This practically made me cry. How could this ever be okay?
[Image: An illustration is labeled as a “partial birth abortion”. It shows a person performing an intact dilation and extraction, which is described at the bottom of the image: “The surgeon pulls the fetus into the breech position. He forced scissors into the skull, removes them and inserts a suction catheter through which he suctions out the skull contents.”]
I’m going to tell you a story that my tenth grade biology teacher told me.
So, my teacher had a friend. She was happily married, a Christian, and pregnant. She and her husband were extremely excited about the pregnancy and they couldn’t wait to be parents. She was pretty far along - probably about 7 month in. She went to get a check-up, and her doctor checked out the fetus. Well, it turns out her fetus had hydrochephalus. In this particular case, the fetus’s head had not and would not form enough to even hold the brain inside the skull. If the woman continued the pregnancy, she would give birth to a dead baby, and that’s if it didn’t die in utero and possibly cause sepsis before she had the opportunity to give birth.
So, and this was before the “partial birth abortion ban” was enacted (not when the story was told, but when it took place), the woman opted to get an intact dilation and extraction procedure (since that’s the proper medical term, “partial birth abortion” is a made up term and has no medical relevance).
Do you know what that allowed her to do? What that allows a lot of uterus-bearers in the same predicament to do?
She was able to hold her dead, intact fetus and mourn for it.
Now, she would have to get a procedure that literally rips the fetus apart, since apparently anti-choicers looking for a means to chip away at Roe v Wade think that this is a better alternative to the described procedure above. As the law currently stands, it is now impossible for people like the woman I described to have their fetuses aborted intact so that they can hold them like they wanted to. It is impossible for women like the one I described to have a body to mourn over.
So good job. Because you’re too ignorant to actually know why uterus-bearers get late-term abortion, specifically intact D & X procedures, you’ve essentially made it much harder for those that are experiencing the difficult choice to end a wanted pregnancy to mourn and move on.
But hey, go ahead and continue to consider yourself compassionate. I guess ignorance really is bliss, especially when you can hold up illustrations of medical procedures you don’t understand and hide behind them as if they have any meaning in the face of the reality that you refuse to acknowledge.
Okay, I’m gonna take a second here to explain why this is not a good idea.
I completely understand that, with increasingly limited access to safe, legal, affordable abortion, things like this can seem super appealing. Hell, home medicine in general is super appealing (and a lot of it works, don’t get me wrong). But home abortions are dangerous, full stop. Yes, many folks died in pre roe v. wade days died from attempting to induce abortion by drinking terpintine and using coathangers, but people also died from shit like this, And here’s why.
Induced miscarriages have a very high likelihood of complication, especially further on down the timeline (say after 9 weeks). The specific complication that happens, setting aside things like parsley toxicity and/or kidney stones resulting from too much vitamin C, is called an incomplete abortion/miscarriage. Basically, in these instances, not all of the embriotic tissues is passed, which means you have a bunch of necrotic (dead) tissue hanging around in your uterus, which means a lot of infection, perhaps to a deadly level.
So if you need to do this, follow all of the precautions listed above (including not attempting past 3 weeks after your first missed period) and for the love of god PLEASE SEE A DOCTOR AFTERWARDS IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN. If you can’t tell them the truth, just tell them that you think you had a miscarriage. And if you start bleeding heavily (soaking 3 or more heavy flow pads per hour) and get a fever and/or nausea you need to get yourself to the emergency room, because you are in serious danger. Please, everyone, keep yourself safe.
Oh, and no matter what anyone tells you, don’t self-abort using wild carrot. It is poisonous and the level that will cause you to abort is very close to the level that will cause you to die. That is all.
An activist for the Dutch women’s rights organization Women on Waves posted instructions for a home abortion as her profile picture on Facebook. The social networking site then took the picture down — is this censorship, or an understandable reaction to potentially dangerous advice?
Women on Waves is a nonprofit that sails to countries where abortion is illegal, performing early abortions and providing sex ed onboard ship. Rebecca Gomperts, the organization’s director, had posted as her Facebook profile pic a list of instructions for home abortion with the drug misoprostol, which is sometimes sold under the brand name Cytotec (see the instructions here). But a Women on Waves press release dated Dec. 30 says,
“Today, Facebook removed the profile picture of Rebecca Gomperts, which was text with information about how women can do abortions safely by themselves. […] By removing the profile picture, Facebook is in gross violation of Article 19, the right to freedom of information, of the Universal declaration of Human rights. Facebook has a social responsibility to guarantee human rights.
