What is this op-ed doing in the Times? Why are you publishing this? Why did you hire a climate-change denier to write for you? What has happened to this paper, and who is making these choices?
10
Ms. Szala equates "klling a child" with stopping the growth of an egg as if they were the same thing. They are quite different. Millions of eggs never get fertilized every day as part of the creator's natural plan of life and nobody accuses the creator of "killing all the unfertilized egg children," although with Ms. Szala's way of thinking it would be just as logical to do so. It has been said that life begins with conception to some people and to end with birth when children are brought into uncared for existences to struggle and suffer. The world is overpopulated. There are not enough jobs nor decent living conditions. Bringing more unintended children into this crowded existence and leaving them to struggle against insurmountable odds is cruel when our creator has provided us with medical procedures to prevent their suffering by seeing that their eggs are not allowed to grow into additional uncared for humans.
"
"
20
Thank you Ms Szala for debunking this repulsive argument that abortion is an economic necessity. Almost all families struggle with financial issues when they start out and if everyone waited until they were financial secure to have a child they would be in their 60s before they were ready. You don't want to have kids? Use birth control! Be an adult and be responsible for you actions! Oh, and don't give me that agrument that poor people can't afford birth control, they cost less that some of the drinks at a coffee shop.
4
Do you have any idea how much harder it is getting for a young woman to get access to birth control!?
26
Thank you for this article. Valuing money and career more than a human life is a heinous moral wrong.
3
The author seems to skip right over the fact that many pro-birth individuals aren't very committed to pro-life... food stamps, WIC, head start.
28
Oh my God! What happened to my beloved Times? Did Robert Mercer secretly buy a stake?
20
Lori, I'm glad you decision worked for you. But you are not everybody. You got to choose and so should every other pregnant woman. And, oh, yes, abortion is not "killing your children." Really, now.
29
Between climate change deniers and fetophiles, the venerable New York Times has decided to move to the right. Why? Do you really think the Fox News crowd is going to read your paper? You are making the same mistake that Andy Lack is making over at MSNBC.
23
As with so many realities in life, we wish this one didn't involve money. But leaving money out of any discussion involving whether to bring children into the world is irresponsible. The first lesson a parent-to-be learns is that it's not about her/him anymore - it's about the child and what kind of life they can provide for that child. Not being able to provide a good life for a child we are considering bringing into the world cannot be ignored. Children are earned, they should not be brought into the world because we would feel guilty if they weren't. Children deserve lives in which they have the basics and more. If we can't do this properly, we cannot expect the government or anyone else to do it for us. Our children are our responsibility. If we can't take on this responsibility well for them, we should not have them. Period. If more people considered their ability to properly care for children, they would not be so careless with birth control - and have to make heartbreaking decisions. Frankly, it's inexcusable when there is so much access to birth control for women and men of all ages. It's unfortunate that women have to bear much of the burden of making sure we have birth control until we are ready to bring a child into the world with proper support. But that's also a reality. We should have them when we know we can give them good lives. It's time to put on the big girl panties and get birth control right so decisions about abortion don't have to made so often.
8
It is claimed that every two days a Brazilian woman dies while trying to end a pregnancy, and there are 200,000 hospital admissions a year as a result of bungled procedures. “It’s totally illegal, so the women have abortions in the worst conditions,” says Dr Marcelo Burlá, president of the Gynaecology and Obstetrics Society of Rio de Janeiro state. “We have a lot of bad problems, like hysterectomies, like bleeding, like women not able to be pregnant again." All because we have a legal condition that doesn’t support the women who don’t want to have a baby.
18
First of all, lets stop referring to anti-abortion proponents as "pro-life." They are pro-birth, and anti-choice. It's time to stop being disingenuous about who and what they are.
I am SO tired of reading these chipper, "if I could do it, so can you" stories about women who decided not to have abortions, pat themselves on the back for being virtuous, and think no one else should be able to make their own choice--whatever it is.
When I had my abortion in 1980, I did so because it was the right choice for me at the time. I never second-guessed my own decision, and I still haven't, 37 years later. That was not a child--it was a mass of cells that could not survive outside my (too young and dumb) body. My actual children are alive and well and loved and even remember to call me sometimes.
No one should have to carry an unwanted pregnancy, and she shouldn't have to defend her choice. Just like women who don't want abortions shouldn't have to defend their choice. It astounds me that this is still up for discussion, and it astounds me even more that women--other women!!--are still buying into the patriarchal values espoused in this article. Do what you want, but don't you dare try make *me* do it too.
I am SO tired of reading these chipper, "if I could do it, so can you" stories about women who decided not to have abortions, pat themselves on the back for being virtuous, and think no one else should be able to make their own choice--whatever it is.
When I had my abortion in 1980, I did so because it was the right choice for me at the time. I never second-guessed my own decision, and I still haven't, 37 years later. That was not a child--it was a mass of cells that could not survive outside my (too young and dumb) body. My actual children are alive and well and loved and even remember to call me sometimes.
No one should have to carry an unwanted pregnancy, and she shouldn't have to defend her choice. Just like women who don't want abortions shouldn't have to defend their choice. It astounds me that this is still up for discussion, and it astounds me even more that women--other women!!--are still buying into the patriarchal values espoused in this article. Do what you want, but don't you dare try make *me* do it too.
45
Now while I think that you bring up some interesting points Ms. Szala... the fact of the matter is... the unborn child dies... that is considered murder... now... I grew up in a church that taught me that abortion is wrong... and that people who abort children... are escaping their punishments for sex outside of marriage... and if they were raped... then have the child... but put it up for adoption if you aren't able to take care of it...
M Azala, what you stated is that you had a choice. I am going to assume that you made the choice to have sex and that your birth control failed. The father's choice? Did he choose to step up and be a father as it certainly did not appear so or did he choose to walk away without regret and repercussion. You gave him that choice. Your friend who was to drive you to the clinic regretted her decision and used you to feel better. You changed your mind and chose a different path and you did well. Again, you had a choice. Everyone regrets past decisions - maturity is acceptance of those decisions with a better knowledge and understanding of the circumstances at that time. I applaud you and your work and I decry those who dumb the entire conversation into a soundbite of personal beliefs. What your choice was is respected by me as I was not walking in your shoes at that moment. You state that as a society we have an obligation to help but that does not include the removal of choice. If your friend had no choice then, what would she have told you? If you had no choice then, what would you be doing today? Choice is a freedom of the individual to make and to then live with.
Is anyone else curious as to how she went from dropping out of community college to working her way up the ladder of an investment firm?
14
I dont view anything inside a human being as another human being. Once they come out, sure. Before that they are just flesh.
I support more abortions. We dont need more people in this world, thats for sure.
As a transgender woman though I wish my mom had aborted me. My parents got married because of me, their honeymoon was me being born. They never should have been together, which I knew since I was like 6 years old. They divorced and wasted like 2 decades of their lives just to have a transgender kid, a gay kid, and a schizophrenic kid, as well as 1 semi-normal kid. Besides the semi-normal kid, we all would have been better off not existing.
I support more abortions. We dont need more people in this world, thats for sure.
As a transgender woman though I wish my mom had aborted me. My parents got married because of me, their honeymoon was me being born. They never should have been together, which I knew since I was like 6 years old. They divorced and wasted like 2 decades of their lives just to have a transgender kid, a gay kid, and a schizophrenic kid, as well as 1 semi-normal kid. Besides the semi-normal kid, we all would have been better off not existing.
1
The Handmaid's Tale's revival is no surprise with the coming storm clouds of Christian misogyny reflected in the Faustian embrace of Trump by religious extremists eager to press Old Testament Sharia on all heathens. Now The Handmaid's Tale has an op-ed version though the writer doesn't hold a candle to Margaret Atwood, even though her op-ed is as fictional as Atwood's novel.
This is a lot like Trump's campaign rally rants -- a standup routine with a hyped up audience eager to hear Trump's raw zingers hissing hate and salacious pandering bordering on obscene. Ms. Szala is more artful but still heavy-handed as Trump when pushing buttons.
In her world, children are aborted, personal truth is one-size fits all, women abort "to scramble up the economic ladder without children holding them back" (yeah, and Arbeit Macht Frei to you too!), parenting is a hassle but that doesn't "give parents the right to kill their children."
This is a total fake op-ed -- fake context, fake feeling, fake women, fake facts, fake reality. Topped with a dollop of fake earnestness and "I know I'm lucky but..."
That's a really big but -- big enough to moot dialogue with biblical harangue.
Peel off the cynical veneer and it's the wrathful god of the Old Testament, all vengeance and violence, still beating up on Eve for letting the serpent humiliate him in his own garden.
This isn't an op-ed. It's a loaded insult.
This is a lot like Trump's campaign rally rants -- a standup routine with a hyped up audience eager to hear Trump's raw zingers hissing hate and salacious pandering bordering on obscene. Ms. Szala is more artful but still heavy-handed as Trump when pushing buttons.
In her world, children are aborted, personal truth is one-size fits all, women abort "to scramble up the economic ladder without children holding them back" (yeah, and Arbeit Macht Frei to you too!), parenting is a hassle but that doesn't "give parents the right to kill their children."
This is a total fake op-ed -- fake context, fake feeling, fake women, fake facts, fake reality. Topped with a dollop of fake earnestness and "I know I'm lucky but..."
That's a really big but -- big enough to moot dialogue with biblical harangue.
Peel off the cynical veneer and it's the wrathful god of the Old Testament, all vengeance and violence, still beating up on Eve for letting the serpent humiliate him in his own garden.
This isn't an op-ed. It's a loaded insult.
1
The decision to abort is the pregnant woman's alone
11
Wow, between this and Bret Stephens I'm thinking about cancelling my years long subscription. This is so insulting towards women. Maybe we should sterlize men instead. That couldn't be taken the wrong way, right? I mean if abortion is murder let's get to the root of the problem, so to speak.
21
What a self-serving diatribe. Having an abortion for economic reasons is not always about being poor or lacking help. I have inheritable eye disease. When the opthomologist told me I could have a blind child, I decided not to have any children. I begged a succession of gynecologists (both men and women) for a sterilization. Each denied me and informed me I was crazy even when I explained I could have a child with a major disability. Many women seeking abortion do so to save their child from a lifetime of pain, suffering and disappointment. I would never have forgiven myself if I had a child with the apparent attitude, "Hey, its a raw deal, but I got thru it, let's see how you do."
20
Politicians and advocates need to link the pro-abortion arguments to economics. Mostly because when it was illegal, only the very wealthy could afford safe procedures.
But for me - a male - the Pro argument is always a simple one. Every woman has the right to make moral decisions on her own! Period. No male, even the father has any preemptive power. Period.
Of course children are not pure economic objects...but they sure do suck up a lot of funds, time and energy. Others have said this, but it demands repeating. This author had support, had the courage, the moxie, the whatever special ingredient to go thru with her pregnancy. Great for her!
But she is not alone - nor does it make her more virtuous. Nor does it make her the arbiter of other women's decisions.
I can guarantee Ms. Szala denied the whole "battle-cry" that women should vote for Hillary, simply because she's the first female candidate. To vote against the misogyny of Trump. I'm sure Ms. Szala said WOMEN are not a voting block that must vote in unison. So why with abortion?
Ms. Szala, moral decision making simply can not be denied anyone.
Women, even "girls", have the right to make every important life impacting decision on their own. Period. Just like males.
>>>
One aspect of these stories I always find trite and specious, is where the author claims: "everyone around me pressured me to abort." Really? Everyone? Whereas, every woman I know who had an abortion (10) has said the opposite.
But for me - a male - the Pro argument is always a simple one. Every woman has the right to make moral decisions on her own! Period. No male, even the father has any preemptive power. Period.
Of course children are not pure economic objects...but they sure do suck up a lot of funds, time and energy. Others have said this, but it demands repeating. This author had support, had the courage, the moxie, the whatever special ingredient to go thru with her pregnancy. Great for her!
But she is not alone - nor does it make her more virtuous. Nor does it make her the arbiter of other women's decisions.
I can guarantee Ms. Szala denied the whole "battle-cry" that women should vote for Hillary, simply because she's the first female candidate. To vote against the misogyny of Trump. I'm sure Ms. Szala said WOMEN are not a voting block that must vote in unison. So why with abortion?
Ms. Szala, moral decision making simply can not be denied anyone.
Women, even "girls", have the right to make every important life impacting decision on their own. Period. Just like males.
>>>
One aspect of these stories I always find trite and specious, is where the author claims: "everyone around me pressured me to abort." Really? Everyone? Whereas, every woman I know who had an abortion (10) has said the opposite.
14
The notion that abortion is an act of murder is purely and simply an article of faith. It is not based in science. Why are the people who's faith dictates this notion allowed to legislate ruinous laws based simply on that article of faith. If my faith says that we will all go to Hell unless we wear some head garment, would these same people agree to legislation that requires them to always wear that head garment?
I thought that the constitution's separation of church and state spoke rather directly to this issue. If you're church fundamentally believes that abortion is a mortal sin, and if you are a faithful member of your church, then don't have an abortion! Ostracize other members of your faith who fail to practice WHAT THEY BELIEVE but keep your purely religious beliefs out of the laws of my government. Do not impose your faith's proscriptions on my mother, wife, sisters and daughters!
I thought that the constitution's separation of church and state spoke rather directly to this issue. If you're church fundamentally believes that abortion is a mortal sin, and if you are a faithful member of your church, then don't have an abortion! Ostracize other members of your faith who fail to practice WHAT THEY BELIEVE but keep your purely religious beliefs out of the laws of my government. Do not impose your faith's proscriptions on my mother, wife, sisters and daughters!
14
The federal Healthy Start initiative offers the same kinds of community-based
pregnancy and parenting programs which the author, with a touch of just-folks resentment towards the professionalized social services, reproaches pro-choicers for ignoring. Healthy Start's chief objective is to prevent infant mortality, defined as death between birth and age one -- essentially the scope of the pro-life mission, mirrored outside the vagina.
Yet when Healthy Start was up for congressional reauthorization last year, the bill had just four Republican co-sponsors.
Maybe the others were too busy sorting donated burp cloths at the local crisis pregnancy center?
pregnancy and parenting programs which the author, with a touch of just-folks resentment towards the professionalized social services, reproaches pro-choicers for ignoring. Healthy Start's chief objective is to prevent infant mortality, defined as death between birth and age one -- essentially the scope of the pro-life mission, mirrored outside the vagina.
Yet when Healthy Start was up for congressional reauthorization last year, the bill had just four Republican co-sponsors.
Maybe the others were too busy sorting donated burp cloths at the local crisis pregnancy center?
11
"Many of the women I have encountered believe they have no choice but to abort."
This is the key: choice.
If we provided support for women who do not want to have an abortion, and for their children, including financial support, medical support, community and social support, childcare including in-home help, educational support, psychological support, employment and/or job training where appropriate and desired (I likely missed some kind of support in my list) then women would have just that - a choice about whether or not to have an abortion.
Yet, even with all that support, the need for abortion services would not be eliminated. Terminating a pregnancy would still be the right choice for some.
This is the key: choice.
If we provided support for women who do not want to have an abortion, and for their children, including financial support, medical support, community and social support, childcare including in-home help, educational support, psychological support, employment and/or job training where appropriate and desired (I likely missed some kind of support in my list) then women would have just that - a choice about whether or not to have an abortion.
Yet, even with all that support, the need for abortion services would not be eliminated. Terminating a pregnancy would still be the right choice for some.
6
I had two abortions -- one illegal, from which I hemorrhaged and almost died, and one legal, which was done free by my OB/gynecologist because she neglected to tell me I should use another form of birth control for the first month after my IUD was inserted and I became pregnant. I knew I could not support myself and a child at that point in my life. I have never regretted either one, and economics were definitely a part of my decision.
15
It is frustrating to see arguments to ban abortion based on principle, presented as something else. Nowhere, in this article does Ms. Szala explain why she there is problem with the fact that planned parenthood programs are effective in aiding income distribution. On the other hand, she offers the vague promise of her program. If she is to argument that strongly against the "mediocrity" of the "easy solution" (a judgmental statement that does not belong in a sensible conversation), she needs to present evidence that go beyond her personal experience. Many well intended and creative programs fail when they expand beyond a small close knitted community.
3
family planning is done by most congressmen and Senators-- that is why they have one or two children - very rare is there a family of five to ten. The public only wants family planning that our elected politicians themselves practice. Family planning is more likely to result in a happy family. Planned parenthood is a positive good idea to participate in reduction of the population . We all know we can receive begging letters from photos of babies who are dying from lack of food - hard to see babies dying Family planning has proven to show that abortions are lowest when family planning is available to people. That is why Obama reduced the number of abortions the lowest ever of any other President and all he did is offer family planning to US citizens and also globally- it makes a lot of sense.
7
When you said, "...I left school to work full time. I eventually worked my way up the ladder at an investment firm.." it indicates that you had an enormous amount of privilege and assistance in childcare. In what imaginary 2017 does a single mother of an infant without a college degree work her way up in an investment firm? Maybe 30 years ago, maybe. Today, to even get an entry level position at a firm you would need a degree. To get the degree while paying for childcare, rent, and tuition...well, you see how abortion is indeed an economic issue.
20
I don't get it. Is the author pro-choice? This whole article appears to be concerned with supporting women. But then it makes the assumption that every woman only wants abortion the way an animal caught in a trap wants to chew off its leg. Every woman's circumstance, outlook, emotional and financial resources, is different. Women who are not emotionally ready to have children (or more children) should not be made to feel ashamed of their feelings or of their decision. Providing maximum support to women includes preserving and providing access to abortion. You can't really be for women--all women--and against choice.
5
Congratulations, Ms Szala. I am glad things worked out for you. I have known several women who had unplanned births and went on to finish high school, college and even graduate school. Without exception, they were supported by family. perhaps even the father, were smart, were motivated and knew how to get the resources they needed. Unfortunately that is not typical. Some people need an easy way out. I hope your organization is well-funded and continues to expand. My cynical side, however, says "good luck with that".
3
A decidedly weak piece. In response to the opinion that "Opposition to abortion rights is a key factor keeping women and kids in poverty," the author writes, "It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress." Setting aside the stridency of the second clause, I must say the first loses me. Either people suffer economic harm or they don't. It's not a question of objectifying them.
There's much that needs to be said and listened to calmly on the subject of abortion, especially about the ethical aspect and about the woman's sovereignty, if any, over the fetus. But these occasional "other side" op-eds are so objectionable that one wonders if they're not being presented as straw men for easy demolition.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp/
There's much that needs to be said and listened to calmly on the subject of abortion, especially about the ethical aspect and about the woman's sovereignty, if any, over the fetus. But these occasional "other side" op-eds are so objectionable that one wonders if they're not being presented as straw men for easy demolition.
http://thefamilyproperty.blogspot.jp/
1
You don't speak for many women who choose, without any pressure, to have an abortion, for many reasons. You are reducing and simplifying the argument the other way and doing a disservice to women, to people.
Yes, YOU WERE LUCKY. Many are not. To me it sounds as if you're using your luck to wield a judgmental hammer on the rest of us.
I am pro-choice, not "pro-abortion".
I am also "pro-life", as any woman who has had an abortion would tell you.
Yes, YOU WERE LUCKY. Many are not. To me it sounds as if you're using your luck to wield a judgmental hammer on the rest of us.
I am pro-choice, not "pro-abortion".
I am also "pro-life", as any woman who has had an abortion would tell you.
7
It is wonderful seeing a pro-life point of view in the New York Times for a change. This seldom occurs and it gives those of us on the pro life side hope. I am adamantly pro life and feel that women who are so vehemently pro abortion are very selfish and uncaring. They use all sorts of lame excuses for supporting abortion - career building, want their independence, it is just a blob of cells.
Thank goodness that the Republicans are the pro-life party. Hopefully Planned Parenthood will be defunded soon which will mean fewer abortions. We have had close to 60 million babies denied life due to this tragedy. When will this barbaric behavior end? Hopefully soon.
Thank goodness that the Republicans are the pro-life party. Hopefully Planned Parenthood will be defunded soon which will mean fewer abortions. We have had close to 60 million babies denied life due to this tragedy. When will this barbaric behavior end? Hopefully soon.
4
How much postpartum support for new mothers from organizations that profess to be "pro life?" Child care, emotional support, etc.?
Lori Szala is the new face of the anti-abortion marketing effort--young, attractive, female, and seemingly compassionate toward mothers seeking abortion. We recently saw another op-ed contributor who fit this profile. No longer do anti-abortion groups headline stern older men who judge the mothers and preach damnation. It wasn't working. The anti-abortion movement has become more sophisticated.
These women have a different message for different audiences. On the pages of the New York Times, Szala's message is all about compassion. She claims that her organization--Human Coalition--is dedicated to helping mothers make the choice to continue the pregnancy. You might believe from this op ed that Human Coalition provides maternity care, or housing and childcare assistance. They provide what every religiously-affiliated pregnancy crisis center does--a free ultrasound and the message that abortion causes cancer and infertility.
I believe that anyone who heads an organization that announces on its website that Planned Parenthood sells baby body parts for profit has to be an extremist. She is putting on the softer face of the movement, but she's not being honest.
These women have a different message for different audiences. On the pages of the New York Times, Szala's message is all about compassion. She claims that her organization--Human Coalition--is dedicated to helping mothers make the choice to continue the pregnancy. You might believe from this op ed that Human Coalition provides maternity care, or housing and childcare assistance. They provide what every religiously-affiliated pregnancy crisis center does--a free ultrasound and the message that abortion causes cancer and infertility.
I believe that anyone who heads an organization that announces on its website that Planned Parenthood sells baby body parts for profit has to be an extremist. She is putting on the softer face of the movement, but she's not being honest.
How can anyone go along with abortion? It is the taking of an innocent human life who has absolutely no say whatsoever in the matter. I am saddened to read so many comments condoning abortion and it makes me cringe when I think of this procedure occurring without people seeing the evil involved. How can people not see that murdering a child in the womb is wrong and not be sickened by it?
We should be celebrating life and not ending it. What have we become when we allow innocent babies to be slaughtered? What has happened to
our humanity and morality? We are really a disturbed people and that is frightening.
We should be celebrating life and not ending it. What have we become when we allow innocent babies to be slaughtered? What has happened to
our humanity and morality? We are really a disturbed people and that is frightening.
3
The whole point is to have a choice. Period. If women can't control their bodies, they can't control their lives.
6
If I get pregnant accidentally, I will abort the baby because I don't want to be a mother, and I don't want anyone else to raise my children. That's it.
So I accept Szala's premise that, ultimately, economic considerations shouldn't define a woman's reproductive capacity.
But I'm still pro abortion because I'm probably going to have sex again, and I know accidents do happen.
Also, if I did change my mind and wanted a baby, I'd still want to abort if it tested positive for a chromosomal disorder.
So I accept Szala's premise that, ultimately, economic considerations shouldn't define a woman's reproductive capacity.
But I'm still pro abortion because I'm probably going to have sex again, and I know accidents do happen.
Also, if I did change my mind and wanted a baby, I'd still want to abort if it tested positive for a chromosomal disorder.
2
How about contraception! There are now many options for women that are long lasting and effective but also reversible. Sure, that does not take away abortion as an important issue. I believe that all women should have access to abortion and also, that if we give all women access to effective contraception, abortion should be much more rare. An extremely important adjunct also is Plan B or emergency contraceptive pill that will not disrupt an already implanted pregnancy, but if taken early enough after an unplanned intercourse (or rape) will prevent pregnancy. Plan B is very inexpensive and should be available to all women. These two options need to be shouted from the rooftops -- effective, long lasting, reversible contraception along with emergency contraception -- should help us make abortion much more rare.
6
The problem is most conservatives aren't trying to remove any of the problems that lead women to abortion, they just try limiting abortions. Most of these red states spend way too much time shutting down clinics and worrying about planned parenthood, and not enough time worrying about assisting with childcare or paid maternity leave. This woman's example is the exception to the rule.
18
Even if your gross generalization were true, conservatives are not required to stand by mutely and passively in the face of destructive behavior and confine themselves solely to ameliorating its effects.
Although, clearly, that is the position the pro-abortion crowd would like for them.
Although, clearly, that is the position the pro-abortion crowd would like for them.
Except when you generalize the opportunities of her personal choices to the rest of the female pregnant population in the US... its still an unborn CHILD not a piece of trash...
Pregnancy out of marriage is punishment for sex out of marriage...
Pregnancy out of marriage is punishment for sex out of marriage...
How about family planning? How about effectively using birth control? How about personal responsibility instead of expecting everyone else to "sacrifice and serve and treasure" women who irresponsibly get pregnant when they don't want a child?
I'm pro choice. But I'm really tired of people in seemingly EVERY situation in the US failing to take personal responsibility, and instead expecting someone or everyone else to bail them out.
It's not like there are a shortage of problems to deal with or debt that should be paid.
I'm pro choice. But I'm really tired of people in seemingly EVERY situation in the US failing to take personal responsibility, and instead expecting someone or everyone else to bail them out.
It's not like there are a shortage of problems to deal with or debt that should be paid.
4
Those who oppose abortion frequently oppose effective family planning too.
There is little evidence that women use abortion as birth control. It is simply that we don't provide access to free/low-cost birth control like other developed nations.
There is little evidence that women use abortion as birth control. It is simply that we don't provide access to free/low-cost birth control like other developed nations.
9
When life begins and how sacred a life may be is viewed so differently, from culture to culture, person to person. In India, for example, some Hindus go to great lengths never to kill an insect, even by accident. Yet at the same time, in India, some devout Hindus believe that a person, born into a lower caste, can be left unfed, uneducated, unhoused, unclothed - because "undeserving" due to caste status.
We too have such anomalies. Some US Christians pursue and persecute persons accessing a legal abortion in decidedly unchristlike ways. While refusing to tax themselves to assure parents and babies adequate healthcare, daycare or even a living wage.
Do Christians adopt fertile eggs and have them implanted, so as to ensure their birthing? Do they force women or couples to give these eggs up or bring them to birth?
We can't just persecute vulnerable women, simply because they've become pregnant, no matter what decisions they make as to its outcome. Whatever their circumstances, unless society cares about its young, it's pregnant, its parents, wages, healthcare, good social services and education, we are failing morally and ethically.
Can we not dedicate ourselves to caring about each other? Understanding each other? Valuing each other? I think if we do that - better - we will be better off as a society. Let's not have unwanted, neglected or abused children. Can't we start there?
We too have such anomalies. Some US Christians pursue and persecute persons accessing a legal abortion in decidedly unchristlike ways. While refusing to tax themselves to assure parents and babies adequate healthcare, daycare or even a living wage.
Do Christians adopt fertile eggs and have them implanted, so as to ensure their birthing? Do they force women or couples to give these eggs up or bring them to birth?
We can't just persecute vulnerable women, simply because they've become pregnant, no matter what decisions they make as to its outcome. Whatever their circumstances, unless society cares about its young, it's pregnant, its parents, wages, healthcare, good social services and education, we are failing morally and ethically.
Can we not dedicate ourselves to caring about each other? Understanding each other? Valuing each other? I think if we do that - better - we will be better off as a society. Let's not have unwanted, neglected or abused children. Can't we start there?
9
Does the author think that Bernie Sanders will use this Op-Ed to enlist support for his progressive platform?
If the fetus is not human, and just a composite of zygotes and cells, we have no business criminalizing feticide (i.e. by a third party). But we do, and none of the outraged commenters here would have it any different. They want the identity of the perpetrator, not the act perpetrated, to control criminal sanction. To put it mildly, this is not what the criminal law is about.
And if the criterion is whether the fetus is "sentient", then abortion up to the moment of actual delivery should be permitted. Which it is not, and no one, even feminists, is proposing. (Leave aside all snark about whether all post-delivery humans are sentient. We could all pick sides on that one.)
And if the criterion is whether the fetus is "sentient", then abortion up to the moment of actual delivery should be permitted. Which it is not, and no one, even feminists, is proposing. (Leave aside all snark about whether all post-delivery humans are sentient. We could all pick sides on that one.)
3
The economic impact of abortion is that millions of Americans are missing under the age of 43. These people would be working, paying taxes, supporting social security, buying cars, half (at least) would probably be having their own families now and contributing to our society. The population in America is top heavy with baby-boomers and seniors. This has also impacted elections, as younger people are the main votes for liberals. But in the last election, there were not enough of them ALIVE to vote. Younger adults have energy to protest and are dramatic in their involvement, but the fact is there are not enough of them to overturn votes of older Americans. So, abortion by eliminating generations of workers, taxpayers and voters has changed many factors in our society. Also, many of the things that these eliminated people would have invented, produced and manufactured does not exist. If America keeps aborting it's people, the Muslims will easily overtake our country without a shot being fired, simply by the number of babies they produce. Also, just as when manufacturers of shackles lobbied against slaves being freed, abortion manufacturers are cashing in on this industry.
Abortion is an economic issue!
Abortion is an economic issue!
As a Christian I believe abortion is a sin. As an intellectual, I believe it is a citizen's right. The reality is, no human being lives without sin. Most abortions occur because gender power differentials put women in untenable situations. Most sins occur because someone wanted something pleasurable at someone else's expense. Most abortions occur because a woman wanted to survive -- intact, as herself. It's much more than economics, but certainly in the hostile capitalism we now live, economics, i.e., poverty, can-- and do--destroy lives. How many pro-lifers have been homeless?
9
My man... you speak right... its punishment for sex outside of the marriage bed...
As an atheist, I don't believe in your god or books that tell you tales about your god. I live in a country where The Constitution says there is separation of church and state which means the state cannot force it's religious beliefs on me. I believe in the right to control my own body and that a blastocyst or zygote or fetus is not a human being equivalent to me. I also believe that whether or not a woman has an abortion or not is strictly her business and no one else's. This is a private medical matter. Abortions are as old as pregnancy.
14
Mmm... not true... the 1st humans... both in religion... and in evolution had children... with no means to get abortion... a more accurate statement is... abortion is as old as prostitution...
1
Ms. Szala being so confident about the power of her organization, then why restrict the choice of women? If abortion were legal, accessible and low cost but no woman opted for it, wouldn't that be the BEST solution? The issue is more complex. It is factual that having a choice (i.e., an effective functioning planned parenthood) has an effect on income level. Middle class mothers can easily fall into poverty because of an untimely pregnancy.
I doubt our society is willing to help less because we have planned parenthood. Situations are complex, humans more so - as a rule of thumb - a single program rarely will be the solution, but rather a combination of them. Ms. Szala's tunnel vision is unfortunate.
I doubt our society is willing to help less because we have planned parenthood. Situations are complex, humans more so - as a rule of thumb - a single program rarely will be the solution, but rather a combination of them. Ms. Szala's tunnel vision is unfortunate.
6
From the National Institutes of Health
"Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.
METHODS:
We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.
RESULTS:
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
CONCLUSION:
Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
Can you imagine banning a procedure for MEN that made them 14 time less likely to DIE?
"Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.
METHODS:
We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.
RESULTS:
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
CONCLUSION:
Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
Can you imagine banning a procedure for MEN that made them 14 time less likely to DIE?
14
You forgot the 100% morbidity rate for the child in each of those pregnancies - wasn't too safe for them.
2
So, I guess the writer's "organization" has solved the problems of paying for prenatal care, birth, postnatal health care, maternal health care, child care, food costs, and the interruption of work and its attendant loss of income, caused by pregnancy and parenthood. I guess her "organization" has eliminated all these concerns for all mothers across the country. At least, I can only assume these economic concerns have been completely and forever eliminated, because the writer asserts that all of those concerns are invalid.
I notice that the writer provides only one anecdote to support her broad assertions, and that the single story she provides as evidence of the strength of such organizations as hers, actually demonstrates only the value of having a strong family network. She fails to list even a single story from that much-praised "organization" of hers, let alone any other data. She doesn't provide data from any other organization like hers, nor describe how many women in our society have access to such an organization. (Not to mention the assertions about post-abortion depression and the many women "forced" to have unwanted abortions that also go unsupported.)
Where's the data to support any of this writer's assertions? It is absent here because it doesn't exist. And this writer dehumanizes every woman who chooses to end a pregnancy by making up stories about their decisions.
I notice that the writer provides only one anecdote to support her broad assertions, and that the single story she provides as evidence of the strength of such organizations as hers, actually demonstrates only the value of having a strong family network. She fails to list even a single story from that much-praised "organization" of hers, let alone any other data. She doesn't provide data from any other organization like hers, nor describe how many women in our society have access to such an organization. (Not to mention the assertions about post-abortion depression and the many women "forced" to have unwanted abortions that also go unsupported.)
Where's the data to support any of this writer's assertions? It is absent here because it doesn't exist. And this writer dehumanizes every woman who chooses to end a pregnancy by making up stories about their decisions.
11
The mindset that society has a right to determine whether and under what circumstances a woman can have an abortion is the root of the injustice. I am all for supporting mothers and children. That support is where civilized social contract begins. I also support the idea that whether or not to use a morning after pill, seek surgical abortion or remain pregnant is every woman's choice. To legislate what she must do with her body is dehumanizing and is part of a cultural attitude about women that allows them to be treated as less valuable than men and in need of control and instruction. Pregnancy and trauma from sexual assault will continue to be treated by insurance companies as undesirable and expensive medical conditions instead of the facts of life. Until women gain sovereignty over their own bodies in terms of medical decisions, rape laws and domestic violence protection, there will be no equality economically or socially.
14
It's not the woman's body that is the issue in abortion - it's the baby who gets killed- he/she was never given a choice
Women will never be able to achieve equality, economic or otherwise, until they have 100% control over their own reproductive health. Despite the way it is framed here, ultimately Ms. Szala exercised her right to choose. That is every woman's right. If all of the responsibility (and blame) for pregnancy and everything that goes with it is going to continue to be dumped in the laps of women and women alone, you need only to look at our lopsided legislature for the source. 50% or more will solve the problem of having to have this discussion ad nausea.
Oh yeah, Separation of church and state.
Oh yeah, Separation of church and state.
10
Everyone's experience will be different, but taking care of a child takes time and money. Government regulations against abortions force women (and children!) who may want something different to instead take care of their child, and child care is the primary reason that women earn substantially less than men. Economics is a statistical science subject to variation, so it doesn't apply to all cases, but in general forcibly preventing a woman from having an abortion she wants will lead to a lifetime of lower income and reduced upward mobility.
5
Abortion is definitely linked to economic empowerment for women, much of the success women have attained in education and the professional world and in gaining rights in the last 40 years is directly linked to (1) legal abortion and (2) birth control pill.
Once women could safely control when and how often they would reproduce, they could finish high school, finish college, finish graduate school and go on to successful careers. And guess what, once you can support yourself you have power and rights that you didn't have when you are relying on a husband or parents to support you. I am all for making abortion safe, legal and rare, so let's embrace easy access and long acting birth control devices for all women, regardless of whether they can pay and whether or not their employer has decided his religion should take precedence.
Once women could safely control when and how often they would reproduce, they could finish high school, finish college, finish graduate school and go on to successful careers. And guess what, once you can support yourself you have power and rights that you didn't have when you are relying on a husband or parents to support you. I am all for making abortion safe, legal and rare, so let's embrace easy access and long acting birth control devices for all women, regardless of whether they can pay and whether or not their employer has decided his religion should take precedence.
9
Bearing a child carries a bit under a 1 in 6 risk of depression. That risk increases for any woman who is indigent, has other young children and lacks a caring spouse or partner.
Cure poverty and you'll not only save many women from abortion, you'll also save them and their children from a depressed mother.
Cure poverty and you'll not only save many women from abortion, you'll also save them and their children from a depressed mother.
4
Some of what is here is wonderful and I absolutely agree. What the writer totally fails to acknowledge is that there's a group of people in this country--and in our government and judicial system--who are bound and determined to deny women the CHOICE of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. If one of the pro-choice arguments is drawing link between the need for abortions and poverty, it's made purely in defense of the concept that women should have the choice in the first place. Szala says that poor women chose abortions like wild animals will gnaw off a leg if stuck in a trap, but that seems to me a much better simile to describe how women feel when they are pregnant against their will and forced to carry a baby to term, no matter what the circumstances. I've lived through two pregnancies and have two children, both of which experiences have been challenging enough when I did them by choice; to imagine being pregnant and forced into motherhood against my will is almost overwhelming. To ignore the reality of those women thoroughly undermines any value in this argument.
7
Thank you for this article. I'm so tired of folks framing the pro-choice (increasingly pro-abortion) position as the position of all women. I wish everyone pregnant woman who can give birth and did not want to raise a child would choose adoption and not abortion, but I think abortion should be legal because I believe in mercy and do not want women to die from back alley jobs.
Having said that, I also think it is dishonest to frame the abortion debate as only about a woman's body. There are at least two living organisms coexisting in a healthy pregnancy. For women, the choice about what to do with our bodies should be made at the time of intercourse--have sex or don't/use protection or don't. The harshness and sometimes cruel way people discuss fetuses (which under normal circumstances are celebrated) is really shocking and increasingly turns me off to identifying myself as a progressive. But if you are going to hold the pro-choice/abortion is no big deal position, at least be honest and say, I recognize there are two living beings but I just value the older one's life more than the would be child's. Don't pretend there's no life involved but the would be mother's.
Having said that, I also think it is dishonest to frame the abortion debate as only about a woman's body. There are at least two living organisms coexisting in a healthy pregnancy. For women, the choice about what to do with our bodies should be made at the time of intercourse--have sex or don't/use protection or don't. The harshness and sometimes cruel way people discuss fetuses (which under normal circumstances are celebrated) is really shocking and increasingly turns me off to identifying myself as a progressive. But if you are going to hold the pro-choice/abortion is no big deal position, at least be honest and say, I recognize there are two living beings but I just value the older one's life more than the would be child's. Don't pretend there's no life involved but the would be mother's.
