attitudes toward certain crimes vary. Guilty people are found “innocent”. Your argument applies across the board, not just to abortion. People who want to do anything badly enough will do it, always have, always will, and no law will stop them.
The state makes an effort to impose morality when it legislates what you cannot do, but ultimately it can only try to force us to comply with laws. There is civil disobedience when people don’t agree with laws.
There are those who wish to force others to comply with their morality? Absolutely. Battles over laws go on all the time, people support, people oppose. People engage in civil disobedience.
The point Lisa C is that to a pro-abort they wish the unborn baby would die, wish the unborn baby was dying and wish the unborn baby was dead. You are being petty when proper conjugation of that phrase is of more import to you then such a heinous act that is the subject of discussion.
Dude, if you don’t want your Latin mocked, don’t try to make points in bad Latin.
I was going to say that I have no wish for a preshus baybee to die; rather, my concern is for the rights of the woman. But then I realized that you have no concept of “woman” beyond a pair of open legs, so it seems like an unproductive discussion to enter.
For me at least, my wife’s pair of open legs are a productive location to enter. We know each other well.
Lisa, you seemed to be confused about Truth-seeker’s identity. It is the pro-aborts who want sexual license.
And you obviously don’t think a “preshus baybee” (your spelling) has a right to loving nurture from its mother.