“Dr. Gomperts reposted the screenshot of the Facebook censorship message with the picture. She calls upon all Facebook users that support abortion rights to repost the message on their page.”
This is currently my profile picture. Lets see how long it lasts…
- politeness and chivalry
- feminism and misandry
- abortion and infanticide
- miscarriages and infanticide
- the morning after pill and infanticide
- birth control and infanticide
- the original anime of something and the 4kids version of said anime
- butter and i can’t believe it’s not butter
- pokemon and digimon
- calling someone out on their white privilege and being anti-white
- calling someone out on their male privilege and being anti-male
- socialism and communism
- doritos and sun chips
every person who supports no abortions for rape victims should be forced to donate a kidney. they don’t need it to live, it’s a lot less of a risk and a lot less time, energy, and health lost than pregnancy, and it saves a life. who cares if it’s their body and they should be able to do what they want with it? right?
similarly, anyone who says a woman/girl who was raped and can’t carry the child to term without dying herself should be forced to carry it anyways: let’s declare all of their vital organs public property. i mean, a nine year old pregnant rape victim would only be sacrificing themselves for one child, so there’s no net gain. but if we killed anyone who holds this horrible opinion and take their organs, so many lives will be saved! it’s only fair. by their own logic.
sxiz at LiveJournal, referring to Ron Paul’s support for a bill overturning Roe v Wade. (via celticthistle)
[photo: screenshot of a twitter tweet from trustwomen. text reads, “allowing those with ectopic pregnancies to die instead of treating is proof #prolife is about #misogyny” interrupted by the link: http://ow.ly/6dxfw and resumes with “#antichoice”]
There are actual fucking physicians in this world who won’t treat ectopic pregnancies.
I want to cry.
….pretty sure this is actually illegal. Like, if someone comes in to the ER, no matter who they are, what they need, if they are in immediate danger, you have to treat them. It’s problematic from an economic/insurance standpoint (like, logistically, sometimes it is hard to figure out how to pay/who can pay for services), but ultimately, you will get treated.
Actually, most states have conscience clauses that protect doctors who would rather let a woman die from an ectopic pregnancy or hemorrhage to death because of a miscarriage and they are fully within their rights to refuse treatment because of these clauses. AND, depending on the hospital you go to (whether it is affiliated with a church like many hospitals are) they have to refuse to treat you because they aren’t allowed to do certain procedures by the board of directors/ethics committee.
The nun who was excommunicated for allowing an abortion to take place to save a dying woman is a prime example of an ethics committee allowing an abortion in a hospital where they are not allowed to be performed without permission. The church excommunicated the nun because they didn’t think saving the life of the mother justified terminating the 11 week fetus….which would have died with the mother a few weeks later if the abortion had not been allowed. So two deaths, according to the church, would have been better than the one. The 27-year old woman who needed the abortion due to pulmonary hypertension already had four children, too.
Now, doctors can refuse to treat patients due to these conscience clauses without any legal ramifications, but the odds of another doctor being called in to take care of the patient is high. The problem with this, though, is that women end up waiting while in the process of a miscarriage for the doctor to arrive and treat them. I posted a story about a woman who went through a miscarriage and another doctor had to be called that wasn’t affiliated with the hospital she went to because it was a Catholic hospital and none of the doctors would treat her. I’m having trouble finding the link, but this woman was literally bleeding to death in front of these doctors while waiting for the other doctor to arrive and no one even offered her pain medication. Instead they kept talking about how interesting of a case study she was while she was dying. She survived because the doctor finally showed up and performed the D&C she needed but she could have died while waiting for it. AND THIS IS COMPLETELY LEGAL BECAUSE OF ANTI-CHOICE LEGISLATION.
In any other case, a person bleeding to death would be treated immediately, but because it happens to be a pregnant woman (whose fetus, I might add, was already dead) there are laws in place to protect doctors who would rather let her die because they want to “preserve their conscience”. Personally, I don’t see how letting someone die in front of you preserves one’s conscience when you have all the tools available to save that person’s life, but I guess you aren’t a person if you’re pregnant, only the fetus has any sort of value, not the mother of four who is going to die.
Yep, pro-“life” isn’t about saving lives at all, it’s about keeping uterus-bearing people controlled and powerless.
I wonder what goes on in the minds of the sort of people who are willing to endanger a living, sentient being to maintain their own sense of self righteousness. How can it be Christian to be that selfish?