1
I think that, too often, people overlook the fact that most, if not all, women absolutely agonize over the decision - even the least sensitive and uneducated ones. I don't think any women take the decision lightly.
2
Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human
being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those
debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went
through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to
death. Would these very same people agree that a similar choice should have been made about their own existence?
Abortion today is used primarily as a
birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take
precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the
care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking
responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a
woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of
discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter!
Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the
constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this
country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe
abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to
overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this
country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self
destruction.
being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those
debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went
through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to
death. Would these very same people agree that a similar choice should have been made about their own existence?
Abortion today is used primarily as a
birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take
precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the
care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking
responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a
woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of
discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter!
Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the
constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this
country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe
abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to
overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this
country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self
destruction.
1
The author equates abortion with child murder. If she believes this, then any argument about economics or about whether or not women's futures are compromised is irrelevant, and she is wasting her time. Implicit in her view is that any harm to the woman short of death is outweighed by the fetus's right to life. If it is her view that this is so and that abortion should be illegal, she should make that argument rather than denying the consequences to women of unplanned pregnancies.
16
I don't see her denying the consequences, the article is explicitly addressing how society creates those consequences and how they might be addressed in a way that provides, perhaps, a truer choice.
2
I agree. Specious reasoning, the "your slip is showing" sign of one-dimensional thinking.
1
And to be clear, i do not believe the government has any proper place in anyone's decision to use birth control, to choose abortion, or in who to marry.
2
And yet: why deprive woman the choice of an abortion?
Women are full citizens. Their bodies are their own.
They get to make their own decisions, and everything.
Ms. Szala made hers, but I noticed she had to get her anti abortion screed in about how it's somehow easy and not thought through by women.
Ms. Szala seems to believe because one woman regretted her choice to abort, it is therefore a choice that will prove to be irreparable for all women.
Studies have shown she is wrong; most women who get an abortion are relieved, and don't wring their hands over that choice for the rest of their lives.
Most continue to support legal abortion, as well.
Comtrolling reproduction is the base for patriarchies throughout history; I see no reason to return to a time when women were denied their sexuality, and were forced into marriage, intercourse, and the inevitable children that followed. The only ones who benefitted from the structure were men, by design.
It is the 21st century, and we demand the right to make our own choices with our bodies.
Women are full citizens. Their bodies are their own.
They get to make their own decisions, and everything.
Ms. Szala made hers, but I noticed she had to get her anti abortion screed in about how it's somehow easy and not thought through by women.
Ms. Szala seems to believe because one woman regretted her choice to abort, it is therefore a choice that will prove to be irreparable for all women.
Studies have shown she is wrong; most women who get an abortion are relieved, and don't wring their hands over that choice for the rest of their lives.
Most continue to support legal abortion, as well.
Comtrolling reproduction is the base for patriarchies throughout history; I see no reason to return to a time when women were denied their sexuality, and were forced into marriage, intercourse, and the inevitable children that followed. The only ones who benefitted from the structure were men, by design.
It is the 21st century, and we demand the right to make our own choices with our bodies.
20
There are many jurisdictions in these strangely unpleasant states where the first response to rape does not include a morning-after pill to relieve the victim of worry about pregnancy.
1
So is the babies body... do you want to deny the babies right to live? It might not be able to think for itself within the womb... but it is still a living being... Have the kid... but put it up for adoption if you don't or can't take care of it...
1
try birth control. No one is killing children. embryos and fetuses are not sentient!
10
Just make sure birth control remains an option. Planned Parenthood is not only about abortion. It provides access to birth control and other vital services related to women's health. It is criminal that the US Senate committee working on health care has not one single woman. Every woman should write to every one of the committee members and insist they refuse to even start work without adding women to this effort. What are they thinking?
4
I will point out here what should be obvious to everyone (the author included): she made a choice, and was fortunate to be able to do so. It all worked out for her - and kudos, we all need to hear more of these stories. However, her story does not address the myriad of reasons that women seek abortion (and regardless of what people may think, it is a difficult, often agonizing thought process that one goes through in making the decision to terminate a pregnancy). What about victims of rape or incest? Women who are told their unborn child will die before or during childbirth and suffer unbearable agony as a result?
14
Had to stop reading this the moment that the author said that parents are killing their children. A fetus is NOT a child. A female body naturally produces fertilized eggs that never implant. We make no effort to save these because they are not children. IVF clinics dump millions embryos every year. I don't see you worried about the millions of children killed in this situation.
Second, given that many of those against abortion are also Republicans who are against any and all kinds of social support for women and children, your pitch for finding other options is pretty much useless.
Second, given that many of those against abortion are also Republicans who are against any and all kinds of social support for women and children, your pitch for finding other options is pretty much useless.
22
Well, a person who does something bad gets punished right? Well sex out of marriage is wrong... I take these abortions more like a moral punishment... you have sex outside of marriage... or you don't use protection... then you can say "this thing is just weighing me down" and go to the nearest clinic and have it removed... You are ending lives (potential lives at that) and thats not okay.
1
The link between low income and unwanted (or numerous) pregnancies is a real one. Accusing studies showing it of "dishonesty" is a manipulation of facts. Furthermore, even in her individual case, Ms. Szala is neglecting to account for external help she received in order to survive as a single mother. Like the home she moved in and the costs of of her training. Many women do not have that option - hence the results in the studies.
Abortion is a dramatic ethical dilemma because most women face financial strain in addition to other concerns.
Abortion is a dramatic ethical dilemma because most women face financial strain in addition to other concerns.
8
Abortion is about Christian extremism, male dominance, and Reagan's Southern Strategy to divide working class Catholics from voting Democrat.
It's a political agenda fueled by male (and Catholic) panic at the rising power of women to lead lives independent of male authority.
The religious fanatics have effectively won the abortion wars by making it a state issue, which they now regret because liberal states such as California and New York are firmly in the control of citizens who respect the Constitution and understand that freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. So now they want to impose a federal ban and controlling the Supreme Court is their main agenda. Trump was only too happy to oblige. Abortion is the ultimate political diversion -- keeps citizens arguing over angels on a pinhead and oblivious to the corporate and 1 percent thieving Republicans are in business to foster.
Concerned about the quality of human life? Anti-abortionists aren't. They just want to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou while living lives of abject sinfulness (by their own selective religious standards). Otherwise alcohol and tobacco companies destroy more lives than the few adult, non-Catholic women who decide to have an abortion.
The vast majority of abortions every year are for teen pregnancies and for Catholic women, who choose abortion more than any other religious affiliation.
More right wing subterfuge. A fake op-ed to go with fake news.
It's a political agenda fueled by male (and Catholic) panic at the rising power of women to lead lives independent of male authority.
The religious fanatics have effectively won the abortion wars by making it a state issue, which they now regret because liberal states such as California and New York are firmly in the control of citizens who respect the Constitution and understand that freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. So now they want to impose a federal ban and controlling the Supreme Court is their main agenda. Trump was only too happy to oblige. Abortion is the ultimate political diversion -- keeps citizens arguing over angels on a pinhead and oblivious to the corporate and 1 percent thieving Republicans are in business to foster.
Concerned about the quality of human life? Anti-abortionists aren't. They just want to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou while living lives of abject sinfulness (by their own selective religious standards). Otherwise alcohol and tobacco companies destroy more lives than the few adult, non-Catholic women who decide to have an abortion.
The vast majority of abortions every year are for teen pregnancies and for Catholic women, who choose abortion more than any other religious affiliation.
More right wing subterfuge. A fake op-ed to go with fake news.
22
Why don’t pro-lifers, especially politicians, (although really they’re just anti-abortion people) don't rail against men who use condoms or get vasectomies to prevent fertilization which is turn prevents pregnancies. Is this not a form of procreation avoidance by men? Yet all the hateful criticism is directed at women who want to use contraceptives to plan their lives as they see fit without religious zealots or politicians running interference.
But men, they get a free pass as usual, with their condescending attitude toward women being disgustingly patronizing and sexist.
But men, they get a free pass as usual, with their condescending attitude toward women being disgustingly patronizing and sexist.
16
Seriously, what is this? You published a piece by this woman's colleague back in February. I'm perfectly versant in both the anti-choice position and the climate change denial positions. I don't understand why the Times has decided to present them both. If this is what the Times means when it says it's committed to truth, no thank you, I'm not interested.
26
This article hardly qualifies as "truth" so who knows what the motivation actually is. I wonder why the Times feels the need to provide a pulpit for such an extremist and anti-woman viewpoint--don't they get enough media time (especially since November)?
2
Thank you for your article and for your courageous decision.
The author provides a lovely personal witness, but misses the larger devastating link between poverty - specifically female and child poverty - and abortion. Progressive ideology promotes parenthood not as a verifiable biological reality (which it is) but as a lifestyle choice. This cherished "choice" of whether or not to "be" a parent has resulted in record levels of child abandonment - which is the primary source of feminized and child poverty throughout wealthy western democracies (US, European, Nordic). Fewer fathers are caring for their children currently in western europe than after the great war. It's the terrible paradox of second wave feminists, having secured the goals of 1st wave feminists wildest dreams (voting rights, property rights, access to education and the professions) women are poorer and more burdened with childcare. Poverty has become feminized (google scholar for a wealth of studies) since reproductive rights were championed in the 60s. So long as the number of pro-choice men outstrips the number of pro-choice women - women and children are at risk of poverty and deprivation. Progressives celebrate freedom to "choose" parenthood, but at what cost to women and children? Positive suggestion - joint custody for biological parents. You both made the child, you both care for the child. Grown-up care for children, it's what we do. Co - parenting, it's cool!
2
The author had many more advantages and support than most women. Her story is irrelevant to the majority of people making this difficult choice.
13
What gets lost in all of this is the fact that abortion has always been with us. Roe v. Wade did not invent it, it just made it safer. When we marched to demand the right to a safe and legal abortion, it was because of those we knew who were forced into the other kind. The one in the back alleys and kitchen tables of those who knew (mostly) what to do. I'm old enough to have lived in both worlds (before and after Roe) - and I can tell you, after is better. I know of many of women who've had an abortion (myself included) and when it was illegal, they had illegal ones, and when it became legal, they had legal ones. So, for all of you working to make abortion illegal again, you'll just drive it back to the back alleys and kitchen tables of the past. And women will die who would not otherwise have died from an abortion. But then again, for some of the virulent anti-abortion activists that is a just punishment in their mind. And it's all about punishment in the end, isn't it? You bad, bad women, who did something you weren't supposed to do, now you're being punished as you should be. Can't let you have control over your own bodies without being punished for such audacity.
17
Ms. Szala is one of many people who assumes that their circumstances, decisions and judgement can(should) be applied across the entire population of the earth.
23
Abortion is not murder and forced gestation is a form of slavery. It's pretty simple. Women have the right to bodily autonomy and it is immoral and unethical to reduce them to no more than a means to an end even if you 'believe' that end is good. Additionally, if female citizens are to be denied basic rights and autonomy then male citizens should as well and we can demand the government commandeer and regulate use of ALL organs, not just uteruses, for the 'greater good'. It's only fair that men should get some skin in the game and experience what it is like to have your most basic rights denied.
19
Being pro-choice means both the ability to choose to abort a pregnancy if a woman feeds that's the best choice and the ability to choose to keep the baby. I'm sorry you were being pressured to abort when you didn't want to, but that doesn't make your choice the right one for every woman.
And yes, if pro-life people were actually serious about being pro-life they'd put their money where their mouths are and actually help deal with the underlying economic problems a woman has. Well, assuming the problem is economic and not something like rape or finding out your baby has a birth defect or not being emotionally ready to deal with a child.
And yes, if pro-life people were actually serious about being pro-life they'd put their money where their mouths are and actually help deal with the underlying economic problems a woman has. Well, assuming the problem is economic and not something like rape or finding out your baby has a birth defect or not being emotionally ready to deal with a child.
7
Perhaps if our society didn't see a single woman who has become pregnant as somehow undeserving of help or worse a pariah we could make some progress. Obviously in a less judgmental society what these people would get would be some help with their situation that also didn't result in a parental type treatment of the woman involved. Too often the choice to receive help means giving up some control over the situation and basically being treated like a ward of the state. We could treat them like adults and help them improve their lives without it seeming like punishment or captivity. That's how it's done in some more enlightened countries. Abortion should be a legal procedure only necessary if their are some severe health consequences to continuing the pregnancy. We are living in a very religious society and many of the attitudes of the men toward women come from their intolerant religious beliefs as to the role of women in world. Even people who seem to have given up their outward signs of religion harbor the same deep seated beliefs concerning such things.
2
Ms. Szala makes the mistake of generalizing from a sample of one - herself. She is absolutely wrong that having a child at a young age does not hinder a woman's chances of leading a productive, successful life. The majority of women who have an abortion are relieved, not depressed.
It would be great if all young women who get pregnant would receive the help they need to have and raise a child while continuing their education, if she chose to. But the interest of our cheap, hypocritical, hateful Republican party ends once the baby is born. (Not to mention their refusal to fund birth control and sex education.)
I'm afraid Ms. Szala is the rare exception who was able to thrive in spite of having a baby at a young age. Good for her. She beat the odds. Women still need to have a chouce.
It would be great if all young women who get pregnant would receive the help they need to have and raise a child while continuing their education, if she chose to. But the interest of our cheap, hypocritical, hateful Republican party ends once the baby is born. (Not to mention their refusal to fund birth control and sex education.)
I'm afraid Ms. Szala is the rare exception who was able to thrive in spite of having a baby at a young age. Good for her. She beat the odds. Women still need to have a chouce.
27
Wonderful comment, Eric! Thanks for pointing out the statistical flaw in the article, but doing it in a compassionate way.
Childbearing and child rearing is such a joy and privilege, when the child is both wanted and adequate parenting and support, financial, social and psychological, surrounds both the bearing and the rearing. Nothing is worse for a child than to feel unwanted, neglected, abused. Nothing.
We need adequate, guaranteed parental leave, so no mother is forced to leave a baby in the care of anyone but herself. We need socially provided daycare with fully qualified and certified teachers of young children, adequate facilities, an excellent ratio of caring adults to vulnerable children, and lifelong medical care for families - from conception to a compassionate death.
We live in a country which is losing touch with compassion, in its zeal for saving money - so the very rich can keep all they have and get all their profits too. That is worse than abortion any day.
Childbearing and child rearing is such a joy and privilege, when the child is both wanted and adequate parenting and support, financial, social and psychological, surrounds both the bearing and the rearing. Nothing is worse for a child than to feel unwanted, neglected, abused. Nothing.
We need adequate, guaranteed parental leave, so no mother is forced to leave a baby in the care of anyone but herself. We need socially provided daycare with fully qualified and certified teachers of young children, adequate facilities, an excellent ratio of caring adults to vulnerable children, and lifelong medical care for families - from conception to a compassionate death.
We live in a country which is losing touch with compassion, in its zeal for saving money - so the very rich can keep all they have and get all their profits too. That is worse than abortion any day.
4
In 1974 when I was a freshman in college, I became pregnant after having unprotected sex with my fiance, who as I would find out a few months later, was also having sex with a 15 year old girl (they are still married today). I fainted before the procedure, and while I was having the procedure he went to have his car washed. Afterwards, they gave me birth control pills and counseled me. My fiance threw the pills away the next week because he didn't believe in them. Our relationship was over within weeks after being together a good portion of high school, and not having sex with him until I was in college. I graduated from college three years later. I might add that my parents were great but there was no way my mother would have ever discussed family planning with me, and we didn't get anything in school other than the 4th grade Kotex book. I don't regret it and I am thankful and yes, I did learn my lesson for all of you anti-abortion folks - you are the same people who would not have allowed me the birth control pills either. If that sounds horrible - so be it - but it is the truth, and when you think you are in love and believe that person loves you too....until you find out he does not.
20
I was in a very similar situation as you, in that everyone in my circle was telling me to get an abortion. But i didnt have the friend pleading with me not to have one. I had just had a son a little over a year old and got pregnant again, and my husband didn't want to go through it all again, and our little 2 bedroom apartment seems so small and our finances so stretched as it was and adding another baby into the mix seemed like too much. I wanted to keep it but my husband said "no no no" and my sister (who is very liberal) said I should respect his wishes and we couldn't afford another baby. (i wonder if she would have said 'respect his wishes' if it had been ther other way around, i wanted the abortion and he wanted to keep it).
No one ever told me, hey you can keep it and things will be ok. I didn't have 'a choice'. And i did it. I took away my sons little brother. and i regret it every day of my life. He is an only child , we live in a 4 bedroom house - easily make enough money and have enough room for another child, but there is no other child. Because i was scared, scared and selfish. so i took the easy way out. That's when i realized that EVERY pregnant woman is scared, that they always have been, that its almost always 'unexpected'. But that we find a way, and having our children is the greatest love there is. But now we have not only made it so easy to end a life, but have stopped all voices who would say 'hey, you can keep it, it will be ok.'
No one ever told me, hey you can keep it and things will be ok. I didn't have 'a choice'. And i did it. I took away my sons little brother. and i regret it every day of my life. He is an only child , we live in a 4 bedroom house - easily make enough money and have enough room for another child, but there is no other child. Because i was scared, scared and selfish. so i took the easy way out. That's when i realized that EVERY pregnant woman is scared, that they always have been, that its almost always 'unexpected'. But that we find a way, and having our children is the greatest love there is. But now we have not only made it so easy to end a life, but have stopped all voices who would say 'hey, you can keep it, it will be ok.'
6
To most people, liberal means allowing people to make their own choices, even if you do not agree with them, so I'm curious that you characterized your sister--who told you to respect your husband's wishes and completely denied your desires--as liberal. So sorry you have regrets now. You can probably find a therapist who can help you work through it.
Just so we are grounded in the realities of science here, when you have an abortion, you are not "end[ing] a life." What you are removing is not viable life.
Unless the life you are talking about ending is that of the woman who did not want to be pregnant?
Just so we are grounded in the realities of science here, when you have an abortion, you are not "end[ing] a life." What you are removing is not viable life.
Unless the life you are talking about ending is that of the woman who did not want to be pregnant?
3
"...but have stopped all voices who would say 'hey, you can keep it, it will be ok.'"
Please. That is what Choice is all about. You made yours, for good or bad, and every other woman has the right to make theirs.
Please. That is what Choice is all about. You made yours, for good or bad, and every other woman has the right to make theirs.
2
We, our society, needs to prevent unwanted pregnancies and that alone will prevent almost all abortions. Sex ed, free condoms, etc. can solve most of this problem. It is utterly stupid not to be doing so.
10
There is so much that is wrong with this article. First, Women don't need ABORTION. Women need the right to CHOOSE and if they choose abortion it must be safe and accessible. Second, equating abortion to child-killing begs the question: is abortion child-killing? The answer in the law is NO. Whether it is the answer offered by your personal savior is a different question.
These pedantic, tired arguments are unworthy of the NY Times. Editors, at least find a writer with a thoughtful essay rather than this pull yourself up by your bootstraps trope.
These pedantic, tired arguments are unworthy of the NY Times. Editors, at least find a writer with a thoughtful essay rather than this pull yourself up by your bootstraps trope.
28
The claims of pretty incompetent people that they can never be victims of their own mistakes seem to characterize the whole Trump mob.
9
The author's job is as director of client services for an anti-abortion group, and has written a high-school abstinence program -- thus providing a steady stream of clients for her day job. Perhaps the Times could require op-ed authors to disclose such pertinent information?
22
Simplistic and simple-minded reasoning lies behind the religious belief that, "life begins at conception", and, as the author so lamely states as giving parents the right to kill their children. Neither egg cells, sperm cells, zygotes, nor embryos are anyone's children. Each is unique and manifestly alive, but no one should confuse either with a child.
The truly dehumanizing argument lies with demonizing the mother and her and her partner's right to carry the zygote, proembryo, or embryo to term, or not.
The truly dehumanizing argument lies with demonizing the mother and her and her partner's right to carry the zygote, proembryo, or embryo to term, or not.
14
It's not a religious belief, it is scientific fact. Unfortunately it doesn't fit the SCIENCEtm narrative that the left follows as its own religious organization so it must be totally false Christian spread propaganda.
2
This failure of thought is all too common in our country, to the detriment of public discourse and national policy.
-I had a difficult experience
-I got through it
-Therefore, other people can get through difficulty, too. It's actually not that bad.We just need to do more of (whatever helped me).
Nope.
In fact, the author's experience is not the norm. Most women who have abortions are already mothers. They know the reality of parenting, of pregnancy's effects on their lives and bodies, and choose not to go through it.
It is a cruel and controlling mindset, that expects women to martyr our bodies, our health, our families and our futures on the cross of someone else's religious ideas.
It disregards the reality of motherhood in the modern age. Community volunteer efforts are great, but not a substitute. Thirty years ago, one income could have supported a family, with home ownership, a car, pension, savings account, medical insurance, and time off.
One person, working a 40 hour week, college degree not needed, credit cards not needed, could create security for a family.
There is no job security now. But a woman who depends on her work insurance for her diabetes medication, and her 5-year-old's asthma medication should risk getting fired to birth another baby? Then what? ER visits for her first child, medical bankruptcy and then poverty?
Yes, it is systemic. So fix the system, and until you do, leave women and their doctors alone.
-I had a difficult experience
-I got through it
-Therefore, other people can get through difficulty, too. It's actually not that bad.We just need to do more of (whatever helped me).
Nope.
In fact, the author's experience is not the norm. Most women who have abortions are already mothers. They know the reality of parenting, of pregnancy's effects on their lives and bodies, and choose not to go through it.
It is a cruel and controlling mindset, that expects women to martyr our bodies, our health, our families and our futures on the cross of someone else's religious ideas.
It disregards the reality of motherhood in the modern age. Community volunteer efforts are great, but not a substitute. Thirty years ago, one income could have supported a family, with home ownership, a car, pension, savings account, medical insurance, and time off.
One person, working a 40 hour week, college degree not needed, credit cards not needed, could create security for a family.
There is no job security now. But a woman who depends on her work insurance for her diabetes medication, and her 5-year-old's asthma medication should risk getting fired to birth another baby? Then what? ER visits for her first child, medical bankruptcy and then poverty?
Yes, it is systemic. So fix the system, and until you do, leave women and their doctors alone.
16
This article is outrageous because it equates abortion with child murder. It is dehumanizing to treat pregnant women's bodies as subject to the whims of the government. It is reminiscent of the subjection of women in the Muslim countries and in Israel. I wonder why so many women in America willingly give away their "inalienable" rights.
12
Not giving...being taken away by people with mindset similar to the author's. That what works for them will work for all! The hubris of these people is stunning.
Saying that progressives claim every effort to reduce abortion is anti-woman is the clearest example of a straw man argument I have ever seen or, indeed, can imagine.
Access to birth control reduces abortion. Progressives consistently argue for access to birth control.
A social safety net reduces abortion. Progressives consistently argue for a social safety net.
Progressives continue to advocate for these things in the face of fierce conservative opposition. What conservatives need to sacrifice is not just their time and treasure (which I am aware many of them do sacrifice) but their calls to use the State to achieve their anti-abortion goals, in direct conflict with their stated small-government ethos.
Efforts to reduce abortion *by making it illegal* are anti-woman and lead to tragedy throughout the world.
Reduce abortion all you want through access to family planning, economic security, and community support. If you believe your own argument, soon the question of whether abortion should be legal would be practically moot.
Access to birth control reduces abortion. Progressives consistently argue for access to birth control.
A social safety net reduces abortion. Progressives consistently argue for a social safety net.
Progressives continue to advocate for these things in the face of fierce conservative opposition. What conservatives need to sacrifice is not just their time and treasure (which I am aware many of them do sacrifice) but their calls to use the State to achieve their anti-abortion goals, in direct conflict with their stated small-government ethos.
Efforts to reduce abortion *by making it illegal* are anti-woman and lead to tragedy throughout the world.
Reduce abortion all you want through access to family planning, economic security, and community support. If you believe your own argument, soon the question of whether abortion should be legal would be practically moot.
20
Great response! 100% agree.
There is another economic linkage: access to safe abortion is not a problem for women of means, or women with family connections. This was true in pre Roe days, and I am sure it is true today. Abortion restrictions are all about making life harder for women who already have it pretty hard.
15
This is arguably the most complicated social/religious/political topic in our world right now, and yet it really shouldn't be. The problem with the "rare and legal" argument is that is offers a slippery jumping-off point for what constitutes "rare." The problem with the "respect life and give up the baby" argument is that pregnancy itself can be a wrenching physical, emotional, and financial challenge for many women. As long as women can get pregnant when they don't want to, they need to be able to get abortions on demand.
9
This is not a complicated problem in "our world" - it is a problem made complicated in the USA because of the attempts by a religious minority to impose their belief system on an entire country.
2
Studies link access to affordable health care, low or no-cost contraception, paid maternity leave and affordable childcare to a decline in the number of abortions. In recent times, until the ACA, we had none of the above. To those who oppose abortion: I will fight for your right never to have one imposed upon you. If you sincerely care about life, both babies and mothers, why not put your energy into fixing the ACA. Forget about taking away my right to choose what's right for me.
12
I agree only in part. First of all, we must put the pregnant woman first before the unborn child. Good news to hear we are on the same page there. Let's figure out how to support the woman and her child (or children) after the child is born - if she has chosen this path. Secondly, everyone is anti-abortion but most of us are also pro-choice - meaning, we want to avoid abortion if possible, but it still remains the woman's choice in the end. Lastly, anti-choice women who actually had a choice like you did, seem to always fall back on the stereotypes of how a woman feels after having an abortion. Your one example has her "depressed" and begging you not to do go through with it. You should read online sites where women who have had abortions and are glad they made that choice are abundant. You should check them out. Not every woman is depressed afterwards and are very positive about their futures. We should definitely find a way to make abortions rare but still safe.
9
I got pregnant on my honeymoon. Sounds great, eh? Not so much -- my husband had just gotten into law school, and it was either law school or having a kid. We postponed having a family until a year or two, when the end of law school was in view. Fast forward 35 years later -- to our family, two adult children, everyone doing well. You mean to tell me that some LAW should have forced me to carry that first pregnancy to term, thus NOT having my actual children? This is a ridiculous conversation to have online, or anywhere else. But to this long thread I'd like to acknowledge the families that result from abortions, such as mine -- because we had a choice.
4
The title might better be The Trouble with Extrapolating My Personal Experience Into Reality of Others. It is wonderful the author "got by." Her words. I wonder how she imagines her friend or any other woman does not contemplate their choice. I wonder what race she is. I wonder if she imagines the stats that linked unexpected pregnancy were alternate facts. Or irrelevant to her ideology?
11
Litmus tests are for Republicans; we don't need them on the left, which is why I have no problem with Sanders supporting a candidate who once voted for anti-abortion legislation but is otherwise strongly progressive. However, it is simply false to suggest that abortion and economics aren't linked. Children are hugely expensive both in direct costs and opportunity costs. While I'm glad Szala has been lucky on a nearly lottery-winning scale, most women finding themselves with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies are in much worse circumstances. The evidence is clear: unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is strongly predictive of poverty, and Szala's wishing and counter-factuals don't magically change that fact.
5
As with so many folks who form their world view from personal experience, Ms. Szala may never be able to understand those who come to the problem from different circumstances.
I had an abortion 25 years ago while in college and never do I regret my decision. I had so many other forces working to derail me from my goal of a college education: being the first in my family to attend, poverty, an abusive boyfriend, and complete and utter lack of experience just operating in the world (I was mostly a recluse throughout elementary and high school.) However, I know that I had chosen to have the child I would never have finished school. My college education is the one thing that broke the cycle of poverty, abuse, and addiction and I am forever grateful for that. So yes, economics and abortion are, whether you like it or not, closely tied.
I had an abortion 25 years ago while in college and never do I regret my decision. I had so many other forces working to derail me from my goal of a college education: being the first in my family to attend, poverty, an abusive boyfriend, and complete and utter lack of experience just operating in the world (I was mostly a recluse throughout elementary and high school.) However, I know that I had chosen to have the child I would never have finished school. My college education is the one thing that broke the cycle of poverty, abuse, and addiction and I am forever grateful for that. So yes, economics and abortion are, whether you like it or not, closely tied.
15
Pro-choice is just that; if you don't like abortion, don't have one. "Right-to-lifers" really care only about the first 37 weeks of gestation or there would be child care, community centers, health care, education, monetary support, training, and hordes of loving, adoptive parents for all of these children that are all accessible and free for all women who "pro-lifers" would like to force to bear children they don't want. If the "pro-lifers" truly cared about life, there would also be mandated garnishment of fathers' wages for 18 years of support, because, last I checked, women don't get pregnant alone. The anti-abortion movement is just another way to deny 50% of the population from having a say in how she wants to contribute to society. Abortion is the most personal decision a woman will ever make and no one has the right to judge.
12
Ms. Szala,
While I agree that it would be societal beneficial to support women and children in a variety of ways (child care, housing etc), I think it is you who are being dishonest in denying the economic impact of abortion and reducing this to mere "challenges" presented by unplanned pregnancies.
As it turns out, childrearing and economics ARE inextricable. As the National Bureau of Economic Research points out, "Having a child lowers a woman's lifetime earnings, but how much depends upon her skill level." http://www.nber.org/digest/apr11/w16582.html
It is hard to state in the face of such facts that there is then no link between abortion and income.
Similarly, being single and being a mother leaves you disproportionately likely to be poor. https://thinkprogress.org/working-single-mothers-are-disproportionately-...
It is again hard to state in the face of such facts that there is then no link between abortion and income.
By all means provide additional tools for women so that they can freely choose the option that suits them best- but you must also recognize that economics necessarily will play a part in their decision.
While I agree that it would be societal beneficial to support women and children in a variety of ways (child care, housing etc), I think it is you who are being dishonest in denying the economic impact of abortion and reducing this to mere "challenges" presented by unplanned pregnancies.
As it turns out, childrearing and economics ARE inextricable. As the National Bureau of Economic Research points out, "Having a child lowers a woman's lifetime earnings, but how much depends upon her skill level." http://www.nber.org/digest/apr11/w16582.html
It is hard to state in the face of such facts that there is then no link between abortion and income.
Similarly, being single and being a mother leaves you disproportionately likely to be poor. https://thinkprogress.org/working-single-mothers-are-disproportionately-...
It is again hard to state in the face of such facts that there is then no link between abortion and income.
By all means provide additional tools for women so that they can freely choose the option that suits them best- but you must also recognize that economics necessarily will play a part in their decision.
6
"Obviously, not every woman will be as lucky as I was, with a strong network of family and friends to help. But that’s why we as a society have an obligation to help them."
An obligation to help? Really? The party in power that is doing everything possible to make abortion access impossible is also bent on eliminating maternity care and included contraceptives from medical insurance, cutting Medicaid, is against a living wage, and everything else that could help a parent. Why is that?
An obligation to help? Really? The party in power that is doing everything possible to make abortion access impossible is also bent on eliminating maternity care and included contraceptives from medical insurance, cutting Medicaid, is against a living wage, and everything else that could help a parent. Why is that?
13
I'm pretty sure the author is saying that the party in power is wrong for (everything you list after "bent on"). She's pro life, but she's also just written fairly nice words about Bernie and Mello for the new york times. Nuance...
2
At what point is it ok to kill an unborn baby in the womb? We know more today than ever before, of when life begins. Now science and ultrasound technology has proven when life begins, at conception. So, some people argue that we should continue to allow killing babies for financial reasons? You argue that it is a women's right? This is no longer a women's rights issue, it is a human rights issue. Of course, yes, we need more support for women, education, especially from abortion providers to tell the truth to their patients.
“No one even explained to the mother that the child already existed and the life of a human was being terminated.” - Jane Roe
“No one even explained to the mother that the child already existed and the life of a human was being terminated.” - Jane Roe
I am personally against abortion, but see it as a woman's right and her decision alone.
Having said that, with so much sex education and a variety of contraceptives (including condoms for him if he really cares for you!), why do we still have "unwanted" pregnancies? Why can't those women just say "no" (sorry to borrow from Nancy Reagan's drug anthem). Sorry, but these women have to start making better choices.
Having said that, with so much sex education and a variety of contraceptives (including condoms for him if he really cares for you!), why do we still have "unwanted" pregnancies? Why can't those women just say "no" (sorry to borrow from Nancy Reagan's drug anthem). Sorry, but these women have to start making better choices.
4
you do know Doug that not all birth control is 100% effective and if you need proof I have a 20 year old son that was conceived while on the pill. Also, why is it on the women? Why can't men just say "no" or keep it in their pants? Oh right, because when women get pregnant it's the women who suffer the consequences and are put in a position to make this choice.
12
Doug, it is men's responsibility not to create unwanted pregnancies as well. And why don't men "just say no" for that matter?
6
"With so much sex education and a variety of contraceptives"...
What PLANET are you living on, where both those things are freely available in this country? They simply are not the reality for most Americans.
What PLANET are you living on, where both those things are freely available in this country? They simply are not the reality for most Americans.
5
Describing the negative economic impact of an unplanned pregnancy taken to term is not dehumanizing, it is merely stating an unfortunate fact. The very essence of dehumanizing is focusing on fetuses with little or no regard to the child, once it is born. How "pro-life" is voting for elected officials that choose tax cuts over health care, defund toxic waste cleanups in locations where children play, choose exposing children to lead in water and paint over fixing their surroundings, defund school lunch programs, and help make the US the country with the lowest level of childcare support of any rich nation? How much more dehumanizing is the economic reality that in practice "pro-life" stops as soon as society as a whole has to share in the cost of a pregnancy?
17
To take it a step further...think of how much stuff costs just to "live". Food, clothing, shelter, insurance (if you're lucky). Having a child is a economic and to be honest calling working people "human capitol" is just as degrading. I'm a person, not just a worker...but that's how the world views people now is just productivity and if they aren't producing then they are "takers". This isn't coming from dems by the way.....this is how the GOP sees people. Don't take my word for it...just ask THEM!
3
It is myopic at best to say that abortion will leave all who have the procedure scarred, and that it's not the right choice for women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. I walked someone to such a clinic when I was in my 20s, and she still maintains it was the best decision of her life.
It's interesting that the author didn't address women's access to reproductive education, birth control and the morning after or "Plan B" pill. In areas where women have access to education and birth control, the number of abortions performed drops dramatically.
It's interesting that the author didn't address women's access to reproductive education, birth control and the morning after or "Plan B" pill. In areas where women have access to education and birth control, the number of abortions performed drops dramatically.
21
I'm confused by what this author writes...first her community pressured her to have an abortion (why was "the community" even involved?), then states she was successful because she had a strong network of family and friends to help.
Also, I imagine most women don't make a choice to end a pregnancy on the sole basis of money, but that absolutely has to be a consideration. Raising a child is not cheap, and this country has not done a lot to alleviate those financial issues (school lunches, daycare costs, etc.). But the choice MUST be available for women to make safely.
Also, I imagine most women don't make a choice to end a pregnancy on the sole basis of money, but that absolutely has to be a consideration. Raising a child is not cheap, and this country has not done a lot to alleviate those financial issues (school lunches, daycare costs, etc.). But the choice MUST be available for women to make safely.
11
My dad was forced to marry my mom because of me, a long time ago, now this doesn't happen very often. I support abortion, because people that don't want kids, it is bad, they don't treat them well. My mom was bitter because she marry the guy she wanted, but he didn't love her back. He was a horrible father because he didn't kids with my mom. The result was that was no love in my house, none. People should do what they want to do.
7
The analogy of an animal biting off its own leg is apt. If a person came to their doctor with the complaint that their broad shoulders prevented them from comfortably entering doorways, the right response would be to build bigger doors, not to surgically remove an arm.
Usually, it is considered unethical to provide medical interventions for primarily social or monetary benefit. Doctors are supposed to seek an objective medical indication before offering any drug or procedure.
As it stands now, a doctor might walk into one room and tell a patient that it is perfectly fine to destroy the fetus, because it is not a patient and does not deserve medical care or protection. Then the doctor crosses the hall and orders hundreds of thousands of dollars in testing and interventions to diagnose and treat illness in another identical fetus.
There is a level of socially-motivated subjectivity at work here that would be objectionable to any descendant of the Enlightenment.
Either fetuses are patients, or they are not. There is no issue of whether the adults involved WANT the fetus to be a patient. It's not a subjective fact.
Usually, it is considered unethical to provide medical interventions for primarily social or monetary benefit. Doctors are supposed to seek an objective medical indication before offering any drug or procedure.
As it stands now, a doctor might walk into one room and tell a patient that it is perfectly fine to destroy the fetus, because it is not a patient and does not deserve medical care or protection. Then the doctor crosses the hall and orders hundreds of thousands of dollars in testing and interventions to diagnose and treat illness in another identical fetus.
There is a level of socially-motivated subjectivity at work here that would be objectionable to any descendant of the Enlightenment.
Either fetuses are patients, or they are not. There is no issue of whether the adults involved WANT the fetus to be a patient. It's not a subjective fact.
7
The Problem With Imposing Your Personal Beliefs on Everyone Else! SO glad you had the choice to do what was right for you. Yet, you feel comfortable denying other women and their families the same right. Please spare us your patronizing, dehumanizing, and sanctimonious high horse as you instruct others on how to live and impose your personal values on the ret of us.
