Skip to main content

View Diary: "Not Close Enough to Death" (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't disagree (10+ / 0-)

    but the need could still be cut way down.  If there was competent sex ed in my daughter's high school, and ready access to birth control, I can think of about four kids right now who would not be waddling down the halls, and one I know who would not be sweting bullets.  She called my daughter over last week to tell her that she was late.  I gave my kid information on where the health department was and how to get her over there for a pg test ASAP. I was very clear that every day that goes by this problem may be one day worse, and the time to do something is right this minute. Unfortunately, we are in a parental consent state.  

    But I sure wish it wasn't necessary for me to have had that talk at all.

    If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

    by marykk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 11:46:55 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, the issue you describe (5+ / 0-)

      is freaking tragic. The unwanted pregnancies due to lack of information and access to contraception (or the internal ego strength to use contraception when it is available!)are terrible.

      I think what I was trying to say is that they are two related but separate issues. And our general voting public needs to see them as separate b/c I've seen the conversation about how we can agree on fewer abortions as a bridge used as a way to avoid this conversation that this diary does such a good job of illustrating: we will always need abortions.

      I think ppl use the idea that we can reduce abortions as a way to avoid the real issue b/c they are uncomfortable w/ abortion (not you, I have seen some ppl do that). I want to see the issues separated b/c I think we, as pro-choice allies, need to make it really clear that abortion will always be needed, that it's a moral good for women to have that option, and that issues around sex ed/contraception address other related aspects of reproductive/human rights.

      We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

      by Tookish on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 11:53:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair enough (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tookish, offred, raincrow, klompendanser

        although I can't say that I'm entirely "comfortable" with it.  It does have greater moral gravity than pulling a tooth or clipping a hangnail, IMHO.  And I for one am inclined to draw a line at the point that a fetus has the brain activity to achieve some form of sentience.  So, as a general rule, if it's going to happen, it should be sooner rather than later (which is why I am a huge supporter of Plan B)  What H.R. 358 does, however, is take away that possibility in those cases, many of which are post-sentience, where the fetus has anomolies which are incompatible with life (anencephaly, for example, or one of the non-Down trisomies) or where something has gone horribly, horribly wrong and it's a matter of survival for the mother.  The Phoenix hospital case was just such a case, and an attempt to prevent a woman in that situation from getting the care she needs evidences callous disregard for human life.  

        But hokey smokes, should any sixteen year old not know how to get - and use - condoms, eg.?  

        If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

        by marykk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 12:03:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  One of the curses of HR 58 as I understand it (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mrkvica, julifolo, marykk

          is that one very possibly never gets close enough to the situation to determine sentience or anything such, because the point at which the moral right of a medical practitioner now made into a legal right not to participate and a legal defense against mal prac for refusing to do so if bad results ensue, kicks in long before such a determination may be made. If that practitioner at any point decides he or she has moral objections, that is the end of the conversation and his services, regardless of the status of mother or fetus, if there is one. It could be an abortion, or an abortion gone bad, or the diarist's mother's miscarriage, or even an objection to a lesbian couple's family status when one is the patient,  and only the view of the practitioner is relevant.

        •  I totally respect (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LostInTexas, lostinamerica

          that you have issues that make it easier for you to accept earlier abortions than later ones, and that you have qualifiers for later abortions. I want to argue though, that those are personal issues that are according to your own personal ethos and while important to you, can't really be the basis for a public policy approach that must be broad enough to ensure access to women for every variable imaginable or unimaginable.

          As in, none of us have heard every story or know every situation in past, present, future, that might require an abortion. So our discomfort I think belongs in some places but not in others.

          And when our discomfort ends up in policy discussions that require the clarity that I believe this requires but doesn't yet have (as evidenced by the qualifiers that even pro-choice allies want to put on this procedure, despite not being able to know or be involved in every situation--either humanly or ethically, and as evidenced by the current assault on the right itself by our legislative branch), we end up not speaking with a unified voice as pro-choice allies, defending the ultimate right of free access to abortions.

          We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

          by Tookish on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:02:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not arguing with you (0+ / 0-)

            but one would hope that one could voice a pov around here without being accused of "having issues."  
            kthxbai

            If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

            by marykk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:11:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't mean to (4+ / 0-)

              communicate that I was accusing you of having issues. I'm just trying to have a conversation about how we think about our thinking and the lines we draw and what we consider moral arguments for particular policies we support. Did not mean to come off disrespectful. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

              We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

              by Tookish on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:18:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Let me guess: Abstinence-only still taught at (7+ / 0-)

      your daughter's high school? As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working for ya?" with all those preggers kids waddling down the halls.  When will we wake up in this country? I still don't understand how sex ed has gone so far BACKWARDS in the past few decades.