19
If the citizens of the United States were willing to support women and their reproductive choices the way they do in Denmark and Sweden I'd agree. But we are very nearly in the moron category when it comes to birth control education, women's equal treatment and supporting pregnant women and their children. Don't preach to me about abortion access unless you are willing to also talk about that.
15
Telling a woman she must donate her blood and life force to carrying the product of a sperm-egg union to term, and then support it another 18 years.. whether it was the product of rape, incest, accident, drunken violation, whatever... that's worse than raping her, by far.
13
"It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress."
You're building a straw man. (Of course you are, you run an anti-choice group set up to lie to women.) No one is arguing that economic justice is the *only* argument for abortion. This argument is being made specifically in response to Sanders' framing of the abortion issue as one separate from economic justice.
"An abortion clinic, for a few hundred dollars, ends the life of a child (sic) whose upbringing may strain her mother’s resources. Full stop."
Actually, don't fully stop. Because you're wrong. There is no child. And you know better than to frame this issue as "may strain economic resources." Wow, that's some gentle language to describe being unable to finish school or thrown into poverty, or being unable to afford child care, or not being able to leave an abusive relationship, or, or, or.... Dear anti-choicers: if you have to lie to justify your position, maybe your position is wrong.
"The woman will leave the clinic still burdened by every single problem she came in with."
False. She is no longer burdened by an unwanted pregnancy. She's also just stopped her problems from getting a whole heck of a lot worse. God, I wish you panty-sniffers would stop lying.
You're building a straw man. (Of course you are, you run an anti-choice group set up to lie to women.) No one is arguing that economic justice is the *only* argument for abortion. This argument is being made specifically in response to Sanders' framing of the abortion issue as one separate from economic justice.
"An abortion clinic, for a few hundred dollars, ends the life of a child (sic) whose upbringing may strain her mother’s resources. Full stop."
Actually, don't fully stop. Because you're wrong. There is no child. And you know better than to frame this issue as "may strain economic resources." Wow, that's some gentle language to describe being unable to finish school or thrown into poverty, or being unable to afford child care, or not being able to leave an abusive relationship, or, or, or.... Dear anti-choicers: if you have to lie to justify your position, maybe your position is wrong.
"The woman will leave the clinic still burdened by every single problem she came in with."
False. She is no longer burdened by an unwanted pregnancy. She's also just stopped her problems from getting a whole heck of a lot worse. God, I wish you panty-sniffers would stop lying.
18
This infuriates me. That a piece written by the national director of an organization that refers to abortion as "the worst holocaust in human history" is published here is troubling. Not that her voice should be silenced - it won't be. But, in my view, that the Human Coalition takes that stance invalidates anything that comes after. My wife (and I) aborted our first child. It was not, in the view of the best medicine had to offer, viable outside the womb. Would they have my wife carry the fetus to term, only to predictably die shortly after birth had it made it that far? This type of circumstance is lost in all the yelling. It is NOT one size fits all. It is not a matter of convenience. Safe and legal abortion MUST be kept in place, because abortion, legal or not, is not going away.
22
The author regards mindless zygotes, less formed than tadpoles as children?
13
Her Thought: Abortion is murder.
Evidence: Dead baby.
My Thought: Exploding human population is murder.
Evidence: Mass extinction of millions of species.
If you had the courage to abort your own baby, you would know the pain we as a species inflict on the world around us. Instead you keep your children in the name of courage and perseverance. Keeping your child is selfishness: protecting your genetics while ruining the world around you. This is not the product of virtue, please stop presenting it as such.
Evidence: Dead baby.
My Thought: Exploding human population is murder.
Evidence: Mass extinction of millions of species.
If you had the courage to abort your own baby, you would know the pain we as a species inflict on the world around us. Instead you keep your children in the name of courage and perseverance. Keeping your child is selfishness: protecting your genetics while ruining the world around you. This is not the product of virtue, please stop presenting it as such.
8
Maybe it's time to think of male contraception. A vasectomy does little to slow down the male and with sperm banks becoming popular......
5
Abortion has been one of the most intellectually dishonest conversations in American history because in this society politics trumps truth. If the left is so hell bent on improving the "economics" of women, there are a lot more effective ways to do it -- like voting against their bosom buddies on Wall Street, for a change -- but of course that's never going to happen, so year after year the abortion boogeyman is rustled up when the Dems need to cajole the peasants back in line.
1
Maybe you can't see straight to the USA from Canada, Travis, but abortion is the conservative right's policy bogeyman. The Dems are the only party which has ever looked out for the "peasants", so if you are going to comment on US politics, at least get a scorecard so you can tell the players apart.
2
Abortion does not end the life of a child because there is no "child" yet.
11
Okay, let's go there. Outlaw abortion. Let's look at the economics of that. Online abortion drug sellers based from any server in the Balkans make millions. Back alley "doctors" on Craigslist. Ladies in pink hats facilitating abortions by any means necessary go to jail for years. Pro-life government inspectors spend millions trying to stop something that can't be stopped. It's a lot like Prohibition. Like the hauty, moralistic church ladies who pushed Prohibition through the state houses, you really haven't the faintest clue far you will miss your goal, how many unscrupulous people you will enrich or how many women & babies you imperil.
10
By and large, how child raising and child termination are dealt with is racist, condescending, and un-American. Every child born is a blessing, and we must remember that they didn't ask to be born. Once born, a child's care should be a concern of us all, and the worthiness or unworthiness of the mother is irrelevant to the issue of the care for the child. Think of "welfare" and "entitlements" as a pass through from all of us to the child, where the mother plays a key role, but to the bonehead conservative - the benefit is to the little human being who needs the aid.
1
it is very discouraging to me to see this type of fake argument on the NYT op-ed page. Of course abortion should not be the only choice, but it should be A choice, which the author's crocodile tears of concern attempts to confuse the
issue with. Her organization seeks to ELIMINATE choice for everyone.
issue with. Her organization seeks to ELIMINATE choice for everyone.
14
If you google Human Coalition, the organization Ms Szala works at, you will see that it provides strategies and outreach to those determined "to do all we can to remove the stain of abortion from America."
6
These " crisis pregnancy centers" are a huge scam. Their purpose is not only to dissuade vulnerable, poor, usually young women from choosing to abort. No, the ACTUAL purpose is to lengthen the process, at least past the first trimester. Therefore, greatly reducing even the possibility of the patient even being ALLOWED to choose, or afford, an abortion. A classic bait and switch operation. I am absolutely NOT opposed to different viewpoints on this subject. However, I am furious that the background and affiliations of this writer were NOT even mentioned.
Please, do better. I expect better from this publication.
Please, do better. I expect better from this publication.
10
If all this fuss is created people who demand to be officially blessed for decreeing that God abhors planning parenthood, their enablement is the among the most profoundly stupid public policies of my lifetime.
1
Ms. Szala's organization refers to abortion as a "holocaust." It doesn't take much more than a quick google search to see that she is not here to promote choice or the economic freedom of women. She's a dangerous hypocrite.
The rhetoric she uses is incendiary and contributes to a hostile environment where clinics and their workers are threatened every day. Violence against abortion providers is on the rise. Why? Because people believe that they are killing babies. Ms. Szala and the organization she works for fosters and encourages this rhetoric without taking any responsibility for it's effects. Anti-choice activists have always relied on the theme that abortion is murder. It's factually incorrect and it give crazy people like Robert Lewis Dear, who shot and killed three people at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado incentive to attack. It's irresponsible to give people like her a platform without highlighting the obvious parallels between her rhetoric and that sentiments of people who stalk abortion providers and activists.
The rhetoric she uses is incendiary and contributes to a hostile environment where clinics and their workers are threatened every day. Violence against abortion providers is on the rise. Why? Because people believe that they are killing babies. Ms. Szala and the organization she works for fosters and encourages this rhetoric without taking any responsibility for it's effects. Anti-choice activists have always relied on the theme that abortion is murder. It's factually incorrect and it give crazy people like Robert Lewis Dear, who shot and killed three people at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado incentive to attack. It's irresponsible to give people like her a platform without highlighting the obvious parallels between her rhetoric and that sentiments of people who stalk abortion providers and activists.
10
Excellent article except I would substitute the words pro life for anti-abortion. Abortion is the death penalty of innocent living young human beings. Shame on the convoluted opinion and holding of Roe v. Wade.
1
I would love to live in a time when people stayed out of other people's underwear. It is no ones business except the two people involved. Doesn't it occur to anyone that only a pervert feels the need to wallow in other people's sex lives?
8
Abortion was my ONLY choice because it was the ONLY choice that I wanted.
Mike Pence has been married for 30 years. They have only 3 children . That's only an average of one every 10 years. hmmmm....
I wonder ... did they use birth control ? if so, what kind ? maybe they had fertility issues ? what kind ? did Ms. Pence have an abortion(s) ! if so, when and why? does Mr. Pence have a low sperm count ? does that explain the alpha male persona ? did they not have a lot of sex ? oh dear ....
OR IS NONE OF THIS ANY OF MY BUSINESS!
Mind you own business anybody who start nosing around and wants to start telling other people what to do with the most intimate aspects of their lives. Otherwise, I want answers to all of the above.
I wonder ... did they use birth control ? if so, what kind ? maybe they had fertility issues ? what kind ? did Ms. Pence have an abortion(s) ! if so, when and why? does Mr. Pence have a low sperm count ? does that explain the alpha male persona ? did they not have a lot of sex ? oh dear ....
OR IS NONE OF THIS ANY OF MY BUSINESS!
Mind you own business anybody who start nosing around and wants to start telling other people what to do with the most intimate aspects of their lives. Otherwise, I want answers to all of the above.
The idea is called CHOICE. And apparently everyone else's and not yours. Like so many things, it's become irrationally polarized.
4
Do pro-life backers ever protest wars?
11
The liberal ones do.
Forcing women to continue unwanted pregancies is a form of slavery. That is what is dehumanizing.
12
The obsession with this issue is driven by silly fables about the end of the world. It is utterly childish.
4
I know right? Like some crazy sky fairy is just gonna magically "ensoul" some human that's already been around for nine months. All this "quickening" and "breath of life" nonsense... I'll take my ethics with a strong dose of science thankyouverymuch
According to the USDA, average cost to raise a child from 0 through 17: $233,610. (Source: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/01/09/families-projected-...
Ms. Szala, how is this not an economic issue? Care to support your position with actual data?
Ms. Szala, how is this not an economic issue? Care to support your position with actual data?
Women who have an abortion do not "kill their children". Enough with that rhetoric already.
11
I'm glad the NYT opinion page can be a home for anti-abortion essays. Ms. Szala's piece makes some good points, though ultimately I disagree with her. But she's really toning down her organization's extremism here. Check out the home page of Human Coalition. The opening text (note that the text cycles with each visit) says that HC seeks to make abortion not just "unavailable" but "unthinkable," ending "the worst holocaust in human history" to "protect the image-bearers of God himself." So much for seeking middle ground!
A certain amount of massaging of one's message is natural when talking to the "other side." But I wonder if Ms. Szala has crossed the line into dishonesty and deception here.
A certain amount of massaging of one's message is natural when talking to the "other side." But I wonder if Ms. Szala has crossed the line into dishonesty and deception here.
9
@sbrian2: I would say that's a big "yes".
1
On Feb. 27, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood, was asked by Fusion TV’s Jorge Ramos, “When does life start?”
Richards said, “This is a question that I think will be debated through the centuries.”
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), founder of Planned Parenthood—and still honored by them—wrote in her autobiography that an abortion at any stage is the taking of a human life.
“To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life,"
Sanger, in an essay written in 1931 said,
“Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away.
“Thus it prevents the beginning of life.”
Other writings by Sanger that express her opposition to abortion include:
Her book, “Woman and the New Race” (1920), in Chapter X, Margaret Sanger calls abortion “a disgrace to civilization.”
In a speech entitled “The Children’s Era” at the Sixth International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference on March 30, 1925 Sanger spoke about the rights of the unborn.
“Human society must protect its children–yes, but prenatal care is most essential,” she said. “The child-to-be, as yet not called into being, has rights no less imperative.”
Economics has no connection when it comes to human life.
Last time I checked having a child isn't free...ever
4
"Economics has no connection when it comes to human life."
Se if you can get that past conservative Republicans who have just decided, in passing Trumpcare, exactly the opposite. That is, we can afford to preserve human life.
Se if you can get that past conservative Republicans who have just decided, in passing Trumpcare, exactly the opposite. That is, we can afford to preserve human life.
1
Ms. Szala – Good for you; you were able to decide – safely and legally – not to have an abortion. Others should be able to decide – safely and legally – to have one.
And indeed abortion and economics are not **inextricable**. In the U.S.A., women earn less than men regardless of whether abortion is available or not.
And indeed abortion and economics are not **inextricable**. In the U.S.A., women earn less than men regardless of whether abortion is available or not.
9
Lori Salzar: the bottom line is CHOICE.You made your choice. Other women may make a different CHOICE, which is no less valid than yours. The disturbing aspect of your op-ed is your lack of respect for those who make a choice you don't agree with. I note you write your op-ed as Republicans prepare to gut Medicaid, which would be essential to any woman who elects to have a baby without medical insurance. Show some respect for other women!
10
I am mostly bashed for being a liberal, but I also get bashed for being pro-life. I respect women and do not judge them for not doing what I think they should be doing. However, just because abortion legally is a choice, it doesn't mean it doesn't make people's hearts ache for lives that are needlessly lost. There's a lot more to this than "women's rights" or "dems vs repubs." I'll respect a woman's legal choice, but now I'd like to see a bit more respect for an innocent human life... :(
3
Meghan, other women aren't obligated to assuage your incredibly judgmental feelings about what you believe to be "innocent human lives".
4
It's wonderful Ms. Szala had a choice and had support. It's fine to say society SHOULD give women in her situation the kind of support she had (a maternity home where she was cared for, parenting classes, free day care, a chance to finish school, a job), but that does not make it so. The cold hard fact is society does not give women the support Ms. Szala enjoyed.
"...they believe the complex, difficult circumstances of their lives — like joblessness, substance abuse, criminal records or homelessness — leave them with no real way to raise a new child." Ms. Szala's essay indicates she herself faced none of these obstacles, so I question her standing to declare other women's perceptions of their own situations is somehow flawed.
This is the key! The person *actually in the situation* is the one who should have the right to choose, not outsiders projecting their own values and life experience -- however similar or dissimilar -- onto strangers far removed.
"...they believe the complex, difficult circumstances of their lives — like joblessness, substance abuse, criminal records or homelessness — leave them with no real way to raise a new child." Ms. Szala's essay indicates she herself faced none of these obstacles, so I question her standing to declare other women's perceptions of their own situations is somehow flawed.
This is the key! The person *actually in the situation* is the one who should have the right to choose, not outsiders projecting their own values and life experience -- however similar or dissimilar -- onto strangers far removed.
7
"Abortion is murder", say the opponents of ready abortion access. Maybe so, maybe not. Infanticide, which is actually practiced in countries like China to cull female infants, is rightly considered murder here even by the staunchest advocates of a woman's right to choose. The destruction of a four-celled embryo is considered murder only by extremists, since such an entity has no awareness and is not recognizably human. In between there is a continuum with dividing lines like "quickening" that are fuzzy at best.
Since abortion causes the destruction of a potential human life, it should be discouraged -- but still be available without stigma for those who choose it. Economics should not determine who can have an abortion and who cannot. Some women, like the author of this article, manage to turn an unwanted pregnancy into a positive, even joyous, life event. Others are unable to.
A marvelous analysis of the moral and ethical issues can be found in the book "Life's Dominion" by Ronald Dworkin. He argues that abortion is not without consequence, but nevertheless it is sometimes the moral and ethical best choice.
Since abortion causes the destruction of a potential human life, it should be discouraged -- but still be available without stigma for those who choose it. Economics should not determine who can have an abortion and who cannot. Some women, like the author of this article, manage to turn an unwanted pregnancy into a positive, even joyous, life event. Others are unable to.
A marvelous analysis of the moral and ethical issues can be found in the book "Life's Dominion" by Ronald Dworkin. He argues that abortion is not without consequence, but nevertheless it is sometimes the moral and ethical best choice.
4
The last sentence should be followed up by only one more: "Nor must our society deny the right to choose for an abortion."
6
The problem I see with Pro Life conservatives is that they are Pro life until the child is out of the womb. The Health care bill being offered up even wants to take away prenatal care. There is no help for childcare, and god forbid you need financial help, food stamps or want to give the child a good education you are out of luck.
I had an abortion. I never regretted it. I am glad I was able to go to a clinic where I felt safe and cared for. I wish for other women to have the same. I also wish for women and children to have to support they need as well.
I had an abortion. I never regretted it. I am glad I was able to go to a clinic where I felt safe and cared for. I wish for other women to have the same. I also wish for women and children to have to support they need as well.
10
What a cowardly essay. So, Ms. Szala is basically mad at the left for speaking truth to power about how reproductive choice is one of the tools that impacts women's economic mobility. She and others like her do women and girls no favors by glossing over the truth about the expense of child bearing or encouraging the left to be silent about how abortion access can decrease economic hardship.
Ms. Szala, I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but in this one called reality, extra mouths to feed are not without cost or liability, and for most of those who are already poor, being forced to give birth after an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy only exacerbates their poverty. Girls and women need to be informed about the consequences of unprotected sex, pregnancy, and child rearing, and yes, that includes being able to realistically account for the resources at their disposal. Women and girls need to know the opportunity cost of having children to make informed decisions, and they need access to reproductive services, should they choose to abort.
Ms. Szala,
Ms. Szala, I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but in this one called reality, extra mouths to feed are not without cost or liability, and for most of those who are already poor, being forced to give birth after an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy only exacerbates their poverty. Girls and women need to be informed about the consequences of unprotected sex, pregnancy, and child rearing, and yes, that includes being able to realistically account for the resources at their disposal. Women and girls need to know the opportunity cost of having children to make informed decisions, and they need access to reproductive services, should they choose to abort.
Ms. Szala,
7
How is the author expressing her views "cowardly"?
There are always anecdotes of people who rose above their circumstances, as well as those who fell under the burdens. Yes, if there were charitable organizations in every community that would do what Ms. Szala and her group have done, the economics of child-bearing would not be so burdensome and the decision to bear a child not so hard. From where Ms. Szala sits and from where most of us parents in our post-child-bearing years sit, the decisions to bear one, two or three children turned out allright. Ask any older parent and they will say "It was worth it." But that's like a soldier who volunteered for a war, came home unscathed and wnet on to launch a multi-million-dollar business saying, "I served my country and I would do it again." He is ignoring the thousands of his cohorts who didn't come back at all or came back crippled and mentally damaged, living in the streets.
7
"And conservatives must do more than tell abortion-seeking women to 'go in peace and keep warm and well fed'; they must sacrifice their time and treasure to serve women in need." I am disappointed that you only devoted one sentence to what I believe is the crux of the issue. Please shift your focus away from liberals, who are trying to help women access choice both before and after pregnancy, and who are trying to help their children once they are born (with government support, among other things), and take a hard look at conservative politicians who refuse to invest a dime or lift a finger aside from riding the bandwagon that is the anti-choice campaign platform. It is that side, and not ours, that is to blame for the economic need for abortion.
7
“Abortion rights are a key pillar of income equality” -- this is zombie feminism that discredits even legitimate grounds for abortion. Abortion is a remedy; contraception is a choice. It is great for women or men to take it upon themselves to strive for "income equality," but why not throw in some resolve about family planning? That would give them time to support necessary policy changes to help their striving for income equality.
1
This slant is another attempt to distract from the fact that arguments over abortion are never about "the baby," but the timeless attacks on women's autonomy. Not your body, not your choice.
6
Ms. Szala, I appreciate your right to make whatever choice is best for you, and I'm glad your support systems allowed things to work out for you. However, your assertion that the link between abortion and economics is "patronizing, and patently dishonest" is untrue. While you may not have experienced the economic impact of abortion, many do. Considering abortions can cost low-income people hundreds of dollars in travel fees and up to around two thousand dollars for the actual procedure (a price that’s only going to increase with pro-life legislation), there is clearly a link between economics and abortions. You yourself even note that the fetus’ “upbringing may strain [the parent’s] resources.” Of course abortions don’t solve financial issues, but many must take them into account. Please do not disregard and disrespect the experiences of people for whom financial circumstances are important. You do note, albeit somewhat harshly, that abortion is society's "way of avoiding grappling with the fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics." While I still support the right to abortion, if one were staunchly pro-choice, it would be in their best interest to support contraception. However, you assume that these measures and support systems (like the one you work at) are available to everyone considering having an abortion. Your assumption that everyone has access to such support systems reveals your privilege.
1
I am myself a mother. Fundamental to being a parent is doing right by your child. That means providing your child with a safe, loving, and nurturing home. Irrespective of what the writer feels is possible for women in very troubling circumstances, if you can't do right by your child, please don't have the child.
It's not about the mother/parent, it's about doing what is best for the child. To elaborate, if one of your children has had to be removed from you care, or you have an active, ongoing chemical addiction, you, by definotion, cannot do right by your child, so Please don't have that child!
It's not about the mother/parent, it's about doing what is best for the child. To elaborate, if one of your children has had to be removed from you care, or you have an active, ongoing chemical addiction, you, by definotion, cannot do right by your child, so Please don't have that child!
1
There is no doubt that Ms. Szala does great work and has helped many women and families. It is very fortunate that these women had the CHOICE to avail themselves of Ms. Szala's agency.
The inflammatory language of the article aside, the important issue is that banning abortion is a dehumanizing and subjugating activity perpetrated by Right Wing politicians for their own greedy ends.
It is difficult to believe that politicians who flagrantly cheat on their spouses and rush to execute the accused even under dubious proof of guilt suddenly grow devout when discussing abortion.
The inflammatory language of the article aside, the important issue is that banning abortion is a dehumanizing and subjugating activity perpetrated by Right Wing politicians for their own greedy ends.
It is difficult to believe that politicians who flagrantly cheat on their spouses and rush to execute the accused even under dubious proof of guilt suddenly grow devout when discussing abortion.
3
Some women get depressed after having an abortion. The American Psychological Association estimates that around 14% of women get seriously depressed after giving birth.
The experience, either way, is a very powerful one for women. One thing that would help ALL of them would be if the rest of us would stop laying our trips on them.
Don't pressure women to get abortions.
Don't pressure women to continue with unwanted pregnancies.
Leave them alone to decide for themselves, in peace, how they want to make their important life decisions.
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/resources/reports/postpartum-depression.aspx
The experience, either way, is a very powerful one for women. One thing that would help ALL of them would be if the rest of us would stop laying our trips on them.
Don't pressure women to get abortions.
Don't pressure women to continue with unwanted pregnancies.
Leave them alone to decide for themselves, in peace, how they want to make their important life decisions.
http://www.apa.org/pi/women/resources/reports/postpartum-depression.aspx
3
Here we go again. Anecdotal evidence. It's not science. Scientifically conducted research tells a different story. It doesn't have to be any individuals story, for sure, but there it is the factual truth. If you want to reduce abortions then help people out with a more socialistic approach. Republicans can't have it both ways. You either cut aid and increase abortions or increase aide to struggling people.
3
You are mistaken.
Protecting human lives of children before and after birth is not an either/or option.
We must do both.
Protecting human lives of children before and after birth is not an either/or option.
We must do both.
2
Just because an argument can be made that abortion rights is an economic issue doesn't mean it's the only reason women need to have access to safe, legal abortions. There are many others, including a woman's right to make decisions about her own body in based upon her own beliefs, and not the beliefs imposed upon her by a group of legislators who she never met.
3
These are old arguments. What many of us support is a right to chose. Lori Salza had a right to chose, my sister had a right to choose, my daughters and friends have a right to choose. By the third paragraph it is clear that the author believes that abortion is killing a child. I don't agree, and the law doesn't agree. There is also absolutely no support, or only marginal support on the very far right, for treating abortion as murder: almost everyone is either related to someone who has had an abortion: wife, girlfriend, friend, sister, aunt, niece, and very very few people advocate for putting those women in jail on murder charges. So, there is a difference. It would be wonderful if we lived in a country that supported health care for mothers and infants, child care for toddlers, and committed itself to making sure that every child born in this country as the same advantages, say, that the average senator's child has. But, I haven't seen any evidence that the so called Pro-life movement is indeed interested in life: they're interested in controlling women. No one gets pregnant intending to have an abortion. For some people, it's a devastating experience, for some not. People make decisions under all sorts of circumstances, for all kinds of reasons. That's choice.
3
Abortion rights are always and only about a woman's control over her own body. Period. Nobody else's decision. Nobody else's coice. Reasons for are NOT germane.
5
Simply saying it does not make it so. Abortion is NOT only about a woman's right to control her own body.
Lori Szala tells her story of choosing life over abortion and she is crucified for her choice. I think she is remarkable and should be commended for keeping her baby and not ostracized. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life and it is a travesty for the mother and child. I admire her and it took a lot of courage writing a pro-life piece and being subjected to insults and undue criticism. If she had been a pro-abortion doctor or advocate telling his/her story they would have been praised to the hilt. She decided to tell her story and now she is paying the price. I plan on donating to a pregnancy center and also taking part in assisting these women and babies after reading this excellent article. She has inspired me and I hope others will be too. This is a courageous woman who is speaking the truth against the evil of abortion. She is very brave.
2
No one here is "crucifyng" the author for her choice. And let's remember, it was HER CHOICE something the pro-forced birthers want to deny women and teenage girls with unplanned pregnancies.
People here are pointing out her falsehood that abortion isn't a financial issue. As well, just because her choice worked for her doesn't mean it applies to others, especially those with different opportunities and life circumstances.
People here are pointing out her falsehood that abortion isn't a financial issue. As well, just because her choice worked for her doesn't mean it applies to others, especially those with different opportunities and life circumstances.
5
If it were a physician talking about how they provided abortions, their main concern would not be about praise but about being targeted, harassed, injured, or even killed by anti-abortion activists. No anti-abortion activist has ever been killed for their views or actions but physicians and clinic staff have been:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-viol...
I trained under a rural physician who was the only abortion provider for miles around -- he was the town's general physician and ER doc as well. He told me about receiving threats to himself, his family, and his staff. He stopped because he didn't want anyone to get hurt.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-viol...
I trained under a rural physician who was the only abortion provider for miles around -- he was the town's general physician and ER doc as well. He told me about receiving threats to himself, his family, and his staff. He stopped because he didn't want anyone to get hurt.
Lori, while I am happy that everything worked out for you when you had an unplanned pregnancy, you should also consider that for some of us, even the promise of community support would not have stopped us from having abortions. I had a crisis pregnancy when I was 16 that I chose to terminate. But even if I had a more supportive family or community, I would have still chose abortion. Even at that age, when I thought I was relatively mature, I knew that I was in no way ready for the challenges that motherhood would present to me. Adoption was also an option that I would never choose for the simple reason that I did not want to be pregnant. Also, I would invite you to consider that it is dehumanizing to prevent women from having full control over their bodies, including the right to terminate pregnancies, in deference to the unborn. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one. In fact, no one should make anyone have an abortion. But no one should force a woman to be pregnant against her will either.
7
You feel abortion is killing a child, and I couldn't do it (except VERY early) under most circumstances because I feel it is killing a fetus. But most women who have abortions do not believe they are killing a child. We do not have the right to impose our religious or moral views on them.
What we should do is fight for better access to and education about birth control. Women SHOULD take more responsibility for getting pregnant. So should men. When birth control is more available there are less abortions.
What we should do is fight for better access to and education about birth control. Women SHOULD take more responsibility for getting pregnant. So should men. When birth control is more available there are less abortions.
2
When the wealthy, white men (whom Ms Szala has no doubt voted to elect) who run our government, are working tirelessly to strip maternal care from the list of required health benefits insurance must offer, they did in fact make it an economic issue. So before you victim blame Ms Szala, reconsider your own role in shaping a climate that does not value the lives of the vulnerable or provide the economic support not only to birth a child but to raise that child, give him or her a decent education and a future that promises more than incarceration and poverty.
"the woman will leave the clinic still burdened by every single problem she came in with."
no not even close: she won't be carrying that child, or raising that child, while achieving or maintaining her economic viability.
and even if you could credibly make that argument it doesn't alter the basic idea that each woman should be allowed to make that decision herself.
no not even close: she won't be carrying that child, or raising that child, while achieving or maintaining her economic viability.
and even if you could credibly make that argument it doesn't alter the basic idea that each woman should be allowed to make that decision herself.
7
The decision to commission the extermination of a little daughter or son in our power and under our care is an indefensible "choice".
When it comes to 'decisions', we women have every right to choose what political party we will vote for, what job we will do, what friends we will make, what we will have for breakfast.
But none of us has a right to abuse another human being in our care, no matter how, small or dependent or 'unwanted'.
"Choice" is never a valid excuse for deliberately consigning another human being in our power to a lethal medical 'procedure'.
.
When it comes to 'decisions', we women have every right to choose what political party we will vote for, what job we will do, what friends we will make, what we will have for breakfast.
But none of us has a right to abuse another human being in our care, no matter how, small or dependent or 'unwanted'.
"Choice" is never a valid excuse for deliberately consigning another human being in our power to a lethal medical 'procedure'.
.
2
Actually, it needs to be said — again and again — that abortion is legal, not murder, and reasonable access to abortion is still (for now) constitutionally protected. Women (and men) need no justification, challenge, excuse or rationale — economic or otherwise — to seek a legal abortion.
I don't doubt that it causes much pain to Szala to know that many people do not conflate abortion with a "right to kill their children." THAT is Szala's "profoundly dehumanizing argument," i.e., killers have abortions and are "justified in killing those who impede our economic progress."
I appreciate that Szala is seeking the Holy Grail of anti-abortion arguments — the one that will truly change minds. Following her own advice and not "dehumanizing" the "killers" would be a start.
I don't doubt that it causes much pain to Szala to know that many people do not conflate abortion with a "right to kill their children." THAT is Szala's "profoundly dehumanizing argument," i.e., killers have abortions and are "justified in killing those who impede our economic progress."
I appreciate that Szala is seeking the Holy Grail of anti-abortion arguments — the one that will truly change minds. Following her own advice and not "dehumanizing" the "killers" would be a start.
3
I agree with you completely, and might I add, society is continuously dehumanizing women without and before abortion. I felt it by the sge of 12. I also was relieved as a 12 yr. old when Roe v Wade was settled on the side of choice. Equating an unborn fetus with a living breathing ball playing child is ridiculous. When I was a college freshman I used my right to choose and my other problems were not rectified. But the problem of carrying a fetus that I did not want was rectified. Ps I am 60 and I still don't regret my decision.
4
This is why I am prochoice: Every woman is different, and every woman must be able to decide what is best for her. And the author is right that we do need more support for people--women, men and families--in need. That includes better access to healthcare and education so they are equipped to make those decisions. Progressives *do* want to reduce abortion. We just think there's a more effective way to do that than outlawing a medical procedure.
First of all, let's get something straight. No one knows when life begins; therefore, because we have a wall between church and state that says the beliefs of one religious group will not supersede other beliefs; and no law of any one religion will become the law of the land. So, saying abortion is murder, is YOUR belief. Do not inflict your beliefs on others who think differently. It is only in the most regressive countries like El Salvador, where having an abortion is a criminal act - where women are sometimes jailed for having miscarried because courts believe otherwise. Most women I know who have had abortions did so for their own good reasons and most of them felt/feel relief that they were able to have safe and legal abortions without the chance of dying in some back alley and leaving their loved ones to fend for themselves. It's nice you had your baby, but you are not the only story in this country - remember the majority of people in the US and worldwide do NOT believe life begins at conception and do not consider abortion an act of murder. We can share one common belief, to make abortions safe and rare. You'll never get to the place where you want them to be safe, but let's try and offer comprehensive sex education and birth control to all women in the name of prevention.
Using abortion rights as a litmus test for Democrats is an outdated approach and should be challenged. Bernie Sanders is 100% right on this.
Heath Mello's economic justice platform is laudable and his pro life stance comes from a place of conviction and should be respected. Gone are the days where democrats can intimidate liberal Catholic and Christian politicians on this issue. Economic justice issue trumps all of these cultural issues, though I know abortion rights advocates see all issues only through their lens.
I disagree with Heath Mello on the abortion issue even though I am Catholic. I happen to believe that abortion should be legal. Why? Because there are women in situations that I cannot even fathom, living in circumstances not even remotely similar to the writer's situation. The saddest part is that so many women on earth even get pregnant unintentionally either against their will, without access to birth control, in dysfunctional relationships etc.
I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that an abortion will not help a woman become her best self and is a very sad thing in life. But it might give a woman the freedom to change her life and HER life has to be acknowledged as equally valuable to the unformed life she is carrying.
Heath Mello's economic justice platform is laudable and his pro life stance comes from a place of conviction and should be respected. Gone are the days where democrats can intimidate liberal Catholic and Christian politicians on this issue. Economic justice issue trumps all of these cultural issues, though I know abortion rights advocates see all issues only through their lens.
I disagree with Heath Mello on the abortion issue even though I am Catholic. I happen to believe that abortion should be legal. Why? Because there are women in situations that I cannot even fathom, living in circumstances not even remotely similar to the writer's situation. The saddest part is that so many women on earth even get pregnant unintentionally either against their will, without access to birth control, in dysfunctional relationships etc.
I believe that life begins at conception. I also believe that an abortion will not help a woman become her best self and is a very sad thing in life. But it might give a woman the freedom to change her life and HER life has to be acknowledged as equally valuable to the unformed life she is carrying.
"We cannot allow the real, complex needs of abortion-seeking women to get lost in today’s polarized abortion debate." Written by a woman whose organization refers to today's America as a civilization of "sterilized death" due to the Supreme Court's recognition of early-term abortions as being covered by the same right to privacy that protects our right to educate our children as we see fit, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), teach our children the language of their heritage, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), to not be compelled to by physically examined through court process, Union Pacific Rwy. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891), not to be sterilized by the state, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), to use contraceptives in the privacy of our bedrooms, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and the many other human dignities that the Court has protected over the decades.
Ms. Szala may be correct that it is politically ineffective to link abortion to economics, but there is rich irony in her call to civility, given the rhetoric of her organization. One wonders at the good faith of such an author. As with so many others, I fail to see the benefit to discourse in allowing right-wing partisans to pen op-eds without disclosing the context, leaving it to your readers to google and investigate for themselves. Ms. Szala is at least generally (if not in this op-ed) up front about what she is. She has that on the usual think tank hacks.
Ms. Szala may be correct that it is politically ineffective to link abortion to economics, but there is rich irony in her call to civility, given the rhetoric of her organization. One wonders at the good faith of such an author. As with so many others, I fail to see the benefit to discourse in allowing right-wing partisans to pen op-eds without disclosing the context, leaving it to your readers to google and investigate for themselves. Ms. Szala is at least generally (if not in this op-ed) up front about what she is. She has that on the usual think tank hacks.
2
While I have had many respectful conversations with friends who are anti-choice, this piece does not merit such engagement. Buried in a sentence or two, you've zeroed in on a serious problem-- lack of resources for struggling families, which could be provided if the very people who vote for your agenda were actually "pro-life" instead of just "pro-birth." Instead of making a very necessary, ethical plea to conservatives to support a strong, family-friendly social welfare state, you wag your finger at progressives for supporting women who feel they have no other choice (again, because the people who vote for your agenda won't support them if they do go forward with the pregnancy).
When there's Medicare for All, universal basic income, free childcare, free birth control (that a woman can control) and tuition-free college, then your team can start looking for "creative" ways to reduce the need for abortion. Otherwise, we don't need to be creative; the answers are stated succinctly above. These are the real choices.
When there's Medicare for All, universal basic income, free childcare, free birth control (that a woman can control) and tuition-free college, then your team can start looking for "creative" ways to reduce the need for abortion. Otherwise, we don't need to be creative; the answers are stated succinctly above. These are the real choices.
8
I am so tired of other women pretending to be an authority on why women exercise their choice to have an abortion. Having had an abortion in my late teens and again in my early 30s, I have no regrets or emotional problems arising from those decisions. The fathers did not want to have a child with me and together we made the right decision to abort the pregnancy. I am currently happily married (for over 20 years) and had two healthy, happy daughters. Contrary to recent opinion pieces about why women elect to have abortions, I don't consider myself to have participated in an immoral act or to be dehumanized from a real discussion about the economic impacts of planned families. I for one greatly appreciated Ellen Shaffer's opinion piece. I realize as time goes on that women who have had abortions need to come out of the closet. Would the naysayers feel differently or exercise more caution in extolling their moral authority on this issue if they saw their friends, daughters, sisters, your mother and your grandmothers raise their hands.
6
"There are better solutions; they just require more creativity and more effort."
I am in complete sympathy with the author.
The only thing I would note is that the (mainly, not exclusively) Republicans put some adequate safety net money where their mouth is of the abortion issue.
And I have yet to encounter a national Republican voice which is anywhere close to doing this. Instead, the only message I can hear from Republicans, such as the 13 white males Mitch McConnell assigned to draft a replacement for Obamacare, is:
"Well, you have to accept responsibility for your actions and not call on the government to provide any special support to preserving the lives of those fetuses which would otherwise be aborted."
Is it surprising that in the face of this Republican Janus-faced righteousness there are a lot of abortions in the US?
Especially when the Republicans are also, for obscene political motives, seeking to deprive younger and poorer (educated) woman of the birth control information and assistance which their local pharmacist, or Planned Parenthood clinic might provide them.
Every abortion is a tragedy in cosmic terms. But every Republican legislator who demagogues over the misfortunes of people caught in the ordinary web of human sexuality, deserves a place lower than Lucifer in Dante's Inferno.
I am in complete sympathy with the author.
The only thing I would note is that the (mainly, not exclusively) Republicans put some adequate safety net money where their mouth is of the abortion issue.
And I have yet to encounter a national Republican voice which is anywhere close to doing this. Instead, the only message I can hear from Republicans, such as the 13 white males Mitch McConnell assigned to draft a replacement for Obamacare, is:
"Well, you have to accept responsibility for your actions and not call on the government to provide any special support to preserving the lives of those fetuses which would otherwise be aborted."
Is it surprising that in the face of this Republican Janus-faced righteousness there are a lot of abortions in the US?
Especially when the Republicans are also, for obscene political motives, seeking to deprive younger and poorer (educated) woman of the birth control information and assistance which their local pharmacist, or Planned Parenthood clinic might provide them.
Every abortion is a tragedy in cosmic terms. But every Republican legislator who demagogues over the misfortunes of people caught in the ordinary web of human sexuality, deserves a place lower than Lucifer in Dante's Inferno.
3
Another misrepresentation of what the pro-choice advocacy is about. No one should be forced to have an abortion, but no one should deny, whether politically or morally, the rights of women to deal with a medical emergency without the baggage of moral condemnation. This article only leads women backwards to the moral paternalism of the past. Everyone, including this writer, who wants to re-cast an abortion patient in moral terms that reflect themselves is part of the problem. Just because the writer allowed a friend in high school to persuade her to change her own mind does not mean such persuasions are ethical for others. Abortion is a medical emergency like any other and should be separated from the sexual obsessions and regrets of finger-waggers who are not the patient.
4
I am happy that this woman's life has turned around. But she is judging others on her own experiences, and furthermore, dips into unsubstantiated emotionalism. The realists among us do not deny that abortion is killing, but the forming child is a part of its mother's body, and no one should be able to tell any of us what we can do with our bodies, let alone interfere in our decisions about our own health. Yes, unplanned parenthood does not HAVE to lead to economic failure, but it often does. Economic failure and distress and hardship on the mother and often other family members. Abortion is never an easy way out. But it is one of several solutions to a problem pregnancy. Stop, please please stop telling other women what to do - and do not make it a law!
Anyone who does not encourage family planning (by any means necessary) is effectively an enemy of the progressive environmental agenda. We must cut human population numbers down if the planet is to survive.
2
An exquisitely capitalist argument: abortion is necessary so that women can be exploited and alienated without worrying about unwanted pregnancies; hard to believe that with this market based logic there is any argument against abortion in the US.
Childbearing is a necessary and complex human issue, abortion is part of it and has been since the beginning of recorded history, reducing the argument to any single factor, life, economics, health, etc. is a mistake and it is made by both sides.
Childbearing is a necessary and complex human issue, abortion is part of it and has been since the beginning of recorded history, reducing the argument to any single factor, life, economics, health, etc. is a mistake and it is made by both sides.
2
I understand that linking abortion rights with financial security and advancement is offensive to all of our values about children and motherhood. But the need for money to support a child, like sex and pregnancy, is a "fact of life." I wish children and mothers got the support all deserve, but that just isn't the case. The anti-abortion movement has dismissed the inconvenient facts that bearing and raising a child is expensive and that caring for a baby 24/7 does, in fact, limit a young woman's opportunities to work for her own good and that of her child. Anti-choice voters are the same ones who vote to cut Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants, and any form of public support for struggling families. They seem to want to punish poor women for bearing a child they can't afford to support. Charities can only do so much for a few poor mothers and their children. When I see the kind of reliable, material public support for these young mothers who are making a hard, life-changing decision, I will begin thinking about taking their rights to make that decision away.
1
It's more than a bit disingenuous when Republicans, who are so quick to argue that EVERYTHING has a market solution, reverse course and maintain there is no link between abortion and economics.
4
A nation founded on secular ideals should approach social issues in a humane, sensible and secular way.
The State's interest in abortion is two-fold: ensuring that all healthcare is provided according to best medical practices; representing the rights of fetuses who have reached the point of viability.
The State has no business supporting or defending a religious-based view of the complexities of human reproduction.
The State's interest in abortion is two-fold: ensuring that all healthcare is provided according to best medical practices; representing the rights of fetuses who have reached the point of viability.
The State has no business supporting or defending a religious-based view of the complexities of human reproduction.
5
Why is this argument staged as an EITHER / OR issue?! Either we support abortion OR we support expanding resources for mothers in need? Says who?
Yes, resources need to be allocated for women who choose to give birth. I 100% agree with the author on that. I appreciate the work she's done in this area and I applaud her personal success. That is no small feat. But this shouldn't preclude abortion as an option. SOME women will choose abortion and SOME women will choose birth.The framing of this argument presupposes that there is a monolithic experience of pregnancy and that abortion is is "never" the answer.
It's really hard to connect with arguments that require absolutist perspectives on a woman's decision to have a child or not.
Yes, resources need to be allocated for women who choose to give birth. I 100% agree with the author on that. I appreciate the work she's done in this area and I applaud her personal success. That is no small feat. But this shouldn't preclude abortion as an option. SOME women will choose abortion and SOME women will choose birth.The framing of this argument presupposes that there is a monolithic experience of pregnancy and that abortion is is "never" the answer.
It's really hard to connect with arguments that require absolutist perspectives on a woman's decision to have a child or not.
2
"...more creativity and more effort."
The problem is that Republicans are only creative when it comes to restricting women in all of their reproductive choices. C'mon now. Which party has tried to advance better policies for women that would make the need to have an abortion rare?
The problem is that Republicans are only creative when it comes to restricting women in all of their reproductive choices. C'mon now. Which party has tried to advance better policies for women that would make the need to have an abortion rare?
2
There are other reasons for Democrats not to join forces with the anti-choice crowd. If those that are opposed to abortion were able to accept a difference of opinion in an effort to pursue mutual economic goals, then perhaps. But, as this columnist demonstrates, that’s not the agenda. Ms. Szala considers women who have abortions as killers. Politician Heath Mello voted for anti-abortion measures in the Nebraska state senate. I have no doubt that these two, and their anti-choice compatriots would seek to undermine pro-choice policies if brought into the Democratic fold. That is simply not acceptable.
2
"amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress."
This is pretty much the argument behind the Republican health care bill.
This is pretty much the argument behind the Republican health care bill.
3
Ms. Szala shows her true, non-science and alternative- fact, colors by calling fetuses children, and by omitting any mention of birth control. She says, "we as a society have an obligation to help them "- them meaning pregnant women. She ignores the fact that the best way to help women is by providing birth control, sex education, and women's health services like Planned Parenthood. It is not by waiting until women are in trouble.
3
Ms. Sala is welcome to try and persuade pregnant women to carry their babies to term, or to persuade donors and volunteers to make it easier for women in tough circumstances to have and raise babies. This argument would hold more water if proponents of her view were not also trying to take away womens' ability to make other choices.
4
It would lend a lot of credence to Ms. Szala's piece--or indeed, her organization's web site--if she strongly supported contraception and the ability of all women to afford access to the method that works best for them. It would add even more credence if her organization's website posted positions in support of increasing WIC funding, affordable high-quality daycare, and paid parental leave. However, I visited the website after reading her article. There is no support for anything besides totally refuting the right for ANY woman to choose abortion, except in cases of life-threatening physical harm to the mother (apparently some incest is consensual, and women who have been raped are stronger than needing to destroy their rapist's innocent child). Oh, but they'll be happy to take your money...and their four male speakers (they want men to play such a strong role in the pro-life movement, I'm surprised Ms. Szala had the opportunity to write this article..) will thoughtfully articulate why abortion needs to be stopped..
Here's my question--can't even ONE of these antiabortion groups promote contraception and increased social funding for children? Why not?
Here's my question--can't even ONE of these antiabortion groups promote contraception and increased social funding for children? Why not?
2
Women do make this decision on economic grounds and Lori, if your organization can help swing the decision against the abortion by providing all of this help you say you can provide, then more power to you. Too bad you don't get any help from the Republicans in the government who are mostly about cutting the sorts of social services that women contemplating abortion need.
But, I have to admit that I don't see any reason why I should pay more taxes to raise somebody else's child that they can't afford and therefore shouldn't be having. I'd much rather pay for an aggressive program of effective birth control that reduces that need. Get an implant in every teenage girl for free and make sure they keep coming back.
But, I have to admit that I don't see any reason why I should pay more taxes to raise somebody else's child that they can't afford and therefore shouldn't be having. I'd much rather pay for an aggressive program of effective birth control that reduces that need. Get an implant in every teenage girl for free and make sure they keep coming back.
2
How can you not link a woman's economic future to her ability to control her fertility? To do less is simply fantasy. I am so glad the author of this article found options that were right for her and her family. To assume that what she found would work for her is a universal truth that pertains to all women is dehumanizing to all families struggling with these issues.
2
It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress.
I'm glad I force this notion out of my mind when I'm thinning the vegetables in my garden. Otherwise all I'd ever get is little stunted ones.
I'm glad I force this notion out of my mind when I'm thinning the vegetables in my garden. Otherwise all I'd ever get is little stunted ones.
The efforts of Human Coalition and the American Solidarity Party offer the best path forward. There needs to be a recognition of the full circle between the value of life and social justice.
Yes, I fully agree that pregnant women need better support and true choices, and that no one should be pressured to have an abortion. I support all efforts to help pregnant women--though I especially hope the help continues long beyond the pregnancy.
Yet as someone who came from an affluent family with good support and mindfully chose to have an abortion after becoming unintentionally preganant in my twenties, I am wary of any argument that implies most/all women would choose to parent if they only had more resources. To me this just seems like a patronizing way to chip away at abortion access, which is already threatened. I have never regretted my abortion. I am now delighted to be the mother of three mindfully chosen children, who are a tremendous amount of work and a heavy although joyfully undertaken burden. Even with adequate resources, parenting is difficult and life-altering. No one should be forced into it.
Yet as someone who came from an affluent family with good support and mindfully chose to have an abortion after becoming unintentionally preganant in my twenties, I am wary of any argument that implies most/all women would choose to parent if they only had more resources. To me this just seems like a patronizing way to chip away at abortion access, which is already threatened. I have never regretted my abortion. I am now delighted to be the mother of three mindfully chosen children, who are a tremendous amount of work and a heavy although joyfully undertaken burden. Even with adequate resources, parenting is difficult and life-altering. No one should be forced into it.
6
Thank you. The author wrote: "An abortion clinic, for a few hundred dollars, ends the life of a child whose upbringing may strain her mother’s resources. Full stop. The woman will leave the clinic still burdened by every single problem she came in with." This observation is wrong, as well as being cruel and short-sighted. As a mother-to-be with good health insurance, a loving supporting husband, and a secure job, I considered abortion because pregnancy itself was so hard on my body. After being hospitalized for two weeks and coming to terms with the fact that I would be sick my entire pregnancy, I went on to give birth, twice. Nearly 30 years later, we couldn't be happier. That said, what if I'd had the same pregnancy symptoms but a job that demanded I be on my feet all day long and unable to take frequent breaks to vomit or rest? Those are physical consequences that can affect anyone during pregnancy.
9
I still go with Pro-Choice. Abortion is not only about religious beliefs or economic circumstances. It has to do with personal freedom. Some women don't want children. Some women do not care to raise children. We should remember that having one abortion does not mean a woman cannot have a baby in the future.
4
For every story like yours there are hundreds of girls and young women who are condemned to a life of struggle and poverty due to an unplanned for child. If the so called pro life movement would support a well funded and open to all government program to support needy pregnant women I would take their arguments more seriously. Too often the same folks who deplore abortion also are for small government and cuts to any programs that might help the needy. Show the same passion for the child and mother as you do for the fetus and then you have my ear.
3
Can we please enter the 21st century?
In the interest of society at large, birth control should be free to everyone across the board, male and female, accompanied by mandatory sex education age 14 and up, including where to acquire said birth control and how to use it effectively.
In the interest of society at large, abortion should be widely available.
But these are considered predominantly women's problems, and the current Senate committee considering health care has no female members. Enough said.
In the interest of society at large, birth control should be free to everyone across the board, male and female, accompanied by mandatory sex education age 14 and up, including where to acquire said birth control and how to use it effectively.
In the interest of society at large, abortion should be widely available.
But these are considered predominantly women's problems, and the current Senate committee considering health care has no female members. Enough said.
I had two abortions when I was in my twenties. I was already a single mother, with a part-time, low-paying job, constantly risking malnutrition for my child and myself. Another child or two would have put our lives at risk. I didn't calculate costs, I just knew it was too dangerous to take responsibility for another human life at that point. In my late teens, when in college, I'd volunteered at a mental health facility, where I saw a child who had been discarded in an alley by its mother when it was weeks old. At the time I encountered the child, it was in its late teens, but its body size was that of a toddler, due to the trauma of having been discarded, almost starved, and then raised in an institution. Those lucky enough to have, or muster, the resources to raise unexpected children are fortunate indeed. But they should not presume their luck is available to everyone, nor look down their noses at those who can't do what they have done. Poverty means a daily struggle with life and death. No child asks to be born into that environment, and no mother should be forced to bring a child into it if she believes she can't provide food, safety, both physical and emotional, and nurturing for the child.
4
The issue here isn't about abortion rights, although the author tries to make it so. It's, yet again, the issue of interfering in a the life choices a woman makes. Further, a teenage unwed mother is not the same person as a college-educated mother who is earning a comfortable middle class wage who with free childcare at the ready via their support system. At every turn, women are accused of doing it wrong, no matter what. But that doesn't mean we should take away a woman's ability to make those choices. Please, can we at the very least accept the rule of law, stop limiting the choices women can make, and try to mind our own bloody business?
1
You write: I moved to a maternity home, took parenting classes and got tutoring to complete high school.
Great. Until every Pro-Lifer supports programs that help teenagers such as yourself, having choice will be the only saving grace a young woman will have to move forward in her life, with or without child.
Great. Until every Pro-Lifer supports programs that help teenagers such as yourself, having choice will be the only saving grace a young woman will have to move forward in her life, with or without child.
I missed the studies that the author referenced to support her opinion. When Human Coalition has called my home phone on several occasions, I inform Human Coalition that I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice and pro-birth control. Human coalition then hangs up on me.
3
You had the choice.
All women should have that choice.
As your story demonstrates, it's a personal decision, one that no government has the right to short-circuit.
There is no question that adolescent pregnancy can significantly impact future economic success. To say that women considering abortion factor that in can in no way be equivocated with "taking the easy way out."
There is no easy way out. The choice is the woman's, in consultation with her doctor. And no one else's business.
I am very glad your choice worked out for you; now, respect the choices of others.
All women should have that choice.
As your story demonstrates, it's a personal decision, one that no government has the right to short-circuit.
There is no question that adolescent pregnancy can significantly impact future economic success. To say that women considering abortion factor that in can in no way be equivocated with "taking the easy way out."
There is no easy way out. The choice is the woman's, in consultation with her doctor. And no one else's business.
I am very glad your choice worked out for you; now, respect the choices of others.
2
No one benefits when an uneducated, unskilled, woman has a baby with no supportive partner or family.
In this country we have a government that gleefully cuts services for the weakest and poorest among us. If you want to reduce unplanned pregnancy you should be advocating for free women's healthcare and family planning services including all options
Anything less is an overreach and an invasion of privacy
In this country we have a government that gleefully cuts services for the weakest and poorest among us. If you want to reduce unplanned pregnancy you should be advocating for free women's healthcare and family planning services including all options
Anything less is an overreach and an invasion of privacy
3
My childbearing years are over, and I have never had an unintended pregnancy or abortion. But I don't need to read individual stories of people who have faced such circumstances, and why or why not the right to determine their own circumstances is warranted. I want women to have the right to make private health decisions for THEMSELVES without interference by anyone else.
Anecdotes about how it all worked out in the end for someone like Ms. Szala are beside the point. She had the right to decide for herself, but so should every other person who is faced with such a decision.
All women should be very concerned about their future right to reproductive self-determination, with this current authoritarian-leaning president putting forth a slate of conservative justices for the regional and district appeals courts who hear the majority of cases. If the SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, what will be next? Restricting access to contraception?
Anecdotes about how it all worked out in the end for someone like Ms. Szala are beside the point. She had the right to decide for herself, but so should every other person who is faced with such a decision.
All women should be very concerned about their future right to reproductive self-determination, with this current authoritarian-leaning president putting forth a slate of conservative justices for the regional and district appeals courts who hear the majority of cases. If the SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, what will be next? Restricting access to contraception?
7
By the way Ms. Szala, how did your one experience with an unplanned pregnancy make you an expert on everyone else's unplanned pregnancies? You are one person who, though she doesn't seem to realize it, was very lucky. Most young women in your situation have neither the money nor the family support to do what you did. The dehumanizing you are writing of is caused by how women are treated by society, not from wanting an abortion.
For myself, I believe that abortion should be legal, available when needed, and rare. That means we educate all our children about sex, their bodies, contraception, etc. But the decision to have or not have an abortion should be left up to the woman not you, not the Church, or anyone else. And economic reasons for having or not having a child are as important as any other reasons.
For myself, I believe that abortion should be legal, available when needed, and rare. That means we educate all our children about sex, their bodies, contraception, etc. But the decision to have or not have an abortion should be left up to the woman not you, not the Church, or anyone else. And economic reasons for having or not having a child are as important as any other reasons.
11
When Nature ends a pregnancy, we call it a miscarriage; when we end one, we call it an abortion. From the standpoint of the fetus, they are the same. The human reproductive system is designed to sometimes fail and abort the pregnancy. If God is responsible for the design, then he is the biggest abortionist in the world. We could argue that only he has the right to kill fetuses, either by his individual choice or by establishing a system that sometimes does so. When people thought God was responsible for disease and death and everything else, this argument made sense. But now we override God's will in many cases; he sends cancer to tell us it is time to join him, and we do surgery/radiation/chemotherapy to tell him we disagree.
God's solution to a pregnancy that is not going well is sometimes to press the reset button, spend a few months cleaning things up, and then try again. We should be able to do the same. Many who decide to do this do so in an ethical manner, after careful soul-searching and reflection. And in many issues involving life and death, our ethics are still under development. We do not know where we will wind up, but when we look back at where we used to be, we see mostly progress.
God's solution to a pregnancy that is not going well is sometimes to press the reset button, spend a few months cleaning things up, and then try again. We should be able to do the same. Many who decide to do this do so in an ethical manner, after careful soul-searching and reflection. And in many issues involving life and death, our ethics are still under development. We do not know where we will wind up, but when we look back at where we used to be, we see mostly progress.
16
One of the best responses ever!
2
I have a great uncle in his nineties whose wife and he decided to abort their child, allowing them to flee their communist country and ultimately become wealthy. The wife's sister, on the other hand, did not abort and raised her child in poverty and hardship. And yet, my husband is alive because of the sister (his grandmother) and I feel greater respect for her decision than the other's.
Where I live, almost everyone is militantly pro-choice. But I see women who with a little encouragement might be better served by carrying the child to term. That great aunt and uncle could not conceive another child; I know a handful of people like that.
I'm not naive -- I believe in abortion for the hard cases. Ultimately, though, the best prevention is probably comprehensive sex ed which emphasizes only having sex in permanent loving relationships with someone you respect and could parent with. Living in a world where people in their twenties could afford kids would help, too.
Where I live, almost everyone is militantly pro-choice. But I see women who with a little encouragement might be better served by carrying the child to term. That great aunt and uncle could not conceive another child; I know a handful of people like that.
I'm not naive -- I believe in abortion for the hard cases. Ultimately, though, the best prevention is probably comprehensive sex ed which emphasizes only having sex in permanent loving relationships with someone you respect and could parent with. Living in a world where people in their twenties could afford kids would help, too.
3
Wow, talk about having kids late in life.
I couldn't agree more with Ms. Szala. As a mother of four children, two by nature and two by adoption, I have been focused on the abortion issue since the early 70's. Today I think there is tremendous pressure on pregnant women to abort. It's beginning to sound like a requirement. And why is abortion so often offered as a fix for poverty, and especially for women in ethnic minority groups that have been deprived for years of education, transportation, political voice, and a chance to make a decent wage and "move up the ladder" of opportunity? I agree: let Americans from every sort of political viewpoint fix those issues first and then tell them that eliminating their unborn is a good way to move ahead in our society.
3
The cause of abortion is unintended pregnancy. We as a nation need to get off this insane attachment to the argument as to whether abortion should be legal, and get busy with solutions that are much less destructive to individual women. We need a massive effort to provide ready access to birth control and to education about reproduction, not these crazy efforts to prevent access to contraceptives. Unintended pregnancies can be reduced, as has been clearly demonstrated by programs in places like Denver, Colorado. Women who have good support systems may be able to find a way to become a good parent and to survive economically, and those support systems should be bolstered. Not all women have that support system, and some women simply do not have the resources, whether emotional, physical, or economic, to care for one child or for an additional child. We are ignoring women and children in this race to prove one side or the other is "right" about abortion. Instead, we need to focus on providing women with the tools to avoid pregnancy, provide those who wish to give birth the support they need (one part of which is a health care system that works), and to admit that there are some circumstances in which abortion is an acceptable solution. And we need serious research into other approaches to avoiding unintended pregnancies.
11
I am, by and large, economically left leaning, and left leaning on social welfare issues. Unfortunately I can never vote for the Democrats, who by and large agree with me on those issues, because of abortion. A fetus has a unique human DNA, and it is alive by virtually any scientific definition. I'm not calling it a person, just a member of the human species. Being a person seems to be based much more on belief (e.g., does it have a soul) and our laws probably shouldn't be based on that. You can't prove that someone is or is not a person or does or does not have a soul, regardless of their age. I can't understand how a party that is so much in favor of equal rights for all human beings, and so committed to science, can simultaneously decide that some humans aren't humans based on some fuzzy notion of a lack of personhood. If you disagree with this position (which, this is the NYT, I'm sure most people reading this disagree), I hope you can understand why someone couldn't vote for a party that they believed was okay with a complete lack of protections for the literal weakest members of our species. All the social programs in the world are useless if you're dead.
3
Our souls are like the software in the computer you are looking at. They form from our experience of living after we are born.
1
One can only develop a sense of personhood by living independently in constant interaction with other persons at varying stages of their own developments. This is how our souls bloom on our brains.
1
For all the time and energy pro-life politicians put into protecting the rights of your fetus and taking away your say about what to do about this lump of cells growing in your own body, they've demonstrated that they really couldn't care less about that fetus once it exits the womb. If those politicians find these lives as precious as they claim, they should be bending over backwards to provide these babies with healthcare, childcare, good schooling, nutrition, rights for their mothers in the workplace, etc.
Except they don't clamor for those things, do they? If they did, then this would be a valid argument. But because they don't care beyond imposing their narrow beliefs on everyone else, unwanted babies can and do become economic balls and chains, especially for disadvantaged women who often have a harder time affording and accessing birth control and abortion services in the first place.
I believe that abortion should always be legal, accessible, and safe, but it should also be exceedingly rare and a last resort. We can make it that way by providing ample sex education and health services, cheap (or even free) birth control, and provide social services so that young women don't have to decide between raising a child and cultivating their future.
Except they don't clamor for those things, do they? If they did, then this would be a valid argument. But because they don't care beyond imposing their narrow beliefs on everyone else, unwanted babies can and do become economic balls and chains, especially for disadvantaged women who often have a harder time affording and accessing birth control and abortion services in the first place.
I believe that abortion should always be legal, accessible, and safe, but it should also be exceedingly rare and a last resort. We can make it that way by providing ample sex education and health services, cheap (or even free) birth control, and provide social services so that young women don't have to decide between raising a child and cultivating their future.
11
It sounds like you are talking about pro life conservatives. This article is about pro-life democrats (like Mello). Are you saying Mello/democrats don't care about those issues? The argument is that pro-choice democrats make a bad argument when they tie abortion to economics. And while it isn't explicitly stated, I'd bet that the subtext is that they should stop trying to purge pro-life democrats (who are among the few people that might actually meet all your requirements above)from the party.
Thanks to the Catholic Church, we now have seven billion people on this planet, two billion of which don't have adequate sanitation and clean water. What a mess.
What was right for you will not be right for every woman. Pro-choice means just that. On the other hand, anti-abortion activist would make the alternative of a safe abortion illegal. While you say you did not suffer because of your choice to keep your baby, many women would suffer from your choice to force them to bear theirs.
16
To extend the comment above, many people do not agree that an early embryo is a person. Which is why the Bible, Exodus chapter 21 v 22, requires monetary damages rather than a murder verdict if a man hits a woman and she miscarries.
So prochoice means just that-a woman can chose to believe or mot believe that an early embryo is a person, and act accordingly. Just as i don't want others, especially the government, telling me if or how to worship, I don't want to be told that an early embryo is a person. My reading of the Bible tells me the opposite.
So prochoice means just that-a woman can chose to believe or mot believe that an early embryo is a person, and act accordingly. Just as i don't want others, especially the government, telling me if or how to worship, I don't want to be told that an early embryo is a person. My reading of the Bible tells me the opposite.
“It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress.” What makes you so sure that that’s not exactly how activists see it?
1
Organizations like Human Coalition may be a great idea. But until government gets involved in helping parents with children they will always just be a bandaid.
From personal experience as a single mother, pretty much no one wants to help with other peoples' children. Especially for single mothers - often family and friends alike run like rats from a sinking ship, afraid that the mother will
'become dependent' on them. (It's different for single fathers. I noticed that the few single fathers I knew were delivered pre-cooked meals and offers of babysitting help. Not to mention accolades for juggling work and kids. The poor things, people would say, they work so hard.)
Women cannot rely on charity for help - charity is sporadic and not reliable. We need early childhood education, pre-school, free or at least very inexpensive quality childcare, financial help, free breakfast and lunch programs and other programs guaranteed by government social services programs. Then maybe abortion will become less common.
From personal experience as a single mother, pretty much no one wants to help with other peoples' children. Especially for single mothers - often family and friends alike run like rats from a sinking ship, afraid that the mother will
'become dependent' on them. (It's different for single fathers. I noticed that the few single fathers I knew were delivered pre-cooked meals and offers of babysitting help. Not to mention accolades for juggling work and kids. The poor things, people would say, they work so hard.)
Women cannot rely on charity for help - charity is sporadic and not reliable. We need early childhood education, pre-school, free or at least very inexpensive quality childcare, financial help, free breakfast and lunch programs and other programs guaranteed by government social services programs. Then maybe abortion will become less common.
12
Your experience include CHOICE. WOMEN SHOULD BE GIVEN THE DIGNITY AND THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. You made your choice and it worked out for you. Wonderful! But others need the choice for a variety of reasons and those reasons should remain their and their alone. For you to say...I believe this and therefor you must not only believe it but live by it. No choice in the matter.
I don't agree with Bernie supporting a candidate who is anti choice but then I don't agree with anyone on everything. I want everyone to have a choice.
I don't agree with Bernie supporting a candidate who is anti choice but then I don't agree with anyone on everything. I want everyone to have a choice.
16
I am so tired of Republican framing of this issue and what it means to be "pro-life." Abortion is, 90% of the time, an economic decision. If you can't afford another child, you are going to look for ways to terminate a pregnancy. This inconvenient fact has Republicans in a pickle: their economic policies oppress single mothers and the poor, and their "pro-life" policies make legal abortion ever more unattainable in more and more states. Republican politicians are so dang pro-life, they force women into making decisions unthinkable 15 years ago. A true pro-life policy would be one that supported single mothers and poor families, providing low-cost healthcare and child care, and enabled women who wanted to to carry their pregnancies to term.
8
So we don't want women to face economic poverty, but we are willing to crush their spirit, their soul and leave a devastating wound upon them - yet they will not be impoverished - really their pain, remorse and prison has just begun.
8
The overwhelming emotion of the women I know who have had abortions has been relief. I know this is not true for everyone, but it is true for many. Also, the writer does not take into account the myriad abortions that are performed because of things that go terribly wrong in a pregnancy. No one should be allowed to rule yes or no in such cases except the pregnant woman.
Perhaps the shaming from the so called pro-life people is also at work here. I doubt very much that women in countries where abortion doesn't carry such a stigma, where they do not have to hide the fact that they have had an abortion, experience such angst.
And finally, the people who are anti-abortion also tend to be against easily available contraception and fact-based, age-appropriate sexuality education. They don't want women to have sex. Good luck with that.
Perhaps the shaming from the so called pro-life people is also at work here. I doubt very much that women in countries where abortion doesn't carry such a stigma, where they do not have to hide the fact that they have had an abortion, experience such angst.
And finally, the people who are anti-abortion also tend to be against easily available contraception and fact-based, age-appropriate sexuality education. They don't want women to have sex. Good luck with that.
3
This article exemplifies a typical "conservative" attitude, i.e., "If I can pull myself up by my bootstraps, why can't everyone else?" In other words, the author is essentially patting herself on the back for her own success. Not cool. And of course not everyone has family support and the talent to be able to attend college and graduate school. Good for you Ms. Szala! But what about those who lack such resources?
In addition (as others have mentioned), our society provides little of a "safety net" for mothers. Here in America we do not have subsidized or free day care, or even paid family leave. Many lack health insurance. The meager support provided to families will be yanked away, if the current administration has its way.
Juxtaposed against this background, yes, abortion is certainly an economic issue. Birth control should be more readily available, of course. But it is not infallible! And it is always women (rather than their male partners) who bear the brunt of the physical/emotional/economic costs of raising children.
In addition (as others have mentioned), our society provides little of a "safety net" for mothers. Here in America we do not have subsidized or free day care, or even paid family leave. Many lack health insurance. The meager support provided to families will be yanked away, if the current administration has its way.
Juxtaposed against this background, yes, abortion is certainly an economic issue. Birth control should be more readily available, of course. But it is not infallible! And it is always women (rather than their male partners) who bear the brunt of the physical/emotional/economic costs of raising children.
10
Progressives don't say that every attempt to reduce abortion is anti woman. They never say that. What they say is that every effort to reduce access to abortion or contraception and reduce women's choices is anti-women. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
You can keep woman's choices intact all the while promoting contraception and keep making it opening up the possibilities for women. I might also add that progressives have policies that do a lot more to promote choices for women. They promote WIC, Section 8, maternity leave, education for mothers even in high school, daycare, universal pre-k etc. etc and of course as always access to affordable contraception and sex education that discusses sex and contraception accurately.
So don't lay the blame here on progressives ma'am. What is dehumanizing is seeing woman only has machines with no right to have choices in their lives, or the capability to make them and unable to live with ambiguity or regret. You made a choice, good for you. Don't argue against others doing the same. You are not they.
You can keep woman's choices intact all the while promoting contraception and keep making it opening up the possibilities for women. I might also add that progressives have policies that do a lot more to promote choices for women. They promote WIC, Section 8, maternity leave, education for mothers even in high school, daycare, universal pre-k etc. etc and of course as always access to affordable contraception and sex education that discusses sex and contraception accurately.
So don't lay the blame here on progressives ma'am. What is dehumanizing is seeing woman only has machines with no right to have choices in their lives, or the capability to make them and unable to live with ambiguity or regret. You made a choice, good for you. Don't argue against others doing the same. You are not they.
27
Even nature makes mistakes. When it does, liberals accept and advocate what will minimize the harm, and leaves the way clear for nature to try again in the future.
This issue certainly polarizes opinions and for that reason makes a search for compromise all the more important.
Ms. Szala, it's great that you are making an effort to support women through a difficult decision. But I hope your support in NO way relies on emotional pressure to make women in difficult situations do things your way. The decision must remain entirely theirs, without psychological pressure imposed on them by others. Emotional blackmail is not what these women need.
I would like to see a much stronger social net to support women who choose pregnancy. I would like to see a much better system for adoption. These are areas where the Democrats could make headway.
I would like to see the Republicans admit that open, comprehensive sex education, starting as young as 12 years old, reduces teen and unwanted pregnancies, as has been proven in many European countries and Japan. So far all I see from the GOP is the opposite, absurd support for "abstinence" and resistance to access to contraceptives.
I will always adamantly resist "compromise" that includes such things as mandated ultra-sounds before electing an abortion procedure.
Abortion access is under CONSTANT attack, more so now than at any point in the last 30 years. I worry that advocates like Szala may be trying to use a soft approach to undermine access, while their fellow anti-choice colleagues continue with the hard approach.
This article does not convince me.
Ms. Szala, it's great that you are making an effort to support women through a difficult decision. But I hope your support in NO way relies on emotional pressure to make women in difficult situations do things your way. The decision must remain entirely theirs, without psychological pressure imposed on them by others. Emotional blackmail is not what these women need.
I would like to see a much stronger social net to support women who choose pregnancy. I would like to see a much better system for adoption. These are areas where the Democrats could make headway.
I would like to see the Republicans admit that open, comprehensive sex education, starting as young as 12 years old, reduces teen and unwanted pregnancies, as has been proven in many European countries and Japan. So far all I see from the GOP is the opposite, absurd support for "abstinence" and resistance to access to contraceptives.
I will always adamantly resist "compromise" that includes such things as mandated ultra-sounds before electing an abortion procedure.
Abortion access is under CONSTANT attack, more so now than at any point in the last 30 years. I worry that advocates like Szala may be trying to use a soft approach to undermine access, while their fellow anti-choice colleagues continue with the hard approach.
This article does not convince me.
23
The word is out on your high-risk adoptees too.
There is no compromise on this issue short of you mind your body and I will mind mine.
There is no compromise on this issue short of you mind your body and I will mind mine.
I do find it rather ironic that many mainstream democrats have brought Bernie Sanders to task on this issue yet, overall, during the Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton and the democratic party in general spent little time and money in any of these red states anyway, virtually writing them off in the process. I am sure as a pro-choice candidate Sanders knew he would be under fire for making a compromise in a state that was overwhelmingly conservative and minds would not change on the abortion issue, at least for the foreseeable future, however, in order to attempt to make an electoral breakthrough in a state that HE actually visited, he understood the nature of the attitudes must be recognized and an alternative approach must be taken.
However important, to dwell on one issue such as this, at this time, it is quite clear over the last ten years, with the immense loss of seats at all government levels, for the democrats, their approach has been an unmitigated disaster and this is just another example. You can't do anything unless you get elected.
However important, to dwell on one issue such as this, at this time, it is quite clear over the last ten years, with the immense loss of seats at all government levels, for the democrats, their approach has been an unmitigated disaster and this is just another example. You can't do anything unless you get elected.
1
The "pro-life" politicians very rarely demonstrate that they are pro-baby or pro-child.
So not truly pro-life, except in the most basic biological sense.
I understand Ms. Szala's argument, but the creative fly by the seat of your pants type support she presents (and that happened to work for her) is not something most women can count on, and they will act accordingly.
The progressive political platform does work to address the inequalities she suggests need to be addressed. We've been working at this for a long long time. So yes that is key. And guess how well that's going? It's always been a hard sell to conservatives who just want to feel done with the whole thing once they convince the women to have the babies.
Like another commenter, I used to be a pregnancy counselor at a community health center. There are many women who simply don't want to have the baby. We need to keep this choice legal. My husband, a physician, still remembers the coat hanger abortion days and how many women would be brought into the ER septic. Not something to return to.
So yes, put all the support for low income families in place first and let this choice be more of an actual choice.
So not truly pro-life, except in the most basic biological sense.
I understand Ms. Szala's argument, but the creative fly by the seat of your pants type support she presents (and that happened to work for her) is not something most women can count on, and they will act accordingly.
The progressive political platform does work to address the inequalities she suggests need to be addressed. We've been working at this for a long long time. So yes that is key. And guess how well that's going? It's always been a hard sell to conservatives who just want to feel done with the whole thing once they convince the women to have the babies.
Like another commenter, I used to be a pregnancy counselor at a community health center. There are many women who simply don't want to have the baby. We need to keep this choice legal. My husband, a physician, still remembers the coat hanger abortion days and how many women would be brought into the ER septic. Not something to return to.
So yes, put all the support for low income families in place first and let this choice be more of an actual choice.
16
"The progressive political platform does work to address the inequalities she suggests need to be addressed. We've been working at this for a long time.... It's always been a hard sell to conservatives"
Here's a question, acknowledging that people do exist (in Mellos former district and elsewhere) who identify as liberal in every way other than the idea that abortion is a morally neutral choice. Would you be willing to accept as allies in the democratic party, people who were willing to help you address all those other inequalities but draws the line at sacrificing human life to do so? As an independent outsider looking in, it often seems like that lack of support for addressing real inequality is *just* because evil republican have told everyone not to care, its *also*because half of the country can't stomach a vote for either party. Not saying all of those people are motivated by abortion. But a decent number of them are. And its not like you're going to lose the NARAL vote no matter what some mayor in Nebraska says.
Here's a question, acknowledging that people do exist (in Mellos former district and elsewhere) who identify as liberal in every way other than the idea that abortion is a morally neutral choice. Would you be willing to accept as allies in the democratic party, people who were willing to help you address all those other inequalities but draws the line at sacrificing human life to do so? As an independent outsider looking in, it often seems like that lack of support for addressing real inequality is *just* because evil republican have told everyone not to care, its *also*because half of the country can't stomach a vote for either party. Not saying all of those people are motivated by abortion. But a decent number of them are. And its not like you're going to lose the NARAL vote no matter what some mayor in Nebraska says.