      Knowledge is power. 422 kids in my graduating class; 100% went on to college. We had GRAPHIC & detailed sex ed, starting in 5th grade. Very few of my friends even had sex in high school. Yes, one couple did have a baby several months after graduation. It happens about once a decade at my school. Both young parents still went to college. Their daughter did too.

      Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

      by earicicle on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 11:54:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Abstinence only (5+ / 0-)

        brought to you by the Crisis Pregnancy crowd.  And indeed, they are great promoters of crisis pregnancies, I'll give them that.  I've spent hours over several long conversations working to unteach the bullshit that they pass along in the name of "family education."  Grrrrrr.

        If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

        by marykk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 12:04:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Especially when those "crisis pregnancies" (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rlharry, Dvalkure, arlene, ebohlman

          result in healthy white babies available for adoption?

          It's an old, sinister and quite profitable business. Let's hear it for those American Family Values!

          Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

          by earicicle on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 12:24:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ebohlman

            I worked in adoptions for about fifteen years, I've been the Guardian ad litem for thousands of kids, I've represented adopting parents, birthmothers, agencies.  What you describe is a phenomenon that took place in the fifties and sixties, but it's a gross misrepresentation of how adoptions play out today.  But that's a different diary altogether.

            If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

            by marykk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 12:29:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, no. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dvalkure, earicicle, Sand Hill Crane

              I was told not to long ago by a man who has an adopted daughter how difficult it was for them to find a "white" baby -- and how outlawing abortions would make it easier for people in his situation.

              Seriously.  

              I just looked at him and said, "Oh ... so they should be breeders for you?"

              The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits -- Albert Einstein

              by SweetLittleOkie on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 12:48:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He may have said this (0+ / 0-)

                and I agree, it's horribly offensive, but that doesn't mean that's how adoptions are working. (In fact, at least one state has outlawed for-profit adoption agencies and gotten rid of the worst offenders. Now Utah, that's a different story)

                If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

                by marykk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:01:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So if one state has outlawed for-profit adoption (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  marykk

                  agencies, does that mean they remain legal in the other 49?  And what about private lawyers and "brokers" who assist couples...for a not-so-small fee?

                  Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

                  by earicicle on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:14:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  it's state specific (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    earicicle

                    and I haven't looked at the laws on a state-by-state basis in a while.  In Illinois, there was a HUGE adoption reform act about five years ago, and the lawyers and "brokers" - ("facilitators" in the biz) are subject to licensing requirements as well.

                    In Illinois, btw, it was my experience that by at least the year 2000, healthy, legally available, African American infants did not wait for homes.

                    If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

                    by marykk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:19:49 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I defer to your expertise. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marykk

              I was shocked to learn, however, from friends who recently adopted, that for qualified applicants, African-American infants are IMMEDIATELY available for adoption. From the stories you hear about couples' odysseys to adopt, I thought the waiting list to adopt any infant was extremely long. Nope...just white ones without any special needs.

              So perhaps I'm just making a logical leap here. But coping with an unexpected pregnancy is financially and emotionally challenging. How can a young, vulnerable woman do this alone? Couldn't a family desperate to jump the line for their "perfect white baby" help this poor girl in her time of need? Seems like these fringe "crisis centers" might do the "godly" thing and bring these people together. For a donation to support the cause, of course...

              Isn't a woman giving up her baby allowed to "choose" her child's adoptive family? Isn't she allowed to choose greater support than the meager State aid provided to pregnant women? You can't tell me that all adoptions in this country are carried out by the book.

              Ho'oponopono. To make things right; restore harmony; heal.

              by earicicle on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:12:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not suggesting that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ebohlman, earicicle

                and I'm not suggesting that the CPCs don't ever do that.  I am saying that the two things are not as connected as they may appear.  If they were, you'd see simple correlations in the numbers, but you don't - largely because the social stigma on unwed motherhood is not nearly what it once was.  And one of the things I - and many others - have observed is that it is not the youngest preggies who make adoption plans - in fact, they are the most likely to maintain unrealistic fantasies about parenting, much to everyone's detriment.  You'd be surprised how many birthmothers already have children.  They have a much better grip on that reality.

                But as I said, that's really a story for a different diary.  

                If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

                by marykk on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:17:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site