Exactly right. "Maybe if I have the baby some nice lady will give me a car" is not a workable life plan, and indeed would be derided by many Americans as exactly the kind of irresponsible choice-making that a lifetime of poverty was designed by God to punish.
2
"The woman will leave the clinic still burdened by every single problem she came in with." YES. Why do people insist abortion will solve any problems for women? Also, the notion that personal choice trumps everything is totally inconsistent with how most people want society to work, in every realm other than abortion. We don't expect to have total freedom in other areas of our lives, and most of us recognize that the choices we make do affect other people. We are constrained by laws and morals that we take for granted, but when it comes to abortion, suddenly giving up your CHOICE is unthinkable. This is inconsistent.
6
Actually, having an abortion does solve problems. Being pregnant can be a problem for women. It can be a problem in terms of health, financial well-being, emotional well-being, etc. We have the right to use a safe, legal medical procedure to solve that problem.
We don't have the expectation of total freedom in what we do with our own bodies, Emily?
When did that come about? Was it one of 45's executive orders? Where can I get a copy of that?
Those most people you mention who want society to work in a certain way -- can you cite your source?
My abortion didn't "affect other people" because other people hadn't a clue about it. And I wouldn't have cared if they had.
When did that come about? Was it one of 45's executive orders? Where can I get a copy of that?
Those most people you mention who want society to work in a certain way -- can you cite your source?
My abortion didn't "affect other people" because other people hadn't a clue about it. And I wouldn't have cared if they had.
2
We keep missing the point. Abortion and all the decision making surrounding it are the most profoundly private decisions a woman can make. Choosing abortion, adoption or carrying to term is that woman's choice and her's alone. Whoever she chooses to involve in her decision making is her choice and her's alone. Economics may be a factor but don't use it as an excuse to take that decision away from the woman who's pregnant.
19
When the author talks about lobbying Republicans in Congress to provide public money for family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies, for health care during pregnancy, for maternal and paternal leave, for postnatal care of both the mother and the child - i.e., for universal economic support that will give women more freedom of choice over whether to have children or not - then I'll take the author and her organization more seriously.
19
Add to that list comprehensive sex education starting in Middle School and continuing through High School.
2
While I can appreciate this story, it is simply one story. I think it's a problem when someone from any side of the debate tries to reduce it to one way of thinking. She may have worked with many mothers who really wanted to have a child and felt the pressure to abort. On the other hand, I worked with teen girls who often had their babies because they desperately wanted someone to love them unconditionally. But once those children were born, they quickly learned that the expectation that your child will love you no matter what is unrealistic and ditched their kids quickly. I had a kid who was given multiple opportunities to go to school and parent her child she gave birth to at the age of 14. And she ruined each chance to go drink and hang out with boys. She loved her daughter but I don't think she wanted to be a mother. So that daughter ended up with relatives which was better than the ones that went into the system and moved around from foster home to foster home. I don't know that I'd want to say they were better off never being born but maybe in some ways that's the truth. Not everyone has the motivation to do better and who are we to deny those people abortions?
9
Well, no--and unfortunately pro-choice advocates have largely failed resoundingly in making the right--the irrefutable argument.
The provision of safe abortion is part of comprehensive health care for women. And all people--women, of course, included--have the right to make decisions about their health care in private, in consultation with those whom they deem an integral part of their decision-making process.
In an ideal--a healthy--world, every pregnancy would be a planned one. That's most essentially important for the wellbeing of the child--that it may be conceived under healthy circumstances, in every sense of that word. Unplanned pregnancy greatly increases the risk of having a child less healthy than it might have been.
Certainly the world is full of people whose parents didn't plan their conception and who nevertheless turned out all right. But in a modern world we must strive for the optimum outcome, for everyone.
We need to devote many more resources to science-based sex ed; to easy safe access to medical abortions; to encouraging young women who have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy, but who do not want to bear the potential child, to make a decision early so a medical abortion can be as safe as possible and obtained during the embryonic stage; to stop acting as though abortion is not part of appropriate gynecological care.
The world is too full of unwanted children, many of whom grow up not in loving homes with caring parents, but in dreadful homes.
The provision of safe abortion is part of comprehensive health care for women. And all people--women, of course, included--have the right to make decisions about their health care in private, in consultation with those whom they deem an integral part of their decision-making process.
In an ideal--a healthy--world, every pregnancy would be a planned one. That's most essentially important for the wellbeing of the child--that it may be conceived under healthy circumstances, in every sense of that word. Unplanned pregnancy greatly increases the risk of having a child less healthy than it might have been.
Certainly the world is full of people whose parents didn't plan their conception and who nevertheless turned out all right. But in a modern world we must strive for the optimum outcome, for everyone.
We need to devote many more resources to science-based sex ed; to easy safe access to medical abortions; to encouraging young women who have been exposed to the risk of pregnancy, but who do not want to bear the potential child, to make a decision early so a medical abortion can be as safe as possible and obtained during the embryonic stage; to stop acting as though abortion is not part of appropriate gynecological care.
The world is too full of unwanted children, many of whom grow up not in loving homes with caring parents, but in dreadful homes.
12
Art, music, love, life can't be planned. Try too hard and you'll either wind up bitter or insane.
Nothing the author asserts answers the basic issue - why any woman should be denied the right to make a choice whether to have a child or not.
16
Choice is the key pillar of income equality. With choice comes personal responsibility and control
6
Preeeeeety sure choice is a key pillar of capitalism. You know, like employers want the choice to lay off a pregnant woman because she's temporarily costly, Bankers want the choice to deny student loans in "high risk" situations, mortgage lenders want the choice to hike interest rates based on socioeconomic factors. As a liberal, I'm down with limiting peoples ability to make harmful choices.
4
The author provides a lovely personal witness, but misses the larger devastating link between poverty - specifically female and child poverty - and abortion. Progressive ideology promotes parenthood not as a verifiable biological reality (which it is) but as a lifestyle choice. This cherished "choice" of whether or not to "be" a parent has resulted in record levels of child abandonment - which is the primary source of feminized and child poverty throughout wealthy western democracies (US, European, Nordic). Fewer fathers are caring for their children currently in western europe than after the great war. It's the terrible paradox of second wave feminists, having secured the goals of 1st wave feminists wildest dreams (voting rights, property rights, access to education and the professions) women are poorer and more burdened with childcare. Poverty has become feminized (google scholar for a wealth of studies) since reproductive rights were championed in the 60s. So long as the number of pro-choice men outstrips the number of pro-choice women - women and children are at risk of poverty and deprivation. Progressives celebrate freedom to "choose" parenthood, but at what cost to women and children? Positive suggestion - joint custody for biological parents. You both made the child, you both care for the child. Grown-up care for children, it's what we do. Co - parenting, it's cool!
3
Of course Ms. Szala probably votes for Republicans who do their best to make single mother's lives ever more difficult on behalf of their wealthy donors. Very pro-life indeed.
15
An abortion clinic, for a few hundred dollars, removes a mindless clutch of cells, which if permitted to become a child, would strain her mother’s resources. Full stop. It's a choice, not a child. I realize you have a different set of metaphysical commitments on this issue, but each person has a right to make their choice based on their metaphysical commitments, because the bill of rights protects freedom of religion.
No Progressives has ever claimed every effort to reduce abortion is anti-woman and will lead to ruin and disaster. We only object to efforts that use legal force to stop a woman from having the choice.
No Progressives has ever claimed every effort to reduce abortion is anti-woman and will lead to ruin and disaster. We only object to efforts that use legal force to stop a woman from having the choice.
19
I am pro choice, and I believe, that I were in a situation that required my to make that choice, I would choose life., not abortion.
It would have to be my choice, not a stranger's.
Pro choice is not anti life and should not be seen as a referendum on life.
If it were, consider the irony of a famously pro-life justice deciding to execute a man on death row.
It would have to be my choice, not a stranger's.
Pro choice is not anti life and should not be seen as a referendum on life.
If it were, consider the irony of a famously pro-life justice deciding to execute a man on death row.
I agree with those who say a fetus is not yet a child. In the early stages of pregnancy, the fetus is a cluster of cells that is an "idea of a child", and this cluster may or may not become one. Ideas impact emotions, however, and those who have abortions often experience guilt, depression, and remorse. Those emotions are usually not just about the abortion, but also about many other factors - a sense of personal failure, a troubled relationship with the woman's partner or family, theology-induced guilt, lack of a social support system, confusion about life goals. Economics is important, but only part of the picture.
Furthermore, anti-abortionists never talk about how an unwanted pregnancy impacts the lifelong relationship of mother and child. They assume that once the baby is born, the mother will love it unconditionally and raise it well - all by herself? Thwarted goals, resentment, lack of preparation, economic deprivation - all of these may permanently damage both mother and child in an ongoing cycle of dysfunction. Abortion is hence the lesser of two evils.
No one is "pro-abortion". The sensible and compassionate approach is to promote birth control and personal responsibility, providing reproductive education, health care and social services to all prospective parents, to hopefully reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Unfortunately, anti-abortionists are often anti-birth control, anti-education, and anti-social safety net as well. This is ultimately anti-life.
Furthermore, anti-abortionists never talk about how an unwanted pregnancy impacts the lifelong relationship of mother and child. They assume that once the baby is born, the mother will love it unconditionally and raise it well - all by herself? Thwarted goals, resentment, lack of preparation, economic deprivation - all of these may permanently damage both mother and child in an ongoing cycle of dysfunction. Abortion is hence the lesser of two evils.
No one is "pro-abortion". The sensible and compassionate approach is to promote birth control and personal responsibility, providing reproductive education, health care and social services to all prospective parents, to hopefully reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Unfortunately, anti-abortionists are often anti-birth control, anti-education, and anti-social safety net as well. This is ultimately anti-life.
14
Why doesn't the U.S. study other first-world countries and see how they resolve reproduction and childcare, regardless of marriage? Can wager the issue is resolved much more intelligently and humanely without the unnecessary shame and hardship on women.
Medieval patriarchy leaves a lot to be desired.
Medieval patriarchy leaves a lot to be desired.
6
We've apparently studied these successful countries and decided we'd rather be dogmatic conservatives. Witness the same happening with healthcare, infrastructure, poverty, and so many other areas where fact, science and reason take a back seat to dogma. Its only us and the Muslim extremists ignoring such reality - great company to be in.
1
Making people wrong for having an abortion is not convincing to anyone, and doesn't solve any problems.
9
Ninety-two percent of the abortions in this country occur during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. A zygote, blastocyst, or embryo is not the same as a fully-developed child, which could survive outside the womb.
While Ms. Szala's experience was a success story, I would like to bring up a point that few speak to.... Why do we think that a 14-18 (I wld go as high as 20) yo child can raise a child? Children raising children is not the solution to a better society. As we know the first three years of life are paramount to the growth and development of the brain and behavior. I certainly did not believe that I could, as a child, raise a child to be a functioning, compassionate, evolved humaan - and so I did not. If one as a child is going to raise a child, economics is important for childcare, pre-school socialization, health care, clean food, housing, transportation and air/water as well as many other factors. Of course the solution is quality sex education; free condoms and contraception for all; the end of rape and sexual violence, especially of children; and paid family leave for a year for both parents naming a few things. These are all "economic" issues which are tied to race,class, immigrant & gender discrimination. Our society is not supporting all women thru the important work of birthing and raising children, and so each of us must be able to choose without hurdles or barriers of any kind. That is the choice that the powers that be have made against women and children Just sayin'
8
I do not know how Ms. Szala can write this column knowing that Paul Ryan and his motley crew have just gutted women's healthcare. She did not see the viral photo of a group of white men celebrating their accomplishment in the White House Rose Garden. The passage of this awful bill will hurt all women, especially poor and rural women. Fighting the passage of this bill should have been the coalition's priority. Helping a few pregnant women one at a time is no solution. I have been on the Human Coalition website and there is nothing on it about contraception, paid maternity leave, a living wage, a woman's autonomy, etc. which I found disturbing. You were indeed lucky, but many women are not, and so economics will always influence a woman's decision on having an abortion. Finally, don't like abortions? Don't have one.
The only "problem" I can see with linking limiting abortion and the limiting of women's economic opportunities is that it's true, and that's a problem for the writer. Make no mistake, these subterfuge anti-abortion arguments have but one purpose, and that is to limit the rights of people who don't subscribe to the same religious superstitions of the right to lifers ("There's a "soul" in that-there fetus"- give me a break!)
Ms. Szala -- women need the whole range of reproductive health care addressed in order to secure their financial future -- whether they are atop the ladder, on their way up or living paycheck to paycheck. This includes access to abortion and all other forms of birth control. Your assessment is totally beyond the pale in its lack of understanding for real economic issues.
Your characterization that abortion is dehumanizing and that it is killing is tired, inflammatory and discounts the experience of all of human history.
And Bernie Sanders is not a progressive. He is an economic populist misogynist.
Your characterization that abortion is dehumanizing and that it is killing is tired, inflammatory and discounts the experience of all of human history.
And Bernie Sanders is not a progressive. He is an economic populist misogynist.
8
How many people succeed in your programs Lori? While it's not a great idea to link economics and abortion, the truth is that far too many children live in poverty and we don't help them. Indeed, with the new AHCA, medical services for the poor will be even more limited. To you the fetus is a child, but to many people, there isn't a child there until it's viable outside the womb. Don't equate a fertilized egg with a child.
10
But I read and hear CONSTANTLY from Republicans who don't want to pay for food stamps, housing, health care, even education, "If you can't afford a baby, don't have one" because Republicans don't want to provide a safety net to make it possible for an unemployed uneducated single woman to raise a chlld.
17
There's no mention in this article of access to birth control, which has statistically proven to be the most effective way of reducing abortions.
15
Fair enough, but not sufficient justification for making abortion illegal or unavailable. Nor it is sufficient justification for churches to place their sin of abortion above so many other sins, perhaps especially the sins of covetousness and false witness. The Christ said for humanity to avoid ALL sin, not just one. Those two sins cause much of the world's inequality and spur more sin.
8
There's also a problem linking abortion and depression/suicide, a link that is not supported by fact.
Lori - how about, it's none of your business? How about, every woman gets to decide what is best for her own situation? Also, if you truly want to help women make the choice to keep a fetus, maybe fighting for universal healthcare and daycare would be a way to start. Oh, and maybe keep God out of it.
37
And while Lori is at it, how about she protests Republican's efforts to allow insurance plans to not cover maternity costs?
2
I had an abortion at age 28 and never regretted it. Wish it didn't have to have happened, but I don't (and didn't) regret it.
It wasn't an "easy way out". It was the right thing to do.
Contrary to what anti-abortionists preach, having an abortion *was* taking responsibility. I wasn't ready to have children, economically and otherwise. There's absolutely no way I'm going to impose economic instability and an unprepared mother onto a child. I believe that's morally wrong. Children need to be raised by parents that are prepared, stable *adults*.
Ms. Szala, raising your child wasn't the responsibility of your "strong network of family and friends", organizations, or charity workers. It was yours. It was also your responsibility to get your life together *before* bringing children into it. You congratulate yourself for taking charity from and imposing upon the lives of others so *you* could have a baby, while condescendingly accusing others (like myself) of taking the "easy way out" and committing murder.
Seems to me like *you* took the easy way out, Ms. Szala. You aren't the only woman in the world who's struggled and worked extremely hard to achieve economic normalcy and full-fledged adulthood, but you don't have to face constant accusations of child-murder for the rest of your life. I chose *not* to impose my struggles and growing pains onto a child, nor impose upon the lives of family and friends to provide free childcare while getting my act together.
It wasn't an "easy way out". It was the right thing to do.
Contrary to what anti-abortionists preach, having an abortion *was* taking responsibility. I wasn't ready to have children, economically and otherwise. There's absolutely no way I'm going to impose economic instability and an unprepared mother onto a child. I believe that's morally wrong. Children need to be raised by parents that are prepared, stable *adults*.
Ms. Szala, raising your child wasn't the responsibility of your "strong network of family and friends", organizations, or charity workers. It was yours. It was also your responsibility to get your life together *before* bringing children into it. You congratulate yourself for taking charity from and imposing upon the lives of others so *you* could have a baby, while condescendingly accusing others (like myself) of taking the "easy way out" and committing murder.
Seems to me like *you* took the easy way out, Ms. Szala. You aren't the only woman in the world who's struggled and worked extremely hard to achieve economic normalcy and full-fledged adulthood, but you don't have to face constant accusations of child-murder for the rest of your life. I chose *not* to impose my struggles and growing pains onto a child, nor impose upon the lives of family and friends to provide free childcare while getting my act together.
36
She's a mockingbird as long as the Federalist Society lawyers continue to use her as a divisive wedge in their unending campaign for unequal protection of law.
2
The Guidestar profile lists your heuristic AU2-"Abortion: Unthinkable and Unavailable". The "Human Coalition" web site has a blog that calls Planned Parenthood "evil". Like the Guidestar profile, the web site doesn't mention anything about your organization promoting universal childcare, parental leave during the crucial bonding period, support for national healthcare to make it easier for a woman to care for a baby, access to contraceptives and family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Instead it promotes the use of Christian Scripture to end abortion. But little about after birth.
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/26-4099950
"The heuristic, which we call AU2-"Abortion: Unthinkable and Unavailable"-is composed of six Lab-Driven Solutions, Marketing Lab, Contact Center Lab, Life-affirming Clinic Lab, Continuum of Care Lab, Church Outreach Lab and Legal Team Lab.
The AU2Heuristic attempts to identify and reach as many women in unplanned pregnancies as possible (Market Penetration), increase our success at saving babies (Effective Rate), motivate the church to greater involvement (Church Engagement), and, through the means of economics, drive abortionist from cities in which we work (Abortion Providers). Written as a formula, the AU2 Heuristic looks like this: (MP + ER) + CE - AP = AU2.
As Market Penetration, Effective Rate, and Church Engagement increase, and as Abortion Providers are reduced in a city, abortion will become unthinkable and unavailable."
https://www.guidestar.org/profile/26-4099950
"The heuristic, which we call AU2-"Abortion: Unthinkable and Unavailable"-is composed of six Lab-Driven Solutions, Marketing Lab, Contact Center Lab, Life-affirming Clinic Lab, Continuum of Care Lab, Church Outreach Lab and Legal Team Lab.
The AU2Heuristic attempts to identify and reach as many women in unplanned pregnancies as possible (Market Penetration), increase our success at saving babies (Effective Rate), motivate the church to greater involvement (Church Engagement), and, through the means of economics, drive abortionist from cities in which we work (Abortion Providers). Written as a formula, the AU2 Heuristic looks like this: (MP + ER) + CE - AP = AU2.
As Market Penetration, Effective Rate, and Church Engagement increase, and as Abortion Providers are reduced in a city, abortion will become unthinkable and unavailable."
15
The fact that birth is deemed "original sin" by these people liberates many of them to abuse their own children.
Lois Szlala is the national director of client services at Human Coalition. Their website vows to end abortion. https://www.humancoalition.org/ Their mission statement is not pro choice, but pro-life. Do not be fooled by Ms. Szala's personal story of struggle. She and the organization she is affiliated with had an agenda; and its not economic equality for women.
34
It's not even pro life. It's anti choice.
11
Well, aren't you special Ms. Szala. NO. You are not. You made the same choice many women did who found themselves saddled with children they could not afford to raise and/or did not have enough time, patience or life experience to parent fully. You made your choice and now you think you get to decide what the rest of womankind can do with their bodies and lives.
You created war fodder for the wealthiest. Perhaps your children didn't have to die in one of their power wars but the children and grandchildren of many women/men did. Now the same power mongers want WW3 and you want laws passed that will force women to create more war fodder.
Years ago when I was in college - in the days women only went to find good husbands - six of my eleven roommates had abortions, some of them multiple abortions. They had access to the money and doctors to have them illegally. Poor women do not have that privilege.
My granddaughter got pregnant when she was sixteen and her mother and favorite aunt tried to convince her she was too young to have a child. The women of the "christian" church she attended swore they would help and support her and she chose to have the child. Funny thing. Church support ended when the child was born and my granddaughter became a "poor unfortunate slut". That's the way it goes.
How dare you try to force poor children to become war fodder because they have no other opportunities in your little "christian" world.
You created war fodder for the wealthiest. Perhaps your children didn't have to die in one of their power wars but the children and grandchildren of many women/men did. Now the same power mongers want WW3 and you want laws passed that will force women to create more war fodder.
Years ago when I was in college - in the days women only went to find good husbands - six of my eleven roommates had abortions, some of them multiple abortions. They had access to the money and doctors to have them illegally. Poor women do not have that privilege.
My granddaughter got pregnant when she was sixteen and her mother and favorite aunt tried to convince her she was too young to have a child. The women of the "christian" church she attended swore they would help and support her and she chose to have the child. Funny thing. Church support ended when the child was born and my granddaughter became a "poor unfortunate slut". That's the way it goes.
How dare you try to force poor children to become war fodder because they have no other opportunities in your little "christian" world.
40
It would also help if you anti abortion zealots didn't feel the need to ostracize birth control, as well.
Aren't you glad that you got to make your own decision. It could have gone either way according to your story. If your friend had not regretted her decision I imagine you would have gone ahead.
I don't wish to judge your actions or your reasons for them, I would like to see you and your fellow anti abortion zealots also take the tack of not judging those who decide for an abortion.
Do your good work to help the women who wish to give birth under these circumstances and leave it at that.
Aren't you glad that you got to make your own decision. It could have gone either way according to your story. If your friend had not regretted her decision I imagine you would have gone ahead.
I don't wish to judge your actions or your reasons for them, I would like to see you and your fellow anti abortion zealots also take the tack of not judging those who decide for an abortion.
Do your good work to help the women who wish to give birth under these circumstances and leave it at that.
22
Ms. Szala - It is wrong of you to pen this article without explaining your affiliation with a crisis pregnancy center that opposes abortion on religious grounds. It significantly weakens the argument you attempt to make on economic grounds. Because, hand to heart, the economics of it are secondary to you, aren't they?
28
Ms. Szala writes: "It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in KILLING those who impede our economic progress. Parenting presents undeniable challenges, but no one argues that those challenges give parents the RIGHT TO KILL THEIR CHILDREN."
Nobody is advocating that parents have the right to kill their children. This is about aborting fetuses. Ms. Szala evidently sees no difference, but her stance disregards the law as well as public opinion polls. (According to Pew, 69 percent of Americans say Roe v. Wade should not be completely overturned.)
Ms. Szala has overcome the challenges of raising a child who was conceived while she was in high school, and good for her. But, as she correctly notes, "Obviously, not every woman will be as lucky as I was, with a strong network of family and friends to help."
I suggest that she fulfill her "obligation to help" by becoming a fierce advocate for avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Let her speak out for widespread and affordable -- or free -- access to birth control and sex education.
She notes that "conservatives must do more than tell abortion-seeking women to 'go in peace and keep warm and well fed'; they must sacrifice their time and treasure to serve women in need."
Fine. Let her persuade conservatives to stop opposing sex education and easy access to birth control. That’s how you stop abortion.
Nobody is advocating that parents have the right to kill their children. This is about aborting fetuses. Ms. Szala evidently sees no difference, but her stance disregards the law as well as public opinion polls. (According to Pew, 69 percent of Americans say Roe v. Wade should not be completely overturned.)
Ms. Szala has overcome the challenges of raising a child who was conceived while she was in high school, and good for her. But, as she correctly notes, "Obviously, not every woman will be as lucky as I was, with a strong network of family and friends to help."
I suggest that she fulfill her "obligation to help" by becoming a fierce advocate for avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Let her speak out for widespread and affordable -- or free -- access to birth control and sex education.
She notes that "conservatives must do more than tell abortion-seeking women to 'go in peace and keep warm and well fed'; they must sacrifice their time and treasure to serve women in need."
Fine. Let her persuade conservatives to stop opposing sex education and easy access to birth control. That’s how you stop abortion.
19
You made your choice freely. Let other women make their choice freely and safely. There is no baby; it is a blastocyst or embryo or fetus. Nature aborts many pregnancies some before the woman even knows she is pregnant. Abortion is a medical procedure which is no one's business except the woman and her physician.
23
I teach Epidemiology and critical thinking to high school students. Thank you for my final exam. If you can't find ten unsupported statements in this column you receive a failing grade.
33
What we must leave women with is personal choice.
17
I'm glad the author had the choice whether to abort or not. That's what women are fighting for. The right to make the decision for themselves. Period.
19
I'm really tired of The Times publishing these antiabortion pieces. If you get pregnant for whatever reason and don't want a child, have an abortion. It's a relief. You won't be depressed. You'll be happy. Having a child you don't want is traumatic and demoralizing. And not fair to the child.
30
"We should all agree, whether anti-abortion or pro-choice, that abortion is not a solution to the host of systemic injustices driving poverty."
Of course it is.
"...a solution.."? As in "part and parcel"?
How about "..a living wage"? Is that out, too?
Sex education? "... not a solution.."?
The 1% er's just got a trillion dollar cut in their taxes. That wealth shifted to them will come from cutting Medicaid by $800 BILLION dollars. Is that "a solution" or "not a solution"?
Where are you going to start on re-balancing those economic scales?
If you are a "Conservative", you haven't started so far.
When do you start?
My Magic Number was 37.
I had 37 years of potential child-bearing.
I don't believe for even one second that you would have sat there in your Ivory Tower and not had an opinion on how many children I was to personally bear according to your dictates.
Now, multiply my 37 potential fetuses by the millions of other women who have to rely on contraception that isn't 100%.
For some folk, lady, abortion IS the only hope.
Grow up.
No 1%er that I've ever heard of is willing to give up their "treasure", but you have obviously been willing to give up your brain.
Of course it is.
"...a solution.."? As in "part and parcel"?
How about "..a living wage"? Is that out, too?
Sex education? "... not a solution.."?
The 1% er's just got a trillion dollar cut in their taxes. That wealth shifted to them will come from cutting Medicaid by $800 BILLION dollars. Is that "a solution" or "not a solution"?
Where are you going to start on re-balancing those economic scales?
If you are a "Conservative", you haven't started so far.
When do you start?
My Magic Number was 37.
I had 37 years of potential child-bearing.
I don't believe for even one second that you would have sat there in your Ivory Tower and not had an opinion on how many children I was to personally bear according to your dictates.
Now, multiply my 37 potential fetuses by the millions of other women who have to rely on contraception that isn't 100%.
For some folk, lady, abortion IS the only hope.
Grow up.
No 1%er that I've ever heard of is willing to give up their "treasure", but you have obviously been willing to give up your brain.
14
I personally know a number of women who had abortions back in the days when it was illegal:
1) a 13-year-old girl raped by her grandfather
2) a woman raped by a stranger in the staircase of her apartment building
3) another woman raped and beaten on the streets of NYC
4) a poor young woman on a full scholarship at Harvard, who would have lost her only chance to climb out of poverty if she became a mother at that time
5) another poor young woman who almost bled to death after an illegal abortion
6) a 16-year-old who became pregnant by her boyfriend of the same age, and who had a congenital heart condition that might have killed her if she'd carried the child to term
6) my own mother, who was 42, in fragile health herself, yet caring for 3 children and her own disabled parents, and simply couldn't take on another child.
Economics certainly played a part here. So did other factors--rape and health. The author of this piece simply ignores those concerns and spews "alternative facts," such as "Progressives cannot continue to claim every effort to reduce abortion is anti-woman and will lead to ruin and disaster."
Beyond the issues raised here, I have a larger question for the NY Times. Why are you publishing so many right-wing op ed pieces of late? Why have you hired a climate change denier as a regular columnist? Are you trying to present an "even-handed" face in order to appease the new administration?
1) a 13-year-old girl raped by her grandfather
2) a woman raped by a stranger in the staircase of her apartment building
3) another woman raped and beaten on the streets of NYC
4) a poor young woman on a full scholarship at Harvard, who would have lost her only chance to climb out of poverty if she became a mother at that time
5) another poor young woman who almost bled to death after an illegal abortion
6) a 16-year-old who became pregnant by her boyfriend of the same age, and who had a congenital heart condition that might have killed her if she'd carried the child to term
6) my own mother, who was 42, in fragile health herself, yet caring for 3 children and her own disabled parents, and simply couldn't take on another child.
Economics certainly played a part here. So did other factors--rape and health. The author of this piece simply ignores those concerns and spews "alternative facts," such as "Progressives cannot continue to claim every effort to reduce abortion is anti-woman and will lead to ruin and disaster."
Beyond the issues raised here, I have a larger question for the NY Times. Why are you publishing so many right-wing op ed pieces of late? Why have you hired a climate change denier as a regular columnist? Are you trying to present an "even-handed" face in order to appease the new administration?
Why would the Times publish this piece, albeit an op-ed, that refers to women who get abortions as "parents" who "kill" their children? I would expect this of Rupert Murdoch & Co. Is the Times' new leadership vying for a bigger piece of the conservative news market at the expense of the trust of the readership you have, which seeks objective news and opinion without explicit or implicit bias or hate speech embedded in it or disguised in the pretty package of an appeal to "progressive," human values? What is, in fact, "dehumanizing," and vilifying is suggesting that women who seek abortions, are killers or murderers. Does the NYT want to be complicit in or help to normalize this discourse which, far more than lack of financial or social assistance, dehumanizes and vilifies women, and makes it more likely that their welfare and rights will be discounted. This writer may be well intentioned, but her objectives are at cross purposes. Perhaps this piece and the choice to print it were just efforts to reunite the Democratic party at the expense of a woman's right to abortion, but the First Amendment is no excuse for broadcasting language that vilifies women who exercise their rights.
25
Given the looming population/resources crises, should anyone really be having children?
8
This is written by a person representing a faith-based organization. Their entire argument against abortion is that God controls all life. Their leadership is made up entirely of religious men. These people have no experience in economics, medicine, or any other policy issue that has to do with linking abortion and economics in social policy.
Furthermore, the organization is basically advertising its own services!
How did this pass any editorial standards at the New York Times?
This is insane. Please remove.
Furthermore, the organization is basically advertising its own services!
How did this pass any editorial standards at the New York Times?
This is insane. Please remove.
31
It would be nice if Ms. Szala disclosed her organization's goals:
"We have a vivid hope that abortion will become unthinkable and unavailable in our lifetime. Unite with us in our mission to end the worst holocaust in human history, to protect image-bearers of God Himself, to bring help to abandoned and rejected women, and to rescue every preborn baby we can."
As is always the case, her arguments start with a premise (Abortion is wrong and must be stopped) and then proceeds to "prove" what she has already assumed to be true. BTW, I reviewed their website- NOT ONE WORD ABOUT SEX EDUCATION OR CONTRACEPTION. Quelle surprise...
"We have a vivid hope that abortion will become unthinkable and unavailable in our lifetime. Unite with us in our mission to end the worst holocaust in human history, to protect image-bearers of God Himself, to bring help to abandoned and rejected women, and to rescue every preborn baby we can."
As is always the case, her arguments start with a premise (Abortion is wrong and must be stopped) and then proceeds to "prove" what she has already assumed to be true. BTW, I reviewed their website- NOT ONE WORD ABOUT SEX EDUCATION OR CONTRACEPTION. Quelle surprise...
25
Against abortion? Don't have one.
23
Against slavery? Then don't own one.
The point is that some decisions are not private, and implicate essential social and moral concerns generally. Abortion is one of them.
The point is that some decisions are not private, and implicate essential social and moral concerns generally. Abortion is one of them.
Against abortion? Then don't have sex with women.
The point is that until Christian extremists felt compelled to impose their Old Testament notions about women -- Eve betrayed god so all women can't be trusted and subjugated to men (raise kids, provide sex on demand, and stay in the kitchen) -- abortion wasn't a moral concern for anyone other than the woman. Men sure didn't care except they didn't want anything to do with a pregnancy let alone fathering a child.
Some religious groups believe castration is a good remedy for temptation. Think we should legislate that?
If you believe abortion and contraception are murder, then your agenda is to impose your moral whims on others and punish them if they don't conform. The country you want to live in is the former Yugoslavia where they forced women to become pregnant and produce children for state nurseries.
The point is that until Christian extremists felt compelled to impose their Old Testament notions about women -- Eve betrayed god so all women can't be trusted and subjugated to men (raise kids, provide sex on demand, and stay in the kitchen) -- abortion wasn't a moral concern for anyone other than the woman. Men sure didn't care except they didn't want anything to do with a pregnancy let alone fathering a child.
Some religious groups believe castration is a good remedy for temptation. Think we should legislate that?
If you believe abortion and contraception are murder, then your agenda is to impose your moral whims on others and punish them if they don't conform. The country you want to live in is the former Yugoslavia where they forced women to become pregnant and produce children for state nurseries.
4
Well, goody for you, Ms. Szala, but your experiences are irrelevant to mine. Your ostensibly happy ending still doesn’t mean I should be forced to give birth against my will.
32
In the search for providing for the complex needs of "abortion-seeking" women, Ms. Szala misses the complexity of the "abortion-seeking" women. Not all women who had abortions become suicidal. Not all women who want an abortion are poor. Not all poor women want an abortion. Not all women get pregnant because they wanted to have sex. Not all women who have kids remain in poverty , not all women make it out. It's a complex issue. This article makes the wrong assumption that women think like politicians. Women don't only see abortion or motherhood, economic cost versus economic gains. Different women see this issue differently. And while Ms. Szala decision was to cancel the appointment for other women it will be to keep it. There are many other circumstances and reasons that women consider when it comes to make a decision regarding an unwanted pregnancies. That is if they even have the option to decide for themselves.
11
Are you seriously trying to assert that lack of access to abortion doesn't hamper economic progress? Or merely asking that we ignore the facts, since you acknowledge you are the fortunate exception with ample help in overcoming those obstacles?
Obviously, the issues aren't equivalent: There are many other dimensions to whether a woman has a right to choose and to economic inequality. I personally don't condemn Senator Sanders for prioritizing different economic issues. But to deny the economic aspects of the right to choose an abortion is ridiculous.
Obviously, the issues aren't equivalent: There are many other dimensions to whether a woman has a right to choose and to economic inequality. I personally don't condemn Senator Sanders for prioritizing different economic issues. But to deny the economic aspects of the right to choose an abortion is ridiculous.
12
Actually, it IS about economics.
What was the cost of the author's sister providing free childcare? And presumably, also a place to live? (It wasn't mentioned, but anyone who can afford community college AND childcare must have some expenses covered.)
Economists agree that the cost of domestic labor is NOT free. The author simply negates her sister's value in our economy, as well as any other assistance from family members (rent, food, etc.), as having a cash value - when, in fact, they do. Because if those family members were not there, the cost of those resources would force a single mother to make extremely difficult decisions (sub-par infant care and a low-paying job, or stay home and require government assistance?) that significantly impact her and her child's quality of life.
What was the cost of the author's sister providing free childcare? And presumably, also a place to live? (It wasn't mentioned, but anyone who can afford community college AND childcare must have some expenses covered.)
Economists agree that the cost of domestic labor is NOT free. The author simply negates her sister's value in our economy, as well as any other assistance from family members (rent, food, etc.), as having a cash value - when, in fact, they do. Because if those family members were not there, the cost of those resources would force a single mother to make extremely difficult decisions (sub-par infant care and a low-paying job, or stay home and require government assistance?) that significantly impact her and her child's quality of life.
24
I taught in a school for pregnant teens and cannot tell you how I much I admire these young women. They were attempting to finish their education in order to be able to support their child. What they faced was very difficult but this school had programs to help them: a health clinic for birth control and pre-natal care, and a 30 bed nursery so they didn't have to worry about childcare after they gave birth. One young woman was a great basketball player who lost her college scholarship because she couldn't play her senior year. Many worried about how they would care for a child, could a 16-year-old love a baby? Each of these mothers made the choice--whatever the odds--to carry that baby to term and to be able to support the child. They had that choice knowing how difficult this would be. Others do not chose to carry the baby and have an abortion. Seeing the economic impact of having a child while in middle school (yes, we had 5tgh graders there) and high school in their neighborhoods and within their families must have had some influence. Choice is the key.
10
I completely agree that women shouldn't have to be forced to have an abortion they don't want due to economic circumstances - but that doesn't mean you remove the right to abortion. Make sure resources are available to women to support ALL choices they make - whether that be, yes, I want to have a child or no, even if my economic situation was improved, I don't want to have a child.
20
An excellent essay, though I respectfully can not concur.
Abortion is indeed much about "economics," as are most/many decisions here in our real world.
Therefore, imho: It's the personal choice of the pregnant.
I, however, think your subjective moral opinion is very worthwhile, and especially because of that informal network of helpful friends.
Neither pro nor anti abortion "morality" ought be dictated by secular law...yet.
THE HAND MAIDEN is hopefully reducto ad absurdum, political fiction.
Fascinating and courageous too, and especially if it is ever shown on regular, ole fashion television.
It'll probably win an EMMY.
While I'm not certain who shall be offended more, because the future could indeed become so literally polluted---anti-fertile trending, perhaps also sterile
for the males.
Then our progeny/great, great grandchildren are to be surely anti-abortion by way of the necessity to maintain human life!
Abortion is indeed much about "economics," as are most/many decisions here in our real world.
Therefore, imho: It's the personal choice of the pregnant.
I, however, think your subjective moral opinion is very worthwhile, and especially because of that informal network of helpful friends.
Neither pro nor anti abortion "morality" ought be dictated by secular law...yet.
THE HAND MAIDEN is hopefully reducto ad absurdum, political fiction.
Fascinating and courageous too, and especially if it is ever shown on regular, ole fashion television.
It'll probably win an EMMY.
While I'm not certain who shall be offended more, because the future could indeed become so literally polluted---anti-fertile trending, perhaps also sterile
for the males.
Then our progeny/great, great grandchildren are to be surely anti-abortion by way of the necessity to maintain human life!
To write that abortion is not about economic justice is patently false. It is a tremendous financial burden to raise a child; if an unmarried woman has a second pregnancy before she's 25, she is likely to be poor for the rest of her life.
Additionally, criminalizing abortion does NOT end abortion. It drives it underground, where woman are subject to increased rates of infection and death.
Additionally, criminalizing abortion does NOT end abortion. It drives it underground, where woman are subject to increased rates of infection and death.
19
My heart goes out to women who have unplanned pregnancies; I think single motherhood is the most difficult job in the world - but also one of the most fulfilling. I am the product of an unplanned pregnancy, my biological mother was 17, realized she could not support me but thankfully decided not to have an abortion, bring me to full term and put me up for adoption. I was adopted (along with 2 siblings) and reared by 2 of the most loving people in the world. With all of the couples wanting to adopt, there should be no need for abortion. One other point - if a fetus is "just a lump of cells" and not a life, why, if someone kills a pregnant woman, intentionally or not and no matter if she is 3 weeks or 9 months pregnant is the perpetrator of the killing charged with TWO counts of murder of manslaughter? Because we know deep in our hearts that a fetus with a heart beat is indeed a LIFE, no matter what the abortion industry claims.
2
My mother also was an unwed 17 year old when she had me. I too was given up for adoption -- but my mother never recovered from the pain and suffering. She said she would have had an abortion if this was available -- and I do not blame her -- or any other woman. It's none of YOUR business what a woman decided to do with HER body. The government has NO BUSINESS interfering.
9
There is no abortion industry. Quit trying to impose your beliefs on others especially if you are not willing to step up and provide assistance to those people you condemn. Many children put up for adoption are not so lucky to find a loving family. You live in a fairy tale world.
Ms. Szala is brave to offer such a compelling account of some basic truths. The continued insistence by the feminist 'establishment' that abortion is essential for income equality, or for addressing the gender wage gap, does not serve women well. It is simply not supportable by any facts or numbers. Moreover, it alienates men and women who continue to believe that there are solutions to those issues that do not require women to become just like men -- that is, capable of marching through lives of careers in jobs modeled on the 'ideal male worker.' Are we really comfortable living in a world where the 'solution' to dealing with the burdens of caregiving is to kill those who need care? Were does that kind of thinking lead us -- not just at the beginning of life, but at the end of life, as well? We all came into this world needing care, and most will leave this world needing care, as well. Are we ready for the world that dodges the more difficult challenges of supporting caregiving that Ms. Szala is addressing, in favor of the easier option of killing?
2
The fact remains that single parent homes are usually (not always) also low income homes. The fact remains that the options for a teenage mother are far less than the options for a teenager who is not responsible for a baby.
But you are right: we should provide a strong network for ALL mothers: health care, housing, education, heat, food -- all the thing the Republicans are cutting to send more money to the rich.
But you are right: we should provide a strong network for ALL mothers: health care, housing, education, heat, food -- all the thing the Republicans are cutting to send more money to the rich.
4
Why can't Americans accept that abortion is a complex decision, dependent on factors known and understood only by the woman involved, and let people make their own choice, privately? The writer chose what was best for her. This is the way it should be.
Other women may not choose to go to a maternity home. Many do not believe abortion takes the life of a baby. Research shows an overwhelming majority of women having an abortion experience profound relief. Instead of the abortion wars ending, this right of women to make their own decisions is greatly threatened. I truly don't understand.
Other women may not choose to go to a maternity home. Many do not believe abortion takes the life of a baby. Research shows an overwhelming majority of women having an abortion experience profound relief. Instead of the abortion wars ending, this right of women to make their own decisions is greatly threatened. I truly don't understand.
9
No one has the right to tell women what we can or can't do with our bodies. Why is this so hard to understand? We are not property or commodity of either pro-choice or pro-life groups and political agendas usually supported by men or religious groups.
Every woman is different, and her reasons for abortion are different. Sexual assault, incest, teenage pregnancies, and yes financial straits are all valid arguments. It must also be said that many of these pro-life groups advocate for the life of the fetus but not for sexual education in schools. It's so blatantly hypocritical to advocate for an unwanted pregnancy but at the same time, put up roadblocks to prevent pregnancy in underage girls.
The bottom line of this argument, and one that people cannot seem to understand is this: what I do with my body, whether you agree or not, is MY choice. Not yours.
Every woman is different, and her reasons for abortion are different. Sexual assault, incest, teenage pregnancies, and yes financial straits are all valid arguments. It must also be said that many of these pro-life groups advocate for the life of the fetus but not for sexual education in schools. It's so blatantly hypocritical to advocate for an unwanted pregnancy but at the same time, put up roadblocks to prevent pregnancy in underage girls.
The bottom line of this argument, and one that people cannot seem to understand is this: what I do with my body, whether you agree or not, is MY choice. Not yours.
17
Please do not present the decision to have an abortion as trivial. When a women is faced with the decision whether or not to continue an unexpected pregnancy she has to consider many factors - the primary one being time. We're not talking about when to have your bangs trimmed. This is a large decision with many pain points, and I would never judge any woman based on whether or not she chose to continue a pregnancy, as pro-life people seem to be wont to do. As women, we have always had to make decisions based on the most basic need: survival. Sometimes that means getting through one day to work on the next. Yes, it is economic, but it is not JUST economic. I define myself as "pro-choice" and "pro-life." I want to see abortion, safe, available, and rare - and these days, it is. I am old enough to remember life before Roe v. Wade. I want to see more resources to support women, children and families for life after birth. As Americans, this is our greatest failing.
7
But in societies that do not allow women to control their own bodies and fertility, women ARE purely "economic objects" -- usually someone else's.
That is how most women have lived their lives, across history and across the world. Though my fertile days are long past, I'll stop being pro-choice only when the anti-choicers agree on the mandatory harvest of living kidneys from any healthy adult for those who need them to survive.
I donated a kidney to save a semi-stranger -- by choice. The author had children -- by choice. That is how it should be. Some human questions can be answered only by individual conscience, not by state coercion.
That is how most women have lived their lives, across history and across the world. Though my fertile days are long past, I'll stop being pro-choice only when the anti-choicers agree on the mandatory harvest of living kidneys from any healthy adult for those who need them to survive.
I donated a kidney to save a semi-stranger -- by choice. The author had children -- by choice. That is how it should be. Some human questions can be answered only by individual conscience, not by state coercion.
10
What you are really stating is every woman who learns she is pregnant should be free to choose what is best for her life knowing there will be full social support and services for her and--if she freely chooses to continue her pregnancy--and her child.
So you, too, are pro-choice.
So you, too, are pro-choice.
10
Senator Sanders is NOT a Democrat. Democrats have had a core policy of supporting abortion rights as opposed to the Repugnant Party that has embraced Evangelical Christians meddlesome religious beliefs against abortion to the point of pushing for repeal of Roe v Wade, and even criminalizing abortion. I left the Republican Party many years ago when they began to support the religious right who want to foist their views on everyone through political action. I will not support any so-called Democrat who opposes abortion rights. As for Senator Sanders and his bombast, he needs to retire and allow the new generation of real Democrats to lead.
7
Bernie Sanders has ALWAYS supported the woman's right to choose -- and is the ONLY Democrat who supports single-payer health care, which is the health care enjoyed by citizens of every industrialized nation on earth.
Lori Szala's arguments stand or fall (fall, in my view) on their own merits or lack thereof. But I was interested to learn that Lori Szala actively promotes a "high school abstinence curriculum" and wrote a book that she distributes toward that end. We all know that abstinence is guaranteed to fail a significant percentage of the time, so she is promoting unwanted pregnancy and further promoting not ending such pregnancies. Three cheers! Anyway, this is food for thought in the hidden agenda category.
10
The larger issue which anti-choice people have helped destroy is women´s and all communities´access to contraception information and counseling, good priced options, male responsibility from age of puberty, things that Planned Parenthood has addressed for years. One anti-choice person´s anecdote does nothing to address the grievous problems the USA faces in the right wing and religious communities violating constitutional liberties and depriving all citizens of good affordable health care which includes family planning . And its ridiculous to think an average female person who accidentally gets knocked up and aborts, much easier with the morning after pill solutions, become depressed and suicidal. Most women including this writer feel and felt nothing but minor pain and great relief after an abortion - we want control of our lives.
7
Having a child or not having a child IS a huge economic decision (as well as many other things.) To discount that as a very important aspect to consider is just plain irresponsible parenting. I'm glad you were able to grow into that responsibility Ms. Szala. Stop demonizing people who are more upfront about taking that responsibility from the getgo.
9
The chances of someone who dropped out of college working their way up at an investment firm in the 21st century are close to zero. The job opportunities available to college dropouts 30 years ago are simply not available today. A contemporary woman who drops out of school to care for her child will face poverty and deprivation. So yes, women who make that same choice today will not be as lucky as you were.
11
I found Ms.Szala's retread arguments about why we should not use economic arguments in support of abortion rights unpersuasive. The fact is we treat human life as an economic factor though we try mightily to disguise this through the use of high sounding words life such as freedom, flexibility, liberty and of course, personal responsibility. The recent disaster passed by the House, the AHCA, is justified in these terms when in reality it is just a way to eliminate paying for healthcare services to the millions of women and children Ms. Szala professes to care about in order to provide more tax cuts to those who are already quite wealthy. Plus let us not forget that we do everything human possible to make child care unaffordable and unavailable. Finally, the conservative right is untiring in its effort to demonize and proscribe the use of contraception (the best way to avoid the need for abortion), primarily due to its belief that sex is only for procreation. It clearly wants to make contraception, if not outright illegal, extraordinarily difficult to obtain except for the wealthy and the politically connected. In short, the political right has created the perfect storm for making abortion seem to be the only option for an unplanned pregnancy while offering only saccharine homilies and earnest prayers as solutions.
6
The article presents a phony 2-way choice -- either the woman gets an abortion or she has the expense and burden of raising a child. The possibility of giving up the child for adoption is never mentioned. So-called pro-choice advocates aren't telling women all of their choices, just the ones that will panic them into getting an abortion.
1
Do you mean to say that a pregnant woman does not know about adoption?
1
As a lobbyist for a women's group in the 90s, I had the experience of going from one legislative hearing to a second one. At the first, the local Phyllis Schaffley wanna be (who had been abused in one of her four marriages), argued against expanding presid peri natal health care and assistance for battered women. At the second, religions "crisis pregnancy" representatives argued for financial assistance; I learned from them that they used state Medicaid, welfare and food stamps for their 'clients.' I asked them if they were aware of the argument of the woman at the first hearing. They were not. And there is the problem and the hypocracy of the anti choice movement, as others have pointed out, they do not seem to have the courage to take on the anti-woman parts of their movement.
3
I want to echo the sentiments of nanbrand's comments below, if you don't want an abortion don't get one. However, that choice should be left for a woman and her doctor to make. It is not a legislative issue, nor should it be. Abortion is legal in this country, let's leave it at that and stay out of other peoples personal business and dictating the choices they should make.
10
If you claim to be pro-life, do the following:
Support birth control so unintended pregnancy is reduced.
Support policies that help with the pregnancy (parental leave to take care of baby)
Support children (school lunch, help with childcare, ...)
No woman WANTS to have an abortion. Change external society so that if a woman finds herself with an unexpected pregnancy, she will feel that she would be able to take care of the baby and would choose not to abort.
Would it work in all cases, A BIG FAT NO.
Would it work better than what right wing is doing right now, ABSOLUTELY YES
Finally, when it comes to the argument that you cannot kill your children. True. But you are allowed to hand them over to the state (e.g., no questions asked dropoff centers for infants) or the state is allowed to take them from you. When the state can take care of a child, state can choose to.
When the state cannot, it should let the decision be left with the one who can. Support her to the best way you can. But do not expect it to work all the time.
That said, those who criticize Bernie, remember, perfect is often the enemy of the good! If the guy supported pro-forced-birh policies (they call themselves pro-life but I think the label is wrong) in the past but regrets it, forgive him if he agrees to not do it again, if he is working on helping people so they will choose to keep the baby.
Support birth control so unintended pregnancy is reduced.
Support policies that help with the pregnancy (parental leave to take care of baby)
Support children (school lunch, help with childcare, ...)
No woman WANTS to have an abortion. Change external society so that if a woman finds herself with an unexpected pregnancy, she will feel that she would be able to take care of the baby and would choose not to abort.
Would it work in all cases, A BIG FAT NO.
Would it work better than what right wing is doing right now, ABSOLUTELY YES
Finally, when it comes to the argument that you cannot kill your children. True. But you are allowed to hand them over to the state (e.g., no questions asked dropoff centers for infants) or the state is allowed to take them from you. When the state can take care of a child, state can choose to.
When the state cannot, it should let the decision be left with the one who can. Support her to the best way you can. But do not expect it to work all the time.
That said, those who criticize Bernie, remember, perfect is often the enemy of the good! If the guy supported pro-forced-birh policies (they call themselves pro-life but I think the label is wrong) in the past but regrets it, forgive him if he agrees to not do it again, if he is working on helping people so they will choose to keep the baby.
5
The author had a friend drive her to an abortion clinic where she says she planned to obtain an abortion. Her friend persuaded her to change her mind. The author had a CHOICE. She could have had an abortion but she CHOSE not to. And yet, this author and others of her ilk are working very hard to take that choice away from other women. Do they not see the hypocrisy of their positions?
Ms. Salza, it is so very difficult to have a conversation on this issue when some of the first words out of your mouth are pro-choice supporters feel "justified in killing those who impede our economic progress." Your definition of "killing" is not supported by science--or the law. But if pro-choice supporters were to accept your definition, how would you stack that up against the killing that comes after babies are born through poverty, abuse, neglect, gun violence, environmental degradation/poisoning, malnutrition, opioid addictions, imprisonment, and all the other ramifications of conservative, "pro-life" policies?
I respect your right to make decisions for your body and family based on theology or personal views, and I'm glad that your decisions worked out for you. But please don't start casting stones from a self-righteous glass house. You quickly lose credibility when you call pro-choice supporters lazy murderers, and then you posit a solution of signing up pregnant moms "for government benefits"--the same government benefits that have been in the Republican crosshairs for decades, and some of which are now on the Republican "healthcare bill" Medicaid chopping block. When conservative "pro-life" folks can stand up to their "drown the government in the bathtub" counterparts and acknowledge that "pro-life" includes caring about post-birth lives, you and I might can have a meaningful conversation.
I respect your right to make decisions for your body and family based on theology or personal views, and I'm glad that your decisions worked out for you. But please don't start casting stones from a self-righteous glass house. You quickly lose credibility when you call pro-choice supporters lazy murderers, and then you posit a solution of signing up pregnant moms "for government benefits"--the same government benefits that have been in the Republican crosshairs for decades, and some of which are now on the Republican "healthcare bill" Medicaid chopping block. When conservative "pro-life" folks can stand up to their "drown the government in the bathtub" counterparts and acknowledge that "pro-life" includes caring about post-birth lives, you and I might can have a meaningful conversation.
6
The problem with linking anything with abortion is that until the point of viability, abortion is solely the pregnant women's decision. It is not up to her family, her friends and certainly not the state. It is not and should not ever be linked to anything else.
6
I think it's telling that the author uses personal anecdotes rather than facts to refute the Center for Policy Analysis' conclusion that "abortion rights are a key pillar of income equality." Where is your evidence to the contrary?
The analogy that women who want abortions are like caged animals who "want" to gnaw off their own legs is a faulty comparison. You can't grow another leg. But women who get abortions--safe, legal ones, at least---know that they can choose at a later time to try and conceive again.
The analogy that women who want abortions are like caged animals who "want" to gnaw off their own legs is a faulty comparison. You can't grow another leg. But women who get abortions--safe, legal ones, at least---know that they can choose at a later time to try and conceive again.
3
Never, ever forget that money will always talk. Abortion has always been and will always be for those with the money to afford it. Abortion is not the answer for everyone. Loving and supportive families can be so where abortion is an option chosen or not. Bottom line: Education and support coupled with a respect for choice must be the goal. No man or woman born of woman will ever tell me what to do with my body.
1
If you don't want to have an abortion I think you shouldn't have one. And definitely you shouldn't be forced to have one by the state. If you need to have an abortion I think you shouldn't be prevented from having one, And definitely you shouldn't be forced to not have one by the state. Pretty simple concept. Why do some people make it so complicated? Does it have something to do with their religious beliefs? Probably.
8
"Progressives cannot continue to claim every effort to reduce abortion is anti-woman and will lead to ruin and disaster."
I'll spare you the futile philosophical argument about abortion and skip to the efforts to reduce it which are not anti-woman or disastrous:
- Comprehensive sex-ed
- Free contraception - especially IUDs and other long-lasting types
- and we'll just lump all efforts to end poverty here under number three
Cornering women in your crisis pregnancy center under false pretenses so you can pressure them not to terminate - which is what Human Coalition does - is about as anti-woman as it gets.
I'll spare you the futile philosophical argument about abortion and skip to the efforts to reduce it which are not anti-woman or disastrous:
- Comprehensive sex-ed
- Free contraception - especially IUDs and other long-lasting types
- and we'll just lump all efforts to end poverty here under number three
Cornering women in your crisis pregnancy center under false pretenses so you can pressure them not to terminate - which is what Human Coalition does - is about as anti-woman as it gets.
5
Thank you for printing this rebuttal to the usual pro-choice mentality of the NYTimes. Not every woman is grateful after an abortion, not every woman weeps after an abortion. How long the aftermath of having an abortion lasts, be it rejoicing, weeping, or reflecting and regretting varies, but the fact that a life has been taken by an individual who carried the life of a child remains. We can do better. A civilization that kills its young is a civilization in decline.
3
Meanwhile it's considered merciful to "put your dog to sleep" (which we could also call murder of a living thing, right? And some people consider their pets their children!) to prevent suffering and pain to the poor animal; why then is it not merciful to end something that has less life in it than a dog to prevent a lifetime of suffering? As everyone says, they are not pro-life, they are just pro-birth.
4
This is at best an anecdotal false equivalence to the millions of women who didn't have the same luxuries of choice as the author.
6
It’s about being a full-fledged member of the tribe… or not.
Both sides bundle issues and expect their followers to buy the whole package or risk not being a loyal member of the tribe. How, for example, can a fervent “pro-lifer” also be a fervent pro-gun advocate? There are logic-bending contradictions on both sides.
I understand why parties bundle issues… it’s easier to rattle them off in sound bites. It's true that most citizens aren’t inclined to ponder every issue and come to opinions one by one. But tribalism is killing reason. I’m happy to discuss my economic views, and I’m happy to discuss my pro-choice views… agree with me on one or both… that’s your right. I don’t care which tribe you belong to.
Both sides bundle issues and expect their followers to buy the whole package or risk not being a loyal member of the tribe. How, for example, can a fervent “pro-lifer” also be a fervent pro-gun advocate? There are logic-bending contradictions on both sides.
I understand why parties bundle issues… it’s easier to rattle them off in sound bites. It's true that most citizens aren’t inclined to ponder every issue and come to opinions one by one. But tribalism is killing reason. I’m happy to discuss my economic views, and I’m happy to discuss my pro-choice views… agree with me on one or both… that’s your right. I don’t care which tribe you belong to.
2
I am enormously, and pleasantly, surprised that the Times published this piece. The vicious response of some commenters confirms that it took some courage to do so.
2
"Parenting presents undeniable challenges, but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children."
That is absolutely correct. And a total red herring, since abortion does not kill children. I guess it might have, in one instance, killed a fully formed human, since Athena was born an adult from her father's head. But that's mythology. My understanding is that abortion kills primarily embryos, less often fetuses, and never children. And that egg cells die with menstruation - all those potential lives, lost to a tampon.
That is absolutely correct. And a total red herring, since abortion does not kill children. I guess it might have, in one instance, killed a fully formed human, since Athena was born an adult from her father's head. But that's mythology. My understanding is that abortion kills primarily embryos, less often fetuses, and never children. And that egg cells die with menstruation - all those potential lives, lost to a tampon.
3
"The right to kill your children"? This author deliberately conflates a fetus with a child, rendering the rest of her argument meaningless. However, if we were to indulge her...
In this country, where the bottom 95% fight for scraps while the top 5% look on and smile, we have no choice BUT to factor in economics in just about everything we do. Doesn't Lori Szala realize, for instance, that financial hardships are cited as the greatest factor leading to divorce? I happen to think that choice should remain a choice. But choice heavily informed by financial concerns is as equally valid as choice informed by emotional truths.
In this country, where the bottom 95% fight for scraps while the top 5% look on and smile, we have no choice BUT to factor in economics in just about everything we do. Doesn't Lori Szala realize, for instance, that financial hardships are cited as the greatest factor leading to divorce? I happen to think that choice should remain a choice. But choice heavily informed by financial concerns is as equally valid as choice informed by emotional truths.
4
I'm glad you had choices. Now please advocate for other women to have choices too. That is what the pro-choice movement is all about.
7
This would be a fantastic opportunity to back up claims and antidotes with statistics! Which are certainly available. An odd, if not suspicious, omission...
2
Ms. Szala puts her finger on the crux of the matter here: "An abortion clinic, for a few hundred dollars, ends the life of a child whose upbringing may strain her mother’s resources. Full stop. The woman will leave the clinic still burdened by every single problem she came in with."
A baby is simply one natural consequence of sexual relations between a man and a woman. Babies are not "problems" to be solved - they seek only to be loved by, and to love, the two people who brought them into the world. Why don't we focus on helping women seeking abortion to solve the real problems they face, including the circumstances that led them to get pregnant outside of marriage?
A baby is simply one natural consequence of sexual relations between a man and a woman. Babies are not "problems" to be solved - they seek only to be loved by, and to love, the two people who brought them into the world. Why don't we focus on helping women seeking abortion to solve the real problems they face, including the circumstances that led them to get pregnant outside of marriage?
1
A BABY may "seek" a whole lot of things but a fetus who does not yet have fully functioning brain capacity seeks nothing of the sort and feels no pain. Let's say it again loudly and clearly: A fetus is not a person. It is a potential person, but it is not a person. Particularly NOT in the first 12 weeks when the vast majority of abortions take place. Science, people, science.
Here's an article from a woman in Ireland, where abortions are illegal. It touches most of the relevant, human, issues. Worth a read.
https://medium.com/@taryndevere/to-the-woman-who-talked-me-out-of-having...
https://medium.com/@taryndevere/to-the-woman-who-talked-me-out-of-having...
1
Ms. Szala,
Congratulations for doing the hard work of supporting women who choose not to abort. Considering how strong the pro-abortion movement is in this country, it is an act of courage to face the daunting future of a baby and no means of support. Many forces are at work telling you it is not necessary, that you will have a better life without that baby.
I agree wholeheartedly that pro-lifers should support places that provide housing and help to mothers who have no support network. They're not easily spotted. I stumbled on one scoping out projects for my local Junior League. It was in a building on a Catholic hospital's (since closed) grounds. I've made it a point to seek out similar places and help whenever I can. I'm now volunteering in the nursery in a women's prison.
Your theory that the economic argument is dehumanizing was also mentioned in this American Enterprise Institute article, "Work and ‘Character’"*. In it the author argues that welfare policies use “unforgiving, clinical language" and base policies on "impersonal, economic thinking." Its effect, the author claims, is "denuding work of its moral and personal dimensions".
I agree. The economic argument does have a dehumanizing effect.
******
* https://www.aei.org/publication/work-character-civil-society/?utm_conten...
Congratulations for doing the hard work of supporting women who choose not to abort. Considering how strong the pro-abortion movement is in this country, it is an act of courage to face the daunting future of a baby and no means of support. Many forces are at work telling you it is not necessary, that you will have a better life without that baby.
I agree wholeheartedly that pro-lifers should support places that provide housing and help to mothers who have no support network. They're not easily spotted. I stumbled on one scoping out projects for my local Junior League. It was in a building on a Catholic hospital's (since closed) grounds. I've made it a point to seek out similar places and help whenever I can. I'm now volunteering in the nursery in a women's prison.
Your theory that the economic argument is dehumanizing was also mentioned in this American Enterprise Institute article, "Work and ‘Character’"*. In it the author argues that welfare policies use “unforgiving, clinical language" and base policies on "impersonal, economic thinking." Its effect, the author claims, is "denuding work of its moral and personal dimensions".
I agree. The economic argument does have a dehumanizing effect.
******
* https://www.aei.org/publication/work-character-civil-society/?utm_conten...
1
@AACNY: Having to earn a living isn't dehumanizing. For most of us, it's just reality.
Interesting that the anti abortion movement refuse to consider the economic aspects of aborting fetuses, which majority of the public do not consider children, and at the same time take the economic position to cut funding for government programs that support the mothers and children after birth. I guess hypocrisy today is a virtue. And by the way having a sister to care of your child when you are in school is available to very few mothers.
2
A further example of a powerful, self-interested player in the economics of anti-abortion and anti-contraception is the US adoption industry, which is worth over 14 billion dollars a year.
http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/adoption-truth/adoption-industry/
The US adoption industry has close financial ties to the Church of Rome and to evangelical Protestant groups. Together, the US adoption industry and the organised religions lobby the states and Washington to make abortion and contraception in the USA and in poor third world countries as inaccessible as possible.
Why? Because if the supply of unwanted domestic and foreign born Infants and children dries up, then the US adoption businesss is out of business.
Follow the money. It's all about the money.
http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/adoption-truth/adoption-industry/
The US adoption industry has close financial ties to the Church of Rome and to evangelical Protestant groups. Together, the US adoption industry and the organised religions lobby the states and Washington to make abortion and contraception in the USA and in poor third world countries as inaccessible as possible.
Why? Because if the supply of unwanted domestic and foreign born Infants and children dries up, then the US adoption businesss is out of business.
Follow the money. It's all about the money.
3
The NYT recently covered research into the fact that there aren't significant negative emotional impacts of abortion: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/health/abortion-mental-health.html
4
I had an abortion, and I don't regret it.
9
Human Coalition is an extreme anti-abortion rights group. Stop trying to hide your identity.
From your website:
"We have a vivid hope that abortion will become unthinkable and unavailable in our lifetime. Unite with us in our mission to end the worst holocaust in human history, to protect image-bearers of God Himself, to bring help to abandoned and rejected women, and to rescue every preborn baby we can."
Rescue every preborn baby (sic)?
You mean, offer up *my* life and body for a fetus's use and then pat *yourself* on the back for "saving" it?
No thanks.
From your website:
"We have a vivid hope that abortion will become unthinkable and unavailable in our lifetime. Unite with us in our mission to end the worst holocaust in human history, to protect image-bearers of God Himself, to bring help to abandoned and rejected women, and to rescue every preborn baby we can."
Rescue every preborn baby (sic)?
You mean, offer up *my* life and body for a fetus's use and then pat *yourself* on the back for "saving" it?
No thanks.
18
Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. But if you have unprotected sex, you cannot then go on to say "well, I didn't consent to this" because you did by consenting to the sex.
Why do you believe that you should be able to have unprotected sex but have absolutely no consequences for the action?
Why do you believe that you should be able to have unprotected sex but have absolutely no consequences for the action?
From reading this essay you'd almost think women get pregnant by themselves. Where are the men? Obviously on to other things, without the emotional and economic responsibility, out of the spotlight. And no one is trying to control their lives. There's no "anti-birth-father-bailing-out" movement, no strident (generally male) legislators proposing methods to hold birth fathers to their responsibilities.
Leaving men out of the equation makes this just another over-simplified argument.
Leaving men out of the equation makes this just another over-simplified argument.
11
But abortion is the ultimate "out" for men
1
"Abortion is society’s easy way out — its way of avoiding grappling with the fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics."
Yes, abortion allows a woman choice of an"easy" way out. It may also be the most sensible and the most humane in a society that offers no support for the child born into desperation, a child with the odds stacked against them and against their mother.
The mother is the best judge of her future, and best able to assess the future of her child should it be brought into a hostile world where no support is provided save that of its mother, who is best able to foresee what help she will be able to provide.
Yes, abortion allows a woman choice of an"easy" way out. It may also be the most sensible and the most humane in a society that offers no support for the child born into desperation, a child with the odds stacked against them and against their mother.
The mother is the best judge of her future, and best able to assess the future of her child should it be brought into a hostile world where no support is provided save that of its mother, who is best able to foresee what help she will be able to provide.
9
Let's not overlook the key advice in Ms. Szala's excellent piece; the best way to prevent abortions is with more access to contraceptive and more sex ed. Pregnancy is not a random tragedy that befalls us, like cancer; we know what causes it and how to prevent it. Let's spend more energy doing that and less arguing about life and choice as if the two can't co-exist.
7
@belinda
Let’s return to the REAL world.
IUDs cost $700 and are the BEST birth control. Most women can’t afford them (They must be inserted by a health care provider in a clinic.) and if they work for Hobby Lobby and other “Christian owned stores” their insurance won’t cover it.
50% of ALL pregnancies in America are unplanned! Sex education in the USA is a joke. Our government ONLY pays to have abstinence taught. Planned Parenthood is being defunded across the USA. In my area of rural Georgia there is a sign on every family doc’s and Ob’s wall that says “We do NOT prescribe or provide birth control to any unmarried woman.”
She does NOT advocate birth control. Her “Human Coalition” website is abhorrent.
“Human Coalition is committed to an audacious mission: to transform our culture of death into a culture of life—to end abortion in America.”
We need fair and balanced debate NOT a lecture on what other women should do. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one.
But I have seen dozens of women such as this author calling abortion a “culture of death” who THEN came into my exam room PLEADING for an abortion. They are hypocrites. If it weren’t for my medical ethics I would publish their names and pictures on Facebook.
Let’s return to the REAL world.
IUDs cost $700 and are the BEST birth control. Most women can’t afford them (They must be inserted by a health care provider in a clinic.) and if they work for Hobby Lobby and other “Christian owned stores” their insurance won’t cover it.
50% of ALL pregnancies in America are unplanned! Sex education in the USA is a joke. Our government ONLY pays to have abstinence taught. Planned Parenthood is being defunded across the USA. In my area of rural Georgia there is a sign on every family doc’s and Ob’s wall that says “We do NOT prescribe or provide birth control to any unmarried woman.”
She does NOT advocate birth control. Her “Human Coalition” website is abhorrent.
“Human Coalition is committed to an audacious mission: to transform our culture of death into a culture of life—to end abortion in America.”
We need fair and balanced debate NOT a lecture on what other women should do. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one.
But I have seen dozens of women such as this author calling abortion a “culture of death” who THEN came into my exam room PLEADING for an abortion. They are hypocrites. If it weren’t for my medical ethics I would publish their names and pictures on Facebook.
5
The problem with your argument is that you want to take abortion off the table as a possible aid for these women in their own particular situations. Abortion simply cannot be taken off the table. Sure, help all women reduce the need for an abortion by providing them with free and/or low cost contraception. Education not abstinence. Free and/or low cost health screenings with providers who discuss health issues, including contraception and abortion, if need be, in safe environments. But abortion must remain an option for women. Because some women will need, will want to have an abortion, and that must remain, it should remain, because it a woman's autonomy over her own body, her own life should be her right.
15
The author states that "fundamental injustices drive women to abortion clinics."
Wrong. Women drive themselves. Sometimes men do. Sometimes parents. Sometimes friends. But make no mistake — women are headed there, of their own volition. And you can't just claim them to be victims of injustice. Many are not victims of injustice, other than that women get pregnant and men don't.
Women don't want others making the decision over whether to have a kid of note.
That's what drives them to the clinics.
Wrong. Women drive themselves. Sometimes men do. Sometimes parents. Sometimes friends. But make no mistake — women are headed there, of their own volition. And you can't just claim them to be victims of injustice. Many are not victims of injustice, other than that women get pregnant and men don't.
Women don't want others making the decision over whether to have a kid of note.
That's what drives them to the clinics.
8
It's easy for me to empathize with this author's personal story; as a young woman, I too continued with an unplanned pregnancy. Even so, I find the willful mischaracterization of pro-choice supporters to be "patronizing and patently dishonest." Ms. Szala's personal experience is informative, but she's arrogant to offer it as a template for all women in all circumstances. Like many other anti-abortion activists, she suggests that "choice" (for others) necessarily equates to "abortion" -- and that given the option women will choose termination. Yet that's not the choice she made. She calls on society to create a supportive community for women, but at the same asks women to sacrifice the same right to choose that she had. That's the contradiction at the heart of her story: Ms. Szala could choose the right course for herself because a generation of activists fought for her right to do so. She chose. Yet she now wants to deny other women the same respect.
13
Having never been faced with the need for an abortion, I cannot put myself in the shoes of those who have. Reducing abortion is a good goal, but I have a problem with not providing for the children of impoverished mothers once their children are born. The writer was lucky that there were resources available to her. As the government continues to cut back on programs less non religiously funded programs are available.
She also makes an assumption that all women will react to abortion as her friend did. I know several women who have had abortions and have moved on with their lives with no emotional consequences.
She also makes an assumption that all women will react to abortion as her friend did. I know several women who have had abortions and have moved on with their lives with no emotional consequences.
7
@H
You know “several women..no emotional consequences.”
Now let’s look at an actual clinical study:
"Jul 14, 2015
NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS DO NOT REGRET THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THEIR PREGNANCIES, according to a study published last week in the multidisciplinary academic journal PLOS ONE.
The study was carried out by researchers from the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at UC San Francisco’s School of Medicine, and from the university’s division of biostatistics.”
http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion-regret-reproductive-health/
In my medical practice of 40 plus years EVERY woman was very pleased to have a safe, legal abortion. As a woman I set aside a lot of time for them to talk while I just listened. Unlike this author who never sees abortion as a way out, I allowed them to pursue every angle and told them I would support them 100% whatever they decided. I treated them all as grown-ups!
You know “several women..no emotional consequences.”
Now let’s look at an actual clinical study:
"Jul 14, 2015
NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS DO NOT REGRET THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THEIR PREGNANCIES, according to a study published last week in the multidisciplinary academic journal PLOS ONE.
The study was carried out by researchers from the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at UC San Francisco’s School of Medicine, and from the university’s division of biostatistics.”
http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion-regret-reproductive-health/
In my medical practice of 40 plus years EVERY woman was very pleased to have a safe, legal abortion. As a woman I set aside a lot of time for them to talk while I just listened. Unlike this author who never sees abortion as a way out, I allowed them to pursue every angle and told them I would support them 100% whatever they decided. I treated them all as grown-ups!
3
Women are perfectly capable of making factual and moral decisions about whether or not to get an abortion.
In my experience, women who get abortions consider it well and have no regrets afterwards. I do not think we women who disagree are thinking there is any comparison to "gnawing off one's own leg." That is a ludicrous, woefully factually inaccurate, comparison.
But it is ultimately based on one's religious views about human life and thus the State cannot legislate against it. Because we allow not only the killing but the slavery of animals, which have more capacity for pain and consciousness than fetuses do, any objections to abortion are based on some idea of human personhood and its unique moral status.
We should all welcome financial support and advice to women in financial distress. But while it is a consideration in deciding whether or not to get an abortion the more important factors have to do with a woman's own health and freedom to control her own destiny.
In my experience, women who get abortions consider it well and have no regrets afterwards. I do not think we women who disagree are thinking there is any comparison to "gnawing off one's own leg." That is a ludicrous, woefully factually inaccurate, comparison.
But it is ultimately based on one's religious views about human life and thus the State cannot legislate against it. Because we allow not only the killing but the slavery of animals, which have more capacity for pain and consciousness than fetuses do, any objections to abortion are based on some idea of human personhood and its unique moral status.
We should all welcome financial support and advice to women in financial distress. But while it is a consideration in deciding whether or not to get an abortion the more important factors have to do with a woman's own health and freedom to control her own destiny.
3
There are some who support abortion simply for population control. If economic pressure, particularly in minority communities, results in abortion, “some” will feel they accomplished two of their evil objectives. The Democrats no longer care about the motive for abortion and hide behind the flag of newly minted women’s rights that defy civilized limits.
Others believe that the government has no place promoting or discouraging pregnancy. Two are required for pregnancy to happen. Adoption is the natural penalty for the reckless couple who does not want a child. They’ll get over it and be more careful the next time. The lucky adopted child will grow to appreciate the right to life - as I have.
I admire the efforts of Senator Bernie Sanders to see the abortion issue in economic terms. Family wealth, rather than just income, must become the moral issue of our time. The poorer half of the U.S. population now shares just 1% of the nations’ wealth. Family wealth has decreased as abortions have increased (contrary to short sighted economic pressure). Marriage and procreation have become the exception for too many young adults.
If government taxed wealth and income inversely, there would be a natural redistribution of family wealth without socialistic government interventions. Family wealth, even in modest amounts, is more important than education, race, geography, or any other factor when it comes to a child’s success. Families need to be strengthened.
Others believe that the government has no place promoting or discouraging pregnancy. Two are required for pregnancy to happen. Adoption is the natural penalty for the reckless couple who does not want a child. They’ll get over it and be more careful the next time. The lucky adopted child will grow to appreciate the right to life - as I have.
I admire the efforts of Senator Bernie Sanders to see the abortion issue in economic terms. Family wealth, rather than just income, must become the moral issue of our time. The poorer half of the U.S. population now shares just 1% of the nations’ wealth. Family wealth has decreased as abortions have increased (contrary to short sighted economic pressure). Marriage and procreation have become the exception for too many young adults.
If government taxed wealth and income inversely, there would be a natural redistribution of family wealth without socialistic government interventions. Family wealth, even in modest amounts, is more important than education, race, geography, or any other factor when it comes to a child’s success. Families need to be strengthened.
2
It's interesting that Ms. Szala is advocating that women have a choice about abortion...and that she's on the side of those want to deny women a choice.
It's also very telling that she says - completely untrue - that a woman who has problems, including an unwanted pregnancy, leaves a clinic after an abortion with all the same problems she came in with. How can no one who read her article in advance have pointed out to her the absolute error in her statement? Knowing how obvious the error, it seems that her goal isn't to argue her point effectively, but to lie to us to suit her purposes.
It's also very telling that she says - completely untrue - that a woman who has problems, including an unwanted pregnancy, leaves a clinic after an abortion with all the same problems she came in with. How can no one who read her article in advance have pointed out to her the absolute error in her statement? Knowing how obvious the error, it seems that her goal isn't to argue her point effectively, but to lie to us to suit her purposes.
7
“How can no one who read her article in advance have pointed out to her the absolute error in her statement?”
This is the problem with op-eds in the NY Times. They don’t tell you who the author is. The public editor tried to claim that she was correct in allowing an anti-climate change economist, Bret Stephens, use obviously incorrect data to back his ridiculous point.
When I read an article in a peer review journal the authors MUST write a disclaimer stating if the study was privately funded.
It would behoove the NY Times to write such a disclaimer for an author who runs a national anti-abortion coalition as this author does.
This is the problem with op-eds in the NY Times. They don’t tell you who the author is. The public editor tried to claim that she was correct in allowing an anti-climate change economist, Bret Stephens, use obviously incorrect data to back his ridiculous point.
When I read an article in a peer review journal the authors MUST write a disclaimer stating if the study was privately funded.
It would behoove the NY Times to write such a disclaimer for an author who runs a national anti-abortion coalition as this author does.
1
I wish gov't would stay out of it period. Let women choose whatever is best for them. I find it highly insulting, as a women, that this issue is even a political issue. If certain religious people are against it, then they don't have to have an abortion. They have no right to legislate women's choices for their own bodies. I find it disgusting beyond belief that we are still having these arguments. Leave women alone already!
9
The argument that abortion amounts to killing a child is specious--unless, that is, you subscribe to the religious notion that conception begins at birth and that a fetus should be entitled to the full rights of citizenship and even a burial. Women in this country still have the constitutional right to end an unwanted pregrancy whether it's for economic reasons or not. Period.
6
Correction: People who are argue that abortion amounts to killing a child appear to subscribe to the specious, religiously based notion that personhood begins at conception. I previously said they believe it begins at birth. These folks regard a fetus as a full blown American citizen.
First, I am gratified to hear Ms. Szala is actually doing something to try and enhance the lives of pregnant women who elect not to have an abortion. By far, most anti-abortion organizations protest a woman's right to make the personal decision regarding her own body and do nothing to support the woman if she elects to carry the fetus to term.
Second, Ms. Szala states: " but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children." For many people, including those who are religious, life does not begin at conception and therefore abortion is not defined as murder.
Third, Ms. Szala states: "Abortion is society’s easy way out ..." It is not an easy way out. I have friends who chose abortions: one attending a Catholic college, another attending a public university, another working while in a relationship with a very unreliable boyfriend. These women thought deeply and seriously not only about their own futures but also about the future of their fetus. They made their decisions based on many factors, not just economic ones. For Ms. Szala to assume economics is the sole or even primary reason is laughable and shows her purposeful ignorance.
Fourth, Ms. Szala describes her friend: "Weeping, she explained how she was depressed and had considered suicide." Many studies have shown the vast majority of women do not regret their decision to abort.
Trust women to make the right decisions about THEIR own lives.
Second, Ms. Szala states: " but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children." For many people, including those who are religious, life does not begin at conception and therefore abortion is not defined as murder.
Third, Ms. Szala states: "Abortion is society’s easy way out ..." It is not an easy way out. I have friends who chose abortions: one attending a Catholic college, another attending a public university, another working while in a relationship with a very unreliable boyfriend. These women thought deeply and seriously not only about their own futures but also about the future of their fetus. They made their decisions based on many factors, not just economic ones. For Ms. Szala to assume economics is the sole or even primary reason is laughable and shows her purposeful ignorance.
Fourth, Ms. Szala describes her friend: "Weeping, she explained how she was depressed and had considered suicide." Many studies have shown the vast majority of women do not regret their decision to abort.
Trust women to make the right decisions about THEIR own lives.
9
While I am delighted that everything worked out well for the author, her position omits two critical factors. The first is birth control which should be taught to all children and widely available. Birth control is very effective (contrary to the opinion of a recent WH appointee). It seems indelicate to ask how this woman became pregnant, but many young women become pregnant through lack of access to either education or birth control. Who wants abortion? Wouldn't it be better for this woman and all women poor or otherwise to avoid pregnancies in the first place? The second point is where is the responsibility for the man in this picture? The real problem of women having children is that the fathers of this unplanned children bear not responsibility for their care or upbringing, monetarily or emotionally. And society still blames the single mother and not the cad without whom there would be not child. Women bear children and society allows the fathers of those children to escape all responsibility for them. That is why single mothers without support systems like the one that the author had remain in poverty. This woman made a choice and is proud that it turned out well for her. This woman should be championing the rights of women not to be oppressed by a society that imposes all the burdens of child rearing on them. Abortion is only one way out of this injustice and it should be a route which is avoided by education and ample access to birth control. Half a story.
3
Dear Ms. Szala, I am all glad that you had the choice to make the decision that was best for you and was supported in your choice. Every woman should be entitled and be empowered to make her own choice. We as women need to ask ourselves, why DOESN'T the law require that the named father be DNA tested to prove fatherhood and therefore, be required by law to support the child unitl it becomes of legal age? Because we have an ALL MALE Senate panel (white to boot) deciding the fate of women and women's health. How will we ever be able to help ourselves and our children without extending the responsibility of children to those involved in creating them either intentionally or not?
4
Wonderful article. It's nice to get a respite from the constant nastiness from both sides of the spectrum. Democrats love them some abortions. And Republicans want to protect babies...until they are born. There's got to be a middle ground that makes sense people. The extremism doesn't do a lot of good.
No one likes abortions. No one. Not the patients, not the providers, no one. I've told my family's story before, but I must tell it again:
My mother was 16 when her older sister, age 36, married, mother of 4 children, ranging in age from 12 to 2, became pregnant with a 5th, and underwent an illegal abortion. She died a week later from sepsis. Her husband ran off, leaving the children. My grandmother, having raised her own 7 children, took in, and raised her 4 orphaned grandchildren. They survived, but their lives were scarred from the tragic loss of their mother, and the abandonment of their father. The ripple effect of this tragedy is apparent even now, some 80 years later.
Bill Clinton was right when he said abortion needs to be, "safe, legal, and rare". The only way to make that happen is improved sex education and better access to contraception.
My mother was 16 when her older sister, age 36, married, mother of 4 children, ranging in age from 12 to 2, became pregnant with a 5th, and underwent an illegal abortion. She died a week later from sepsis. Her husband ran off, leaving the children. My grandmother, having raised her own 7 children, took in, and raised her 4 orphaned grandchildren. They survived, but their lives were scarred from the tragic loss of their mother, and the abandonment of their father. The ripple effect of this tragedy is apparent even now, some 80 years later.
Bill Clinton was right when he said abortion needs to be, "safe, legal, and rare". The only way to make that happen is improved sex education and better access to contraception.
5
Birthing is a painful difficult thing. That alone is a good enough reason to get an abortion. Women risk their lives and permanent damage, not to mention possibly being tied to an abusive man, or being unable to deal with having a child for whatever reason.
You chose not to. Good for you. Others will choose to do so, and they have reasons that are at least as good as yours. Good for them.
Either way, no one should be forced to have an abortion, or forced to give birth. Their risk, their choice. Full stop.
You chose not to. Good for you. Others will choose to do so, and they have reasons that are at least as good as yours. Good for them.
Either way, no one should be forced to have an abortion, or forced to give birth. Their risk, their choice. Full stop.
5
This article is patronizing and patently dishonest. Just because this lady was willing to risk poverty (and not as much of a risk for her given the ample resources and very supportive family she had access to, that many do not) because of her personal feelings about abortion does not mean that other people are willing to do the same. Whether her tale about the poor sobbing woman who was totally forced to get an abortion is true (authoritarians always seem to trot that out, despite the fact that the vast majority do not regret abortions, and these people routinely lie about depression and suicide risks to manipulate vulnerable women) the premise is ridiculous. This person glibly brushes off the suffering that often results when women are denied abortions - those who do not have abortions are statistically more likely to experience the negative results they were worried about (poverty, abusive relationships).
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why women get abortions unless they are being coerced, because it's their body. The arrogance of those who believe that their feelings about abortion and personhood are just so special that they should be forced on everyone is astounding.
It's all about FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM until it's freedom for women, and then suddenly these ladies can't be trusted to know what's right and need the government to control their bodies for them.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why women get abortions unless they are being coerced, because it's their body. The arrogance of those who believe that their feelings about abortion and personhood are just so special that they should be forced on everyone is astounding.
It's all about FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM until it's freedom for women, and then suddenly these ladies can't be trusted to know what's right and need the government to control their bodies for them.
11
These are reasonable sounding statements.
However, the real world consequences of restricting access to abortion is that it harms poor women and families. Full stop.
Women with money will go where abortions are performed legally and safely.
Women without money will do what they deem necessary.
This is what happened before Roe v Wade. This is what happens everywhere access is restricted.
You had a support system and enough money. Lucky you. But inflicting a one size fits all solution, sometime in the undetermined future, is dehumanizing.
Full stop.
However, the real world consequences of restricting access to abortion is that it harms poor women and families. Full stop.
Women with money will go where abortions are performed legally and safely.
Women without money will do what they deem necessary.
This is what happened before Roe v Wade. This is what happens everywhere access is restricted.
You had a support system and enough money. Lucky you. But inflicting a one size fits all solution, sometime in the undetermined future, is dehumanizing.
Full stop.
6
As long as a fetus is not viable outside the womb, the choice of the mother to keep it or not it is of primary importance. Please don't guilt poor/too-young/uneducated women into carrying unwanted fetuses. It doesn't typically work out too well for anybody involved and nearly guarantees miserable life outcomes, exceptions excluded. Plus the emotional trauma to the mother from giving up a real breathing baby for adoption is way worse than terminating an yet-unviable fetus.
1
I am so tired of this. Can we just stop?
Roe v. Wade has been the law for 40 years
Abortion is way, way down since Roe destigmatized out of wedlock birth (making it a choice, not a mistake), and since birth control became widely more accessible (thank you Planned Parenthood)
Under Roe, states can (an do) refuse to provide a third trimester abortion (these are exceedingly rare anyway)
How come the right wing never talks about any of these facts ?
Roe v. Wade has been the law for 40 years
Abortion is way, way down since Roe destigmatized out of wedlock birth (making it a choice, not a mistake), and since birth control became widely more accessible (thank you Planned Parenthood)
Under Roe, states can (an do) refuse to provide a third trimester abortion (these are exceedingly rare anyway)
How come the right wing never talks about any of these facts ?
5
Ms. Szala, I'm extremely fascinated by your logic in this piece. It is "patronizing" that pro-choice advocates tie a woman's economic mobility to her fertility rights, but it is not patronizing to describe a woman in need of an abortion "as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg"? It's not patronizing to suggest that women who acquire abortions could have made a better choice with just "more creativity and more effort"? It's not patronizing to assume that if a woman wishes to get an abortion, she may also be suffering from substance abuse problems? You and I must be working with very different definitions of "patronizing".
This, to me, encompasses so many of the problems with pro-life and anti-abortion activists. This attitude of "I did this so you should be able to, too", is so flawed. Ms. Szala, it's great for you that your circumstances worked out well. But to thrust this philosophy, unwillingly, onto other women is deeply unfair and unjust.
This, to me, encompasses so many of the problems with pro-life and anti-abortion activists. This attitude of "I did this so you should be able to, too", is so flawed. Ms. Szala, it's great for you that your circumstances worked out well. But to thrust this philosophy, unwillingly, onto other women is deeply unfair and unjust.
8
Szala has made the moral decision that it is OK to lie for her beliefs. Apparently, she understands that her reasons to oppose abortion are not enough for the rest of us. Her organization conceals its purpose to women seeking abortions so as to lure them in and delay and obstruct their access to medical care. At the same time, the group quietly opposes contraception - their real purpose is more about enforcing religion than helping women.
The vast majority of Americans think this kind of blanket opposition to contraception and abortion is wrong and that it is wrong to lie about it. So here she responds with the classic propaganda tactic of accusing her opponents of exactly what she is guilty of: a culture of lies and the suppression and patronizing exploitation of women.
The vast majority of Americans think this kind of blanket opposition to contraception and abortion is wrong and that it is wrong to lie about it. So here she responds with the classic propaganda tactic of accusing her opponents of exactly what she is guilty of: a culture of lies and the suppression and patronizing exploitation of women.
7
Punitive anti-abortion laws are the real "easy way out." Passing laws that punish women and their doctors enable politicians to declare victory and move on, ignoring the hard work of social justice.
2
I attended a pro-life rally last year and a woman spoke about her abortion when she was 16 years old. She said it didn't bother her at first and actually was quite relieved. Then one day it hit her very hard that she had killed her baby. This was over 40 years ago and she still regrets having had her abortion. She married and went on to have other children but she still thinks of the baby she lost to abortion. She is not the only woman who has regretted her abortion. I spoke to a woman recently who aborted her baby and she thinks of that child daily even though she now is married with six children. The pain never leaves them and they suffer terribly. I would never judge a woman who had an abortion but would encourage her to have the baby. The anguish and regret is far worse than struggling financially and there are always people ready and willing to assist in any way they can. They are just waiting to help mother and child.
An excellent article that avoids the excesses of the Evangelicals and the Feminists.
In discussing the treatments offered to women with unwanted pregnancies why wasn't adoption (in lieu of abortions) ever mentioned?
In discussing the treatments offered to women with unwanted pregnancies why wasn't adoption (in lieu of abortions) ever mentioned?
1
Anecdote is no replacement for data driven answers.
I'm happy it worked out for you and some people you know, but your story does not invalidate the simple math that others have provided that says that on average, women do better economically speaking if abortion is available and not shunned.
I'm happy it worked out for you and some people you know, but your story does not invalidate the simple math that others have provided that says that on average, women do better economically speaking if abortion is available and not shunned.
5
I don't think Lori is old enough to remember America pre roe v wade. Abortion was a criminal act, criminal. It will again be criminalized and birth control will be next. Our country does not care about poverty or single moms enduring unrelenting economic hardship and no amount of charity or group effort will alleviate this challenge. The bottom line is there are too many people on this planet and parenthood should be planned and prepared for. So throw women in jail for using birth control, I can't wait.
"Abortion is society’s easy way out" ... and the refusal by the conservative cabal to assist a woman who has unwillingly or accidentally gotten pregnant carry her child to completion, as if she was an "animal" who had unforgivably succumbed to her baser instinct and deserved to be punished, is also an easy way out of accepting that women are now in all ways equal to men.
This issue has been hijacked by the factions residing at the tips of this country's ideological wings; we can quibble which is more intransigeant. But the solution is simple: the pro-abortion camp must accept that abortions past the first trimester be made illegal, as they are in more reasonable nations such as, say, France.
Conversely, the pro-life camp must accept that we cannot return to the days when abortions were conducted in back-alleys. What they should devote their forces to is education: There is a solid argument to be made for why abortions should only be used as a last resort. And they should put their money where their convictions are: Help pregnant women give birth and assist in the adoption process if chosen by the mother.
This issue has been hijacked by the factions residing at the tips of this country's ideological wings; we can quibble which is more intransigeant. But the solution is simple: the pro-abortion camp must accept that abortions past the first trimester be made illegal, as they are in more reasonable nations such as, say, France.
Conversely, the pro-life camp must accept that we cannot return to the days when abortions were conducted in back-alleys. What they should devote their forces to is education: There is a solid argument to be made for why abortions should only be used as a last resort. And they should put their money where their convictions are: Help pregnant women give birth and assist in the adoption process if chosen by the mother.
1
Your choice is yours - please leave me mine.
Beyond this fundamental divide in our opinions - really you want to discourage making economics arguments in a society that is about to severely limit care options for pregnant women, offers no paid maternity care or affordable childcare? This is outright crazy and irresponsible.I don't need conservatives to sacrifice their time and treasure to serve me and other women in need. I need them to leave me alone and live my life as I see fit - anything but being dependent on our cruel and self-righteous "Christians" ...thank you very much.
Beyond this fundamental divide in our opinions - really you want to discourage making economics arguments in a society that is about to severely limit care options for pregnant women, offers no paid maternity care or affordable childcare? This is outright crazy and irresponsible.I don't need conservatives to sacrifice their time and treasure to serve me and other women in need. I need them to leave me alone and live my life as I see fit - anything but being dependent on our cruel and self-righteous "Christians" ...thank you very much.
2
Infancy lasts one year. Toddler's two years. By then we are up to school age. We need things like childcare on campus or bring the baby to class so that young women w/ infants can complete their education. We need to make birth control very available-- preferably the injected tubes that are good for five years. We need to create housing situations that are tenable.. and PS small can be very good. And PS we need to create even pay-- why should MDs and lawyers make loads more than teachers or housekeepers? The system is in a way perverse-- PS the problem has been around for a long time... since people arrived on this earth. And it takes two to create life... so I think the male always needs to be involved in an abortion decision. One has to know that the wages of sin are children!! We also need to consider the other species that inhabit the planet and maybe it's time for fewer homo nonsapiens nonsapiens, preferably by prevention or RU486 as a last resort.
Everyone's situation is different. Therefore, we have to offer every possible solution. The one problem I have with anti-abortion groups is that if you REALLY want to end abortion, you should be almost THROWING birth control at people and trying to find cheap birth control for all. But since most anti-abortion groups have religious bases and want to punish people for having sex, that's never the case.
It's like saying people shouldn't get a measles vaccine, they just shouldn't get measles in the first place.
It's like saying people shouldn't get a measles vaccine, they just shouldn't get measles in the first place.
2
It is a fact that single mothers with their children are at the bottom of the economic heap. Especially when the father takes off and is financially non-supportive. Let's go after these dead beats and start legislating their sexual reproductive obligations. Always falls upon the shamed mother instead, whose children are also harshly penalized. Two to tango.
There are some men out there who have 10 or more children. Seriously.
There are some men out there who have 10 or more children. Seriously.
2
" The woman will leave the clinic burdened by every single problem she came in with". Um, no. This is just another variation of the " poor Women don't deserve abortions, and we'll make it as difficult as possible to get one" mindset. Apparently, you did fine. Good for you. The great majority of women, in that situation, would not fare so well. Not your body, not your business. Get a real " LIFE ". Stop moralizing and impeding real women and theirs. PEROID.
17
Shame on the author for her language about killing children when she knows full well we are talking about a gray area, and on the New York Times for printing an article that is dumb and does not move the discussion forward. Reproductive rights are fundamental human rights. The American system reserves to the people their fundamental human rights, including the right to bodily autonomy. That women have as much right to control their own bodies as men do to control their own bodies clearly needs to be spelled out for the many well-meaning people who think they are in charge of my reproductive system. We need an equal rights amendment!
12
This writer owns "crisis pregnancy centers" and makes money off the anti choice/ anti body autonomy cult. Why aren't you pointing out such a glaring conflict of interest? Or the junk science and lies? Shame, NYT!
15
You lost me at "killing".
11
How utterly pathetic these people look to me as they beg to surrender legal autonomy over the usage of their own bodies to a bunch of greedy grasping money-grubbing parasites.
Show me a "Federalist Society" lawyer and I will show you a case of judicial cancer.
Show me a "Federalist Society" lawyer and I will show you a case of judicial cancer.
4
Lots of red hot button rhetoric here.
"an animal caught in a a trap wanting to gnaw off its own leg", parental rights to murder their own children, with a dainty side step around economics with "community commitment".
Everything but pictures of aborted fetuses.
A persons body is inviolably their own. Perhaps the author wishes to harken back in history to the glory days of slavery for a lesson on who owns her body.
"an animal caught in a a trap wanting to gnaw off its own leg", parental rights to murder their own children, with a dainty side step around economics with "community commitment".
Everything but pictures of aborted fetuses.
A persons body is inviolably their own. Perhaps the author wishes to harken back in history to the glory days of slavery for a lesson on who owns her body.
8
Don't you see how your argument fits the pro-life view? The days of slavery when people owned other people because they weren't considered people? What would be wrong with pictures of aborted fetuses, if this is a reality you find entirely acceptable? Instead, pictures like that are considered the ultimate obscenity, beyond the pale, unfair to use with a pro-life argument - why is that?
Riley,
Yet another circumvent around who owns a woman's body, or anyones for that matter. Conflating the victims of unwanted pregnancy and slavery as non-entities or non-people and then moving on to picturesque rhetoric of aborted fetuses as obscene medical waste.
No. Not acceptable.
Yet another circumvent around who owns a woman's body, or anyones for that matter. Conflating the victims of unwanted pregnancy and slavery as non-entities or non-people and then moving on to picturesque rhetoric of aborted fetuses as obscene medical waste.
No. Not acceptable.
' "We can look like a medical clinic because we are," explains Lori Szala, executive director of Pregnancy Resource Center, in the South Hills, a suburb of Pittsburgh. ' [The Investigative Fund]
Yup, she runs a fake Pregnancy Clinic or "Ministry" that lies to pregnant women about the "risks" of abortion and provides no abortions or contraceptives. Talk about dehumanizing!
Lori Szala belongs to a right wing evangelical organization that's and pro fetus and anti woman and anti living babies.
Yup, she runs a fake Pregnancy Clinic or "Ministry" that lies to pregnant women about the "risks" of abortion and provides no abortions or contraceptives. Talk about dehumanizing!
Lori Szala belongs to a right wing evangelical organization that's and pro fetus and anti woman and anti living babies.
14
The NY Times REALLY needs to include a disclaimer at the beginning of op-ed pieces.
In my peer review medical journals the authors of a study MUST state if their work is being subsidized by any private funding..such as a pharmaceutical company.
This author is “the national director of client services at Human Coalition.”
The following statement is from that website:
“Human Coalition is committed to an audacious mission: to transform our culture of death into a culture of life—to end abortion in America.”
Wow! “audacious?” “culture of death?”
Hey NY Times, thanks for a “fair and balanced” advertisement from this “audacious organization.”
Next time, provide a disclaimer!
In my peer review medical journals the authors of a study MUST state if their work is being subsidized by any private funding..such as a pharmaceutical company.
This author is “the national director of client services at Human Coalition.”
The following statement is from that website:
“Human Coalition is committed to an audacious mission: to transform our culture of death into a culture of life—to end abortion in America.”
Wow! “audacious?” “culture of death?”
Hey NY Times, thanks for a “fair and balanced” advertisement from this “audacious organization.”
Next time, provide a disclaimer!
This is one of the most predictable, manipulative, and offensive columns about abortion I've read in a long time. It's especially offensive in light of the ACA repeal, and the all-white-male panel of conservatives Mitch McConnell appointed to rewrite the House AHCA.
Nearly every anti-choice diatribe has the story of a woman about to terminate a pregnancy. Then a sobbing, depressed friend who recently had an abortion,begs her friend to cancel. The friend does, has the baby, and everything works out!
Abortion isn't society's "easy way out" to avoid grappling with fundamental injustices.The reverse is true. The right to choose empowers women politically, economically, and personally.
Ms. Szala knows this, and is panicked by the fact that the abortion argument moved from sin, murder, and "killing children" into a less emotional discussion of ways in which the right to choose secures a woman's economic future and the quality of her life and the lives of any children she may, or may not, choose to have.
I do not think we should "all agree" that abortion isn't a solution to a host of systematic injustices driving poverty. Decade upon decade of women and girls forced to bear children is a systemic, basic cause of economic injustice.
The author claims organizations like hers can help women find jobs (what salary??)...and sign up for government benefits.
Really? With pregnancy a pre-existing condition, and government benefits under the knife?
How can the NYT even print this drivel?
Nearly every anti-choice diatribe has the story of a woman about to terminate a pregnancy. Then a sobbing, depressed friend who recently had an abortion,begs her friend to cancel. The friend does, has the baby, and everything works out!
Abortion isn't society's "easy way out" to avoid grappling with fundamental injustices.The reverse is true. The right to choose empowers women politically, economically, and personally.
Ms. Szala knows this, and is panicked by the fact that the abortion argument moved from sin, murder, and "killing children" into a less emotional discussion of ways in which the right to choose secures a woman's economic future and the quality of her life and the lives of any children she may, or may not, choose to have.
I do not think we should "all agree" that abortion isn't a solution to a host of systematic injustices driving poverty. Decade upon decade of women and girls forced to bear children is a systemic, basic cause of economic injustice.
The author claims organizations like hers can help women find jobs (what salary??)...and sign up for government benefits.
Really? With pregnancy a pre-existing condition, and government benefits under the knife?
How can the NYT even print this drivel?
Just so were all clear Ms. Szala runs a crisis pregnancy center in Pittsburgh PA. She has spent years coming inot our schools and misleading teens about reproductive health. Her center used to be called The Pregnancy Resource Center and she has now changed it to the Human Coalition. This is the worst Opinion piece I've seen and shame on the NYT for publishing it. This is an Abortion shaming patronizing letter of the worse kind.
25
How about free contraception for everybody?
Bernie Sanders should be careful in giving any appearance other than obsequious compliance with the wishes of the abortion death cult.
2
I would like to know how you jumped from choosing to have an abortion for economic or any other reasons, to killing children. You obviously lack the simple ability to reason. Your story is yours and yours alone. You cannot impose your will on those who think otherwise.
8
With emotional articles like these, the NYT moves further to the right.
Szala speaks of parents thinking they have "the right to kill their child" and of how "an abortion clinic ... ends the life of a child".
This is sheer semantic gobbledygook and nonsense! She is talking about what amounts biologically to nothing more than a bundle of human cells, merely a fertilised ovum. A foetus is no more a child than an egg is the same thing as a chicken.
A foetus has no formed brain, it has no capacity for life independent of the body of the woman who bears it, it cannot think and it has not yet the capacity for emotions. A foetus is not a human being, much less a person. Rather, it merely has the capacity to be a future human being, a future person.
How people get away with mouthing this absurd drivel as fact simply defies commonsense. Is giving a platform to this trash The New York Times idea of balance?
This is sheer semantic gobbledygook and nonsense! She is talking about what amounts biologically to nothing more than a bundle of human cells, merely a fertilised ovum. A foetus is no more a child than an egg is the same thing as a chicken.
A foetus has no formed brain, it has no capacity for life independent of the body of the woman who bears it, it cannot think and it has not yet the capacity for emotions. A foetus is not a human being, much less a person. Rather, it merely has the capacity to be a future human being, a future person.
How people get away with mouthing this absurd drivel as fact simply defies commonsense. Is giving a platform to this trash The New York Times idea of balance?
The Handmaid's Tale's revival is no surprise with the coming storm clouds of Christian misogyny in the Faustian embrace of Trump by religious extremists eager to press Old Testament Sharia on all heathens. Now The Handmaid's Tale has an op-ed version though the writer doesn't hold a candle to Margaret Atwood, even though her op-ed is fictional as Atwood's novel.
This is a lot like Trump's campaign rally rants -- a standup routine with a hyped up audience eager to hear Trump's raw zingers hissing hate and salacious pandering just an inch short of obscene. Ms. Szala is more artful but still heavy-handed as Trump when pushing buttons.
In her world, children are aborted, personal truth is one-size fits all, women abort "to scramble up the economic ladder without children holding them back" (yeah, and Arbeit Macht Frei to you too!), parenting is a hassle but that doesn't "give parents the right to kill their children."
This is a total fake op-ed -- fake context, fake feeling, fake women, fake facts, fake reality. Topped with a dollop of fake honesty and "I know I'm lucky but..."
That's a really big but -- big enough to moot argument with biblical harangue.
Peel off the cynical veneer and it's the wrathful god of the Old Testament, all vengeance and violence, still beating up on Eve for letting the serpent humiliate him in his own garden.
This isn't an op-ed. It's a loaded insult. Or are the editors stooping to Trump's level and resorting to click-bait?
"Kill their children"? I stopped reading right there.
11
First, abortion doesn't kill a child; it terminates a clump of cells called a fetus. Second, mother nature aborts hundreds of thousands of fetus' and it is called miscarriage. Third, lots of reasons to abort other than economic such as rape, incest, personal choice, .... Finally, for whatever reason, the choice to abort is best made by the woman, her family, and doctor. Keep the state and religion out of the decision.
31
@David
Minor correction on medical terminology.
From conception to 8 weeks the “products of conception” are called embryos.
After 8 weeks to birth the term is fetus.
20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage--80% of miscarriages occur in the first twelve weeks. All MDs refer to third trimester fetuses as fetuses. While speaking with families we may use the term baby, but it’s not a baby until born, separated from the placenta and breathing.
It’s not harsh...just the way we distinguish specific stages of pregnancy.
Minor correction on medical terminology.
From conception to 8 weeks the “products of conception” are called embryos.
After 8 weeks to birth the term is fetus.
20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage--80% of miscarriages occur in the first twelve weeks. All MDs refer to third trimester fetuses as fetuses. While speaking with families we may use the term baby, but it’s not a baby until born, separated from the placenta and breathing.
It’s not harsh...just the way we distinguish specific stages of pregnancy.
2
I'm always stunned by the miscarriage comparison. This is the whole point of the prolife view. We aren't to cause the death of an innocent human being. Natural death is different, right? I mean, I truly don't get that argument AT ALL.
This person OWNS a "pregnancy resource center," i.e. a fake clinic where women are badgered and misinformed about their pregnancy options. She has a financial stake in pushing this misleading narrative. I'm absolutely appalled that the NYT would give this person a soapbox.
36
Dear author - "kill their children" is not what an abortion is - it's terminating a fetus. big difference.
20
"Abortion is a stain on America. And the God who gives life will not hold us guiltless" is the motto of the Human Coalition which Ms Szala works for. It is a right wing anti abortion organisation located in Plano Texas and funded by "churches, individuals, and businesses". Ms Szala's anecdotes have zero relevance in assessing the economic impact and causes of abortion. Why does the NYT consider that it is a relevant analysis?
20
This woman is actively working to change laws to bar women from having autonomy over their bodies. Autonomy doesn't just mean the right to have an abortion, it also means the right to carry a pregnancy. Her long-winded scolding of reducing us to economic actors ignores this. I am glad she got to make her own decision. All women should get to make their own decisions. Many of these christianist anti-choice meddlers would ALSO want women in prison or women on welfare to be sterilized. Many women in these positions have woken up after a caesarian to find they have had hysterectomies they never consented to nor ever wanted.
Why is the Editor of the New York Times so determined to give column inches to sanctimonious fabulists who want us all to adhere to their brand of anti-Christianity?
Why is the Editor of the New York Times so determined to give column inches to sanctimonious fabulists who want us all to adhere to their brand of anti-Christianity?
14
The point is Who makes the decision. Most of us think that decision should be the woman's, for whatever reason, economic or otherwise. It's great that the author was able to make her own decision.It's great that she had a strong network of family and friends. The problem with this, and with all anti-choice folks, is that they want to impose their choices, their morals,on everybody else. It's not parallel. Pro-choice people believe that everyone should be able to come to their decision in their own way.
I recommend that everybody see the documentary Jackson, about the last abortion clinic in Mississippi. It exposes the racial and economic dimensions of this question in a way that the author here does not.
I recommend that everybody see the documentary Jackson, about the last abortion clinic in Mississippi. It exposes the racial and economic dimensions of this question in a way that the author here does not.
13
Abortion is not always a hopeless choice - most women who get abortions don't regret their decision to do so. Women have the right to abortion because bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. Systemic injustice needs to be addressed, including the assumption that all women facing an unplanned pregnancy would continue to term if it was financially possible. Not all women wish to be mothers, which is the premise of this piece. Some don't want more children. Abortion is an economic issue, but the larger issue is that women's bodies are still regarded as public property. Until the "pro-life" movement can accept that a woman's right to make her own choices is not a tragedy, there is no hope for any kind of reconciliation in this argument.
14
No matter how you slice this issue, a woman's right to choose, as an American citizen must be protected. While you present your rationale for 'making an unplanned pregnancy work', that is not the only reason to stop allowing women the right to choose. In the end, anyone seeking government intervention over a woman's body during the time of pregnancy is tantamount to enslaving her body.
Men will never let stand that type of enslavement of their bodies and neither should women. My wife, daughters and granddaughter should have the right to decide how their body will be cared for as it relates to this issue. My role as a husband, father and grandfather is to protect their rights. I am not advocating for abortions. I am, however demanding the rights for my family members to maintain their constitutional rights.
Men will never let stand that type of enslavement of their bodies and neither should women. My wife, daughters and granddaughter should have the right to decide how their body will be cared for as it relates to this issue. My role as a husband, father and grandfather is to protect their rights. I am not advocating for abortions. I am, however demanding the rights for my family members to maintain their constitutional rights.
16
I take issue with most of what the author says. Abortion and economics are linked regardless of whether you want to say so. The origin of Planned Parenthood includes stories about women pleading that they cannot afford to have another child. Family planning and contraception are the best route to avoid unplanned children, but abortion nevertheless can be necessary for economic reasons. One of the author's implicit assumptions that I strongly disagree with is that abortion "ends the life of a child." Abortion terminates a fetus, not a child. Conflating the two is adopting the anti-abortion movement's "abortion is murder" argument. Banning abortion does not necessarily condemn a woman to complications from pregnancy, including diabetes, extreme discomfort, potential death during childbirth, and hardship thereafter. But it certainly requires sacrifices that would not be made otherwise. (Meanwhile the other responsible party pays no price and makes no sacrifice.) Even if abortion does "end a human life" (which it does not), this country routinely exchanges innocent life for various priorities, including dangerous building projects (tall buildings, bridges, highways, railroads), high-speed travel on highways (including tolerance of routinely exceeding life-saving speed limits), a highly weaponized citizenry, and bombing foreign countries. Why is abortion singled out as the one that we have to ban?
11
Universal day care, such as that offered in Sweden, would go a long way towards supporting working PARENTS, and take some of the economic pressure off the decision to have an abortion. Quality day care, where the workers are paid a good wage, is important to a society which has a vested interest in children's outcome, and allows parents to perform better at work, which is a win for all.
8
Like every anti-abortion group I've ever heard of the Human Coalition is opposed to contraception. Which tells you that what they really care about isn't life, it's controlling women's sexuality. I raised my daughter as a single mother and it was incredibly difficult. If I had any more kids it would have been impossible. I got a tubal ligation - a form of contraception that HC is opposed to. I am glad I did it and I will never stop fighting misogynist organizations like Human Coalition who would gladly see women die through illegal abortions while patting themselves on the back for being "pro-life."
An inviolate mandate that women have bodily autonomy is necessary for MANY reasons - including economic ones. I faced an unplanned pregnancy at 21 and terminated the pregnancy. I have not one iota of regret and my then-boyfriend/ now-husband and I adore our family of now four adult children. It clearly would have had a negative impact on you so YOU made the choice that worked for YOU. As it should be. Let the rest of us do the same.
16
"And conservatives must do more than tell abortion-seeking women to “go in peace and keep warm and well fed”; they must sacrifice their time and treasure to serve women in need."
Why yes. There's the rub! Progressives want conservatives to stop blocking access to contraception and sex ed which would greatly reduce women being in this position in the first place. Further, conservatives want to block any and all federal assistance to help people who need community resources to assist them where family cannot. Ms. Szala was admirably determined but also incredibly lucky.
I'd also like to point out that the father is not mentioned in this essay as being part of the picture. When will conservatives hold fathers to account for their abandonment and stop placing all blame for unintended pregnancy on the woman - while simultaneously not providing them the ability to prevent it?
Why yes. There's the rub! Progressives want conservatives to stop blocking access to contraception and sex ed which would greatly reduce women being in this position in the first place. Further, conservatives want to block any and all federal assistance to help people who need community resources to assist them where family cannot. Ms. Szala was admirably determined but also incredibly lucky.
I'd also like to point out that the father is not mentioned in this essay as being part of the picture. When will conservatives hold fathers to account for their abandonment and stop placing all blame for unintended pregnancy on the woman - while simultaneously not providing them the ability to prevent it?
11
Having a child is a very big deal. Ms. Szala presents a false story line to support her anti-abortion bias. Does it always change a woman's economic prospects? No, not always- but very often. Dropping out of school, dead-end service jobs, lack of decent day care, a cycle of welfare dependency- these things and more stack the deck against the mother and reduce her economic prospects. Making every child a wanted child is the bottom line here. The right to choose is fundamental. Stop attacking it- if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
16
For a single woman or any woman who is alone who decides to have her baby, she must know that there are people and organizations who will help her in any and every way they can. Abortion should never be an option due to lack of money or support. We must do a better job of assisting these women and supplying them with housing, clothing, and job training. They were courageous in having their babies and we must be there for them before and after birth. It is absolutely necessary for the pro-life movement to give of their time and money. We cannot just let them fend for themselves but also give them moral support. We must not only talk the talk but walk the walk.
Tertific!! Kindly provide the names of organizations that help women "in any and every way they can" with regard to an unplanned pregnancy. I take this to mean financial (clothes, food, efucation, etc.) and emotional support for her and her family until the infant is 18 years old.
Talk the talk and walk the walk!
Talk the talk and walk the walk!
2
"Abortion is society’s easy way out"
No, birth control is societies easy way out. Without the guilt even though some forms of birth control are a form of abortion. congratulations Lori on "making it". but we are a low socially mobile society and you are by far the exception. The reason economics matters with abortions is because the rich will get one when their form of abortion fails (which is birth control) but the poor will be forced to deal with those babies. Being pro-choice isn't the same as being pro-abortion. Those who support abortion want to reduce the need for it too through better access to education, birth control and empowerment. Having a baby while poor and undereducated will make it a lot harder to help that kid get out of poverty too.
No, birth control is societies easy way out. Without the guilt even though some forms of birth control are a form of abortion. congratulations Lori on "making it". but we are a low socially mobile society and you are by far the exception. The reason economics matters with abortions is because the rich will get one when their form of abortion fails (which is birth control) but the poor will be forced to deal with those babies. Being pro-choice isn't the same as being pro-abortion. Those who support abortion want to reduce the need for it too through better access to education, birth control and empowerment. Having a baby while poor and undereducated will make it a lot harder to help that kid get out of poverty too.
14
How lucky you were to have childcare. Many young women do NOT. There is no argument against abortion for women who need or choose them. what is patronizing is articles like these. Abortion is legal in the US constitution, and we have the technology to make it safe . The issue should be de-fused by now. I'm glad you are happy with your decision and were able to have a successful like. But yours is everyone's experience,and sentimental appeals are not helpful. Education about contraception and availability of contraception for women and importantly for young MEN as well is essential if you wish to reduce numbers of abortions. Simple solution. Young people will have sex. So please, ENOUGH. The debate is long over, despite rooms of prosperous men making decisions for us.
7
You make your choices, let other women make theirs. And by the way life starts at birth. It's even in the Bible!
It's wonderful that your experience worked out so well for you. However, making motherhood work is not the issue. The issue is freedom of choice for women. You sound like you don't believe in that. Full stop.
11
In a country that does not provide maternity leave, healthcare, child care, after school programs, affordable college and, as I write this comment, is actively shreading any safety net programs that seek to provide any of the above...It is patently absurd and statistically incorrect to take your personal bootstrap tale and use it show how economical it is for all babies to be carried to full term.
And, in this environment your point of view has a lot of power (Gorsuch, Pence and all the white guys crafting women's health bills in government buildings all over the country). Outlawing abortion is not going to end abortion, only make them less safe and many unwanted children to languish, so exactly how does our small government/low tax rate country bootstrap that? Your exceptional tale lacks evidence and presents a justification for what is about to happen to American women.
And, in this environment your point of view has a lot of power (Gorsuch, Pence and all the white guys crafting women's health bills in government buildings all over the country). Outlawing abortion is not going to end abortion, only make them less safe and many unwanted children to languish, so exactly how does our small government/low tax rate country bootstrap that? Your exceptional tale lacks evidence and presents a justification for what is about to happen to American women.
7
First of all, it is not a child! Depending on what stage of pregnancy a woman is in, it is a clump of cells. You are entitled to your belief that life begins at conception, but that is your opinion.
7
When does the clump of cells become a child? Is it the same with each child? If we're not too sure about the date of conception, can we abort the thing anyway? What's the difference, really? In fact, what really matters here is the economic opportunities of the mother, so if we get it onto the doctor's table and it's still alive, can't we just go ahead and kill it? What's the difference?
1
So let me get this straight, because the author got pregnant as a teenager and managed to succeed, through admirably hard work and perseverance, without aborting the fetus, it's therefore a myth that lack of access to abortion is an economic depressant?
Gosh, I have a black friend who went to business school and has been very successful, so I guess by the author's argument it's also a myth that african americans face economic challenges. All it takes is hard work!
Hmm...in a different context that argument doesn't really hold up, does it?
Gosh, I have a black friend who went to business school and has been very successful, so I guess by the author's argument it's also a myth that african americans face economic challenges. All it takes is hard work!
Hmm...in a different context that argument doesn't really hold up, does it?
11
The anti-abortion community maintains that life begins at conception. Their policies proclaim it stops with birth. The Pro-Life community is really "Pro-Birth." They consistently oppose free health-care for pregnant women, contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies, abortion services, pediatric care, affordable daycare, preschool education programs and the like.
Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Half of those are electively aborted.
We need a set of national policies that provide universal access to safe and effective contraception for all women of reproductive age (should they choose to use it, a national policy to cover all pregnancy-related expenses, a national policy to provide basic pediatric care to all children, and social policies that will allow familes--even those headed by a single parent--to flourish by supporting universal, affordable daycare and preschool education.
Republicans only want to make people pay "for medical care that they need." And so you have grumpy old white men declaring that "I don't need pregnancy care or lactation consultants"--as if we have no social responsibility for anyone else in society.
The point, however, is that EVERYBODY needs pregnancy and and pediatric care because each one of us was once a fetus and then a child.
Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Half of those are electively aborted.
We need a set of national policies that provide universal access to safe and effective contraception for all women of reproductive age (should they choose to use it, a national policy to cover all pregnancy-related expenses, a national policy to provide basic pediatric care to all children, and social policies that will allow familes--even those headed by a single parent--to flourish by supporting universal, affordable daycare and preschool education.
Republicans only want to make people pay "for medical care that they need." And so you have grumpy old white men declaring that "I don't need pregnancy care or lactation consultants"--as if we have no social responsibility for anyone else in society.
The point, however, is that EVERYBODY needs pregnancy and and pediatric care because each one of us was once a fetus and then a child.
2
What say its "dehumanizing"? Its true.
For women, our ability to control our fertility -- including access to contraception and abortion -- are essential to our being able to access education and other forms of opportunity. And children born to women without education, livelihoods or very good family support often end up in a downward spiral.
For women, our ability to control our fertility -- including access to contraception and abortion -- are essential to our being able to access education and other forms of opportunity. And children born to women without education, livelihoods or very good family support often end up in a downward spiral.
6
This OP-Ed is bizarre.
"Above all, it’s a profoundly dehumanizing argument. It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress."
The argument does no such thing. It simply recognizes that reproductive choice is often entwined with economic opportunity. The authors' personal story, while interesting, is anecdotal. It in no way discounts the research and logic that supports considering reproductive choice and economic opportunity in tandem. In fact, this Op-Ed doesn't mention a single actual economic argument. It simply takes a single personal anecdote as somehow representative.
The author says arguments linking economics and reproductive choice are "patronizing" and "patently dishonest." I would say the same about counter arguments that draw strong conclusions from personal anecdote, without citing any evidence outside one's own personal experience. This would be better situated as a personal narrative--without any sweeping conclusions. I'm disappointed the New York Times would publish this as a socio-economic piece. It's anything but.
"Above all, it’s a profoundly dehumanizing argument. It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress."
The argument does no such thing. It simply recognizes that reproductive choice is often entwined with economic opportunity. The authors' personal story, while interesting, is anecdotal. It in no way discounts the research and logic that supports considering reproductive choice and economic opportunity in tandem. In fact, this Op-Ed doesn't mention a single actual economic argument. It simply takes a single personal anecdote as somehow representative.
The author says arguments linking economics and reproductive choice are "patronizing" and "patently dishonest." I would say the same about counter arguments that draw strong conclusions from personal anecdote, without citing any evidence outside one's own personal experience. This would be better situated as a personal narrative--without any sweeping conclusions. I'm disappointed the New York Times would publish this as a socio-economic piece. It's anything but.
12
I enjoyed the casual reference to "29 years ago" inserted midway through. That's called "burying the lede."
4
Since you blithely claim ecomiccs is not a valid concern with regard to abortion may I suggest, then, that you adopt said infants? Perhaps one or two per year? It shouldn't be a financial hardship, right?
Abortion is not the same thing as "killing children". Using such deliberately misleading language about this complicated and emotional topic is morally irresponsible.
9
What an incredibly patronizing piece. Women looking to have an abortion being compared to a desperate trapped animal who can no longer reason? I fear this does nothing but perpetuate the old hateful belief that women cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own well being.
11
Since most of the people who virulently oppose a woman's right to choose also oppose contraception, your argument falls completely flat.
8
who the heck opposes birth control? certainly no conservative I know. I buy mine at walgreens every month for about $13.
Before I became a sexually active teen, my boyfriend and I went to Planned Parenthood, where I received an exam and a prescription for the pill, which we co-paid for the entire time we dated. I was on the pill until the time I was ready to have a baby, and thus never needed an abortion. I could not get pregnant-- and when I did, I lost those pregnancies. I mourned my monthly period as if it were a death, through all the years of infertility. We tried and failed at adoption, and gave up. No sooner did we surrender, than a baby came to us through adoption. (or as we joke-- the stork finally made a delivery) We have adored our child and treasured most moments of parenthood. Despite my past, I am more pro-abortion than ever. My story, like this author's, is not relevant to the life and conditions of another woman. That woman must make her choice based on her feelings, circumstances, needs. Period. This column is an abomination because it aspires to make policy based on anecdote. Not good on ANY policy, especially crude when it comes to a woman's right to become a parent. Or not. NYT-- surely you can do better.
The author works for an organization who's stated goal is to end abortion.
This fine story is a version of the "only misguided women have abortions " meme. Apparently, the author does not realize that her situation and support are not the rule.
Glad you made it. Don't be naive and think your story is anything ordinary. You made your choice - be so good as to allow other women theirs. You have zero understanding of their situation, so mind your own business.
This fine story is a version of the "only misguided women have abortions " meme. Apparently, the author does not realize that her situation and support are not the rule.
Glad you made it. Don't be naive and think your story is anything ordinary. You made your choice - be so good as to allow other women theirs. You have zero understanding of their situation, so mind your own business.
My mother aborted her third pregnancy with her first husband, who was abusive, because of financial issues and his abuse. Her desperation was so Keen she spent weeks jumping off the kitchen table to abort the fetus.
Stop falsely and callously claiming that financial issues are not a valid reason for ending a pregnancy. Thousands of years of history and millions of women's stories prove otherwise.
Stop falsely and callously claiming that financial issues are not a valid reason for ending a pregnancy. Thousands of years of history and millions of women's stories prove otherwise.
9
One simple thing to help unlink abortion and economics would be economic policies by employers that would favor working parents, especially mothers. We can't be pro-life but then bow out once the child is born. Children take enormous amounts of time and money to raise and until we acknowledge that, there will always be women seeking abortions.
And let's face it, the wealthy will always have access to abortion, one way or another.
And let's face it, the wealthy will always have access to abortion, one way or another.
7
Becoming a parent is one of the choices that affects a person's success. A child requires financial support and investment of time. Every woman should be able to choose whether to take on such a commitment. End of story.
7
In the US, we really do not take especially good care of the children we already have. Most state operated departments for families and children are woefully underfunded. Newspapers carry frequent stories of abused and neglected children that could have been helped, but were not. There is a shortage of good quality foster care, and those children "age out" at 18, often with no resources. Child care is thousands of dollars a year if one does not have family to help out and often not very good (compare, eg France which has excellent childcare). Many schools do not have adequate after school programs for those children whose parents must work long hours.
Rich women who stay home to care for their children are admired, but poor ones who do not work are reviled...."Welfare queens" anyone?
So, talk to me about the problems with abortion after we have properly taken care of the kids we already have.
Rich women who stay home to care for their children are admired, but poor ones who do not work are reviled...."Welfare queens" anyone?
So, talk to me about the problems with abortion after we have properly taken care of the kids we already have.
9
Did anyone else find it interesting that Ms. Szala rarely mentions fathers?
This is because our culture clearly believes that women are responsible for pregnancy and subsequent children. Aligning with this, women must be free to make decisions regarding their own bodies and lives. No one is pro-abortion, but unless our culture realigns its values, abortion remains a pragmatic option for many women.
This is because our culture clearly believes that women are responsible for pregnancy and subsequent children. Aligning with this, women must be free to make decisions regarding their own bodies and lives. No one is pro-abortion, but unless our culture realigns its values, abortion remains a pragmatic option for many women.
11
If anybody thinks that the anti-abortion GOP actually cares about the women involved, ask them why they want to remove contraception and maternity care from essential services in healthcare insurance. And if anybody thinks they care about the outcome of pregnancy, ask them why they routinely oppose social programs for children and families.
Let's get real. The GOP has a general disdain for the issues that women face in our society and a pseudo-moralistic attitude towards women's sexuality.
Let's get real. The GOP has a general disdain for the issues that women face in our society and a pseudo-moralistic attitude towards women's sexuality.
14
The problem with linking anything with economics is that it encourages people to think critically about how their personal interests relate to the interests of others.
I worked as a patient advocate in a Planned Parenthood clinic for a couple of years. The reasons a woman chose an abortion were many but economic reasons were near the top. The 'pro-life' people who see every cell division as a baby and every woman as an object whose uterus must be legislated should know this-if that women is not emotionally, financially or mentally ready to be a parent she should not be taking on that difficult and complex job. Maybe every busy body with an opinion should just stay out of her life, ok?
14
Of course I do not want women to have so few economic opportunities that they must abort a fetus in order to support themselves. Because economic desperation is appalling, it also appears to be an appalling reason to abort a fetus.
Pro--choice advocates, however, remain supremely uninterested in a woman's reason for aborting her pregnancy -- not because they do not care, but because her reasons are her own. Subjecting a woman's right to choose abortion to any sort of litmus test of "here's a good enough reason" erodes that right.
Let's attack poverty because poverty is bad, and not because we want to suggest that women are making decisions wrongly.
Pro--choice advocates, however, remain supremely uninterested in a woman's reason for aborting her pregnancy -- not because they do not care, but because her reasons are her own. Subjecting a woman's right to choose abortion to any sort of litmus test of "here's a good enough reason" erodes that right.
Let's attack poverty because poverty is bad, and not because we want to suggest that women are making decisions wrongly.
2
"It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress. "
No, it doesn't! The author is being hyperbolic here, trying to dehumanize women who have to make this awful decision. This is the false belief among the anti-abortion rights crowd - that the women who get pregnant don't care about the child, and just toss it away without a second thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion is a heart-wrenching and in many cases life-changing decision, and yes, economics is a major factor. If the author wasn't merely attacking women who have abortions here, who are indeed not as lucky as she was, she would know and recognize this. It's patently obvious.
And let's not forget that the anti-abortion rights crowd, generally speaking, is against paying for affordable or universal childcare, universal healthcare so children can get free and good medical care, paying for public education, and affordable (or free) tuition to colleges and universities and so much more, including welfare. In other words, the anti-abortionists make their own economic decisions about children, too, which are all anti-children, and many women just can't afford them as a result.
No, it doesn't! The author is being hyperbolic here, trying to dehumanize women who have to make this awful decision. This is the false belief among the anti-abortion rights crowd - that the women who get pregnant don't care about the child, and just toss it away without a second thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion is a heart-wrenching and in many cases life-changing decision, and yes, economics is a major factor. If the author wasn't merely attacking women who have abortions here, who are indeed not as lucky as she was, she would know and recognize this. It's patently obvious.
And let's not forget that the anti-abortion rights crowd, generally speaking, is against paying for affordable or universal childcare, universal healthcare so children can get free and good medical care, paying for public education, and affordable (or free) tuition to colleges and universities and so much more, including welfare. In other words, the anti-abortionists make their own economic decisions about children, too, which are all anti-children, and many women just can't afford them as a result.
4
USA can be one of the most harsh and unforgiving environments to raise a child, among the wealthiest Western nations. Until that changes, anyone considering ending a pregnancy reserves the right to pursue their own economic survival.
That especially goes without saying, as the Republicans transform the Obamacare safety net into quicksand.
That especially goes without saying, as the Republicans transform the Obamacare safety net into quicksand.
3
A success story and the writer is fortunate. Many women with unwanted pregnancies are not. They are thrown into the heap of poor and unemployed. This country needs free contraception, real health and sex education, and free abortion clinics. Women's lives do not need to be controlled by men. Look at the recent image of the politicians bringing on the next health care bill. All men! Women are ignored both in planning and the coverage. We are a democracy?
5
Spending your last seven years helping pregnant women is admirable. Pregnant single women that need help hopefully can find it. You found it but so many women cannot. Though conservative politicians often ignore it by strongly opposing abortion, the consequences of single parenting for mothers often contribute to:
More than half of single parent mothers live in extreme poverty.
A majority of welfare recipients are single mothers.
Large percentages of gang members, high school dropouts, teen suicides, teen pregnancies and teen substance abusers come from single mother homes.
Statistically, a child in a single-parent household is far more likely to experience violence, commit suicide, continue a cycle of poverty, become drug dependent, commit a crime or perform below his peers in education.
All of this creates significant costs which antiabortion proponents sometimes ignore. Women can seek the solution you found but should have abortion as another option.
More than half of single parent mothers live in extreme poverty.
A majority of welfare recipients are single mothers.
Large percentages of gang members, high school dropouts, teen suicides, teen pregnancies and teen substance abusers come from single mother homes.
Statistically, a child in a single-parent household is far more likely to experience violence, commit suicide, continue a cycle of poverty, become drug dependent, commit a crime or perform below his peers in education.
All of this creates significant costs which antiabortion proponents sometimes ignore. Women can seek the solution you found but should have abortion as another option.
3
To carry an unplanned pregnancy to term is fundamentally destabilizing to a woman's education and career. A wealth of studies show that having a child undermines women's ability to advance in the workplace. You yourself attended a community college; imagine how different your career would have been had you attended a four-year college, and had been able to devote yourself fully to your studies without the burden of motherhood.
You argue that viewing abortion through an economic lens is "a profoundly dehumanizing argument." However, to say that women should cast aside their careers and undercut their potential in order to serve their true purpose as a vessel for a cluster of cells is far more dehumanizing. The humanity of an embryo is no greater than the humanity of a grown woman.
You argue that viewing abortion through an economic lens is "a profoundly dehumanizing argument." However, to say that women should cast aside their careers and undercut their potential in order to serve their true purpose as a vessel for a cluster of cells is far more dehumanizing. The humanity of an embryo is no greater than the humanity of a grown woman.
4
Ms. Szala, I do not know what to comment on your article. I have read thousands of articles like yours. One important question is that why no one in the world is ready to openly accept and talk about how to control population growth. Since more than two centuries, all world leaders, economists, philosophers, business leaders know very well the impact of population growth on every aspect of life in almost every country. Everyone including you is well aware that more children are born invariably for individuals who are in lower rungs of economic ladder and uncontrollable population growth have been consistently recorded countries which are struggling economically. In your article you seemed to have sympathized with women by concealing the actual truth and also trying to brain wash them that abortion leads to depression so that at any cost do not undergo. However, in your article, absolutely there is no mention about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and also how to manage health, education, employment etc. for both growing kid and the mother. First of all health and education is not free in developed countries. I strongly believe and also has been proved beyond doubt that more unwanted pregnancies definitely would lead to abundance of cheap human life for all kinds of exploitation, all over the world and this has had been going on since the dawn of human civilization. Congratulations for bringing this into our conscience once again.
2
Talk about patronizing and dehumanizing! This piece is rife with inaccurate generalizations and supplants a statistically insignificant number of personal experiences with actual data. Look at the numbers, look at the economic realities for women who have children before finishing high school, college, beginning a solid work life. The condescending tone taken, often in the form of quoting others, “...an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.” or that there are "better solutions" to unwanted pregnancy, that simply "require more creativity and more effort" are insulting, appalling and, frankly, laughable to this middle-aged, pro-choice, deeply creative, hard-working, yes I've had an abortion and will fight for my daughters' rights to one as well, educator and mother. Choice means just that - you get to make your own! Glad you did, glad it worked out. Now let the rest of us exercise our right to make our own decisions.
3
The author, like anyone, has a unique story. The decision worked out in this case for this person, but who is to say? Maybe the author's life would have been better by having an abortion. Peoples lives are like unique tree branches, not road maps dictated by those deciding who is taking wrong turns and judging where you end up. That's the whole point.
The abortion "debate" is tiring. Its been law for over 4 decades. The authors unique and inspiring story shows why the choice is necessary and personal. The "debate" has always focused on toxic moral arguments trying to determine the objective "right", forgetting the people stuck in the middle or creating caricatures like the article describes.
The abortion "debate" is tiring. Its been law for over 4 decades. The authors unique and inspiring story shows why the choice is necessary and personal. The "debate" has always focused on toxic moral arguments trying to determine the objective "right", forgetting the people stuck in the middle or creating caricatures like the article describes.
2
Part of the complex needs of abortion-seeking women is access to pregnancy prevention. Why is there no emphasis on this?
4
Until we grow up about birth control (not abortion) in this country you might as well be talking to the wind. I respect all women's individual choices. What I don't respect is our acceptance of a neurotic, backward attitude towards making birth control information resources available for all ages, genders, and backgrounds. No exceptions.
5
When you equate abortion with murder, the discussion ends. Your contempt for women who have abortions is profound. Contraception is not 100% and human beings are not not perfect. A woman in desperate financial circumstances or even simply struggling to get ahead can be consigned to a life of poverty by bringing a child into the world. If Pro-life people really cared about children (and not just the unborn) - we would have no orphanages and the would be out campaigning for better schools, better housing for the poor, better support for families... Pro-life people support the Republican Party which seeks to de-fund education, take away school lunches, and remove over 24 million citizens from health insurance. None of those things are Pro-life. Pro-birth and pro-fetus, but not pro-life. Bottom line - if a women does not have control over if and when to have a child, she has no control over her economic status and does not enjoy the same freedoms and privileges of her male counterparts.
4
As a single wage earner with a family of 4 kids, i had an opposite experience. I found my riches grew with more kxids. This was simply because with more kids i figured I needed to work more, that in turn made me go up the corporate ladder.
So Ms. Szala's child was born some twenty-nine years ago. Since we don't know him or her, I'm not sure why that is supposed to matter.
But we do know there are over seven billion people on the planet - that seems like plenty. And some of those are decent human beings, while others are monsters; some have happy lives, while others suffer every single day.
But we do know there are over seven billion people on the planet - that seems like plenty. And some of those are decent human beings, while others are monsters; some have happy lives, while others suffer every single day.
6
It is commendable that Ms Szala has dealt so well with a high school pregnancy and the raising of her child afterwards.
But, look! Let's not focus only on abortion here. Let's focus instead on the entire spectrum of women's rights, education, birth control and contraception, all bundled together by the evangelicals and other "conservative" religions to become yet another third rail of American politics. It is shameful that many religious conservatives tout abstinence and decry attempts to educate women and their partners about the birds and the bees.
Abortion was, is and will be an economic argument as long as governments restrict or eliminate access to abortion providers and stifle sex education. The wealthy can still afford to travel somewhere for an abortion. The poor are stuck with even more difficult lives.
But, look! Let's not focus only on abortion here. Let's focus instead on the entire spectrum of women's rights, education, birth control and contraception, all bundled together by the evangelicals and other "conservative" religions to become yet another third rail of American politics. It is shameful that many religious conservatives tout abstinence and decry attempts to educate women and their partners about the birds and the bees.
Abortion was, is and will be an economic argument as long as governments restrict or eliminate access to abortion providers and stifle sex education. The wealthy can still afford to travel somewhere for an abortion. The poor are stuck with even more difficult lives.
1
"as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
Can the author spell "dehumanizing"?
How about, "as an adult, making a private decision informed by her own moral compass". Isn't that more accurate? After all, the woman we're speaking of is a human being, not an animal.
Antiabortion zealots have become fond of claiming to be acting on women's behalf, implying, as the writer does, that they don't know their own mind. Not only is that argument patronizing and morally self-satisfying, it conveniently applies only to the poor.
There's no law and never will be that prevents abortion. Very wealthy people will always be able to travel to other countries. Today, middle-income people may travel to other counties or states. But the poor, the ever contemptible poor, who we know bring poverty on themselves with bad grammar and slovenly manners and laziness, for the poor, we decide.
In the north, we mostly decide Yes, it's up to you. In the south, increasing we decide No, it's not. How that passes muster under the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, I don't know. I'd say it fails the 8th amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
To have a baby you want is an extraordinary, life-changing experience. The same might be said for one you don't want, but not in a positive sense. Not for the mother, and not for the child. I wish more abortion opponents would consider that.
Can the author spell "dehumanizing"?
How about, "as an adult, making a private decision informed by her own moral compass". Isn't that more accurate? After all, the woman we're speaking of is a human being, not an animal.
Antiabortion zealots have become fond of claiming to be acting on women's behalf, implying, as the writer does, that they don't know their own mind. Not only is that argument patronizing and morally self-satisfying, it conveniently applies only to the poor.
There's no law and never will be that prevents abortion. Very wealthy people will always be able to travel to other countries. Today, middle-income people may travel to other counties or states. But the poor, the ever contemptible poor, who we know bring poverty on themselves with bad grammar and slovenly manners and laziness, for the poor, we decide.
In the north, we mostly decide Yes, it's up to you. In the south, increasing we decide No, it's not. How that passes muster under the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, I don't know. I'd say it fails the 8th amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
To have a baby you want is an extraordinary, life-changing experience. The same might be said for one you don't want, but not in a positive sense. Not for the mother, and not for the child. I wish more abortion opponents would consider that.
15
I agree that we need to help women (and families, because many women who seek abortions are married and already have children) who are pregnant in bad situations so they can keep their babies. But it needs to be organized (dare I say compulsory) and not up to the whims of those in a position to help when they are feeling charitable (because in the end, with money increasingly tight for all but the upper class, it often does come down to pure economics). Otherwise it will fail, because women need to know the help will be there, and it is hard to rely on something that could be taken away because not enough people donated that week. It needs to be free, not coerced, not contingent on joining a church or political party, and should not be laden with judgement. And finally, I do not believe that abortion as a medical procedure should be illegal, and women should not be put in jail because they had a miscarriage or had an accident while they were pregnant.
7
Whatever you make compulsory, you are obliged to fund by taxation.
I don't see any evidence that anyone in Trump's mob wants to pay taxes to help raise other people's children.
I don't see any evidence that anyone in Trump's mob wants to pay taxes to help raise other people's children.
I think the writer is arguing that we put the choice back in choice. We should have a wonderful, warm welcoming society that supports motherhood and loves and nurtures children -- all children, a society where people are not reduced to economic potential statistics. Now that is a choice! Women can then say they really have a choice -- and I'm totally with the author. We need a real choice --- as a former single mother, I can tell you we need excellent nationally regulated/subsidized day care and pre-school, laws to protect the pregnant and a national maternity leave policy. We need laws to create progressive policies of flex-time and work at a distance options for parents. We need WIC programs that much extend longer than they do now (perhaps until the child is finished high school). In short, we need a choice. Thanks for writing this!
4
It is patently dishonest to use your own tale of abortion as a proxy for other women, other families and their experiences. Women need abortions for many reasons, and it not accurate nor appropriate for you to judge them for taking, as you put it, "the easy way out". You were a bit vague about how people use "abortion to solve society's problems", but one thing is clear, society cannot rely on patchwork kindness and charity of strangers to buy them what they need to succeed as she describes. For every single mother whose 6-months of car insurance was covered by a kind stranger, there are thousands more who can't get time off for their kids, and who can't afford a place to live, and who can't afford health care for themselves or their child. Truly, the easy way out is just asking people to buck up rather than advocating for structural changes and affordable family planning.
10
If the idea were only that we "should" support women through unintended and unwanted pregnancies, I'd say that's wonderful. The reality is we don't, and the very party that wants to take away a woman's ability to determine when she will bear children also refuses to help a woman medically or financially, or to support the children it tells her she must have after they are born. That's a dichotomy that makes this argument disingenuous if not completely false.
We cannot, as a society, tell women "if you get pregnant, you must bear that child," then also say "but we won't help you get prenatal care, or maternity care, or medical care afterward" and "we won't help you or your child find a place to live, food to eat, or a decent education" too. And we already know charities won't do all of that, or we wouldn't have the rates of infant mortality we now do, and the rates of poverty and lack of medical care we also now have.
This is why, as long as our country won't help its least-well-off people, the ability of a woman to choose when to bear children IS economic. As it stands right now in the U.S., low-income women who have children get little to no social support. If they don't have supportive families, they often end up homeless and without medical care. That dooms their children to severely limited lives and greatly decreases the chance those children will grow up to be well-educated and well-off.
We cannot, as a society, tell women "if you get pregnant, you must bear that child," then also say "but we won't help you get prenatal care, or maternity care, or medical care afterward" and "we won't help you or your child find a place to live, food to eat, or a decent education" too. And we already know charities won't do all of that, or we wouldn't have the rates of infant mortality we now do, and the rates of poverty and lack of medical care we also now have.
This is why, as long as our country won't help its least-well-off people, the ability of a woman to choose when to bear children IS economic. As it stands right now in the U.S., low-income women who have children get little to no social support. If they don't have supportive families, they often end up homeless and without medical care. That dooms their children to severely limited lives and greatly decreases the chance those children will grow up to be well-educated and well-off.
7
Ms Szala was fortunate that she had choices at times when she needed them. One of her options was abortion and she CHOSE instead to continue her pregnancy. She believes she made the right choice and I'm sure she did - for herself.
Ms Szala is now a national director at a national organization that has one stated mission - removing a choice that had been available to her in her time of need. I am no big fan of abortion for myself. However, I am frightened to imagine what we become when women do not have the option of pregnancy termination in their reproductive lives. Her organization lauds women who make the choice not to abort yet also professes that they should not have that choice. So it would have been more noble, moral, or ethical for her as a young woman to have no options other than to simply accept her fate?
Ms Szala is now a national director at a national organization that has one stated mission - removing a choice that had been available to her in her time of need. I am no big fan of abortion for myself. However, I am frightened to imagine what we become when women do not have the option of pregnancy termination in their reproductive lives. Her organization lauds women who make the choice not to abort yet also professes that they should not have that choice. So it would have been more noble, moral, or ethical for her as a young woman to have no options other than to simply accept her fate?
3
I am glad Lori Szala made the decision to keep her baby and not opt for abortion. It sounds like she also feels that she is glad too.
I volunteer with 40 Days for Life and there are a group of nuns, Sisters for Life, who are absolutely wonderful in assisting mother and baby before and after birth. They find them housing, employment and give financial aid and they are never felt as though they are alone. There are also Catholic homes for mother and child where they are able to live for one year that offer full support. They are extremely kind and caring and never judge.
There should never be any reason for a mother to feel she cannot afford her baby and choose abortion. That is unconscionable and it should never be an option. There are many wonderful people who are more then willing to help. There are individuals and agencies to turn to and we must get this message out within the pro-life community. If these women are willing to have their babies we must be willing to give of our time and never turn away. We can always do better to assist and we must. Life is so precious and we must celebrate it. These women are courageous and we must always be there for them.
I volunteer with 40 Days for Life and there are a group of nuns, Sisters for Life, who are absolutely wonderful in assisting mother and baby before and after birth. They find them housing, employment and give financial aid and they are never felt as though they are alone. There are also Catholic homes for mother and child where they are able to live for one year that offer full support. They are extremely kind and caring and never judge.
There should never be any reason for a mother to feel she cannot afford her baby and choose abortion. That is unconscionable and it should never be an option. There are many wonderful people who are more then willing to help. There are individuals and agencies to turn to and we must get this message out within the pro-life community. If these women are willing to have their babies we must be willing to give of our time and never turn away. We can always do better to assist and we must. Life is so precious and we must celebrate it. These women are courageous and we must always be there for them.
1
So glad the"pro-life" community supports politicians who cut off funds for healthcare, maternity care, mental health care, substance abuse treatment and almost all other forms of social support.
5
How about some data? Of the approximately $233,000 to raise a child to the age of 18, what percentage of that is picked up by the Catholic church and its subsidiaries?
5
Ms. Szala, thank you so much for sharing this important perspective. I have been a counselor of post-abortive women for many years, and your statement that "the woman will leave the [abortion] clinic still burdened by every single problem she cam in with" resonates with what I have heard from the women I work with. Many of them believed that by aborting their child, they would be freed for a life of happiness but that was never the case. Thank you for sharing that it is possible and that your temporary financial or life circumstances don't determine your destiny. Only wish you could have also mentioned adoption, which many of the women I work with say was hardly ever mentioned to them as an option -- one they now say they would have considered if presented to them.
Such a heart-warming story about how you had the opportunity to make a CHOICE about your pregnancy. How about having the empathy and intelligence to give that same CHOICE to other women who find themselves in the same predicament? And yes, every effort to take away a woman's CHOICE about terminating an early term pregnancy is indeed "anti-woman."
2
Why is this op-ed directed at progressives? We already support providing a social safety net that helps people who want to have children care for those children. Maybe the author should focus her efforts on convincing *conservatives* to support the social safety net.
6
Abortion, part of economics no doubt, is a complex problem we ought to confront straight on, if at all possible. But we haven't found that magic pill in the food, or water we drink, to avoid it entirely; because of that, and the lack of effective, efficient ways to help desperate women to cope, we must allow women the real chance for an abortion, hopefully rare, safe (for the mother) and legal. Although the author of this article is a woman, most of the barriers for women to choose come from us men, the reason for a pregnancy to occur to begin with; a blatant hypocrisy enhanced by religious dogma, and with no offer to support an alternative. You mentioning the help available on some anecdotal cases will not solve a national disgrace...and a deep disadvantage for women to compete in the marketplace, and to occupy their rightful place in society, side by side with their male counterpart. For now, we are burdened with a 'macho' society, where women are unable to advance in their rights, equal pay and promotions seem a far dream for far too many. Being against something is so lame...compared with 'being for' something. Do you think the day will come when we pay as much attention to poor women, with baby, unable to afford housing, always afraid of being evicted, with no steady job, hungry most of the time, as the time and effort we spend in protecting a human embryo?
1
Lets stop avoiding the notion that anti-abortion legislation intends to effect anyone other than those who lack the resources to travel to locations offering safe and legal abortions.
As a rule it is old white males who fabricate these laws and their intentions is to oppress poor women. Anyone who claims that this is all about saving the lives of fetuses is a liar. Inasmuch as those who pass these laws adamantly refuse to adequately support the live issue of unwanted children it is obvious that fetuses are the major object of their actions and penalizing impoverished women goes hand in hand with these laws.
If loving and protecting fetuses incontrovertibly goes hand in hand with refusal to support children, it is impossible to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
As a rule it is old white males who fabricate these laws and their intentions is to oppress poor women. Anyone who claims that this is all about saving the lives of fetuses is a liar. Inasmuch as those who pass these laws adamantly refuse to adequately support the live issue of unwanted children it is obvious that fetuses are the major object of their actions and penalizing impoverished women goes hand in hand with these laws.
If loving and protecting fetuses incontrovertibly goes hand in hand with refusal to support children, it is impossible to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
2
At last, after two generations of lies and fraud, the New York Times is willing to give those of us on the other side of this debate a chance to speak honestly and forthrightly. It is and always was a lie that the right to destroy prenatal human life is the supreme test and expression of a woman's freedom. Moreover, as Nat Hentoff and others began saying from the outset, Roe v. Wade wasn't merely about a woman's right to choose anything. In the ideological morass that surrounded that decision, the underlying motive was the legal right of medical doctors to commit abortion without consequences.
And for those who don't experience incredible luck and momentum in bootstrap economics?
3
Did I miss something or am I right that there was not one scintilla of thought in Szala's article that suggests males have anything to do with this, any responsibility? The males, it seems, get off free as birds, even though the child is 1/2 their responsibility. Drastic decisions and drastic life effects fall only on the women.
My view is that the child is a person, a child of the country, and that the child deserves to be fed, clothed and loved without the entire burden falling on the shoulders of the damaged mother. She should shoulder no more that 50%.
If we are not going to have free abortions, perhaps we should have free vasectomies and free tubal ligations. In fact, perhaps these should be obligatory for men and women who create a child irresponsibly. We could additionally provide free freezing of sperm and eggs to be saved for future childbearing-- but only if the putative mothers and fathers later pass some sort of evaluation of their ability to carry long-term responsibility.
My view is that the child is a person, a child of the country, and that the child deserves to be fed, clothed and loved without the entire burden falling on the shoulders of the damaged mother. She should shoulder no more that 50%.
If we are not going to have free abortions, perhaps we should have free vasectomies and free tubal ligations. In fact, perhaps these should be obligatory for men and women who create a child irresponsibly. We could additionally provide free freezing of sperm and eggs to be saved for future childbearing-- but only if the putative mothers and fathers later pass some sort of evaluation of their ability to carry long-term responsibility.
1
The writer had a choice to make and she made it, and it turned out well for her. But she believes that linking abortion and economics depersonalizes women? How about forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? That is what commodifying uteruses is all about. Astonishing Orwellian "1984 Newspeak."
2
It is not dehumanizing. It is the exact truth.
This is the third anti-choice op-ed in the NYT in as many months, all written by people who work for anti-abortion zealot organizations, who bear their personal experiences as decisive proof that abortion is bad for all women. This author's personal experience has no bearing on the realities for most women. I can't think of any other topic on which the Times would allow someone's personal experience to be the basis of an op-ed.
There are proven and profound long-term economic impacts to women for whom abortion is not readily and affordably available.
There are proven and profound long-term economic impacts to women for whom abortion is not readily and affordably available.
8
Ms. Szala, you are assuming that abortion is murder, which many (most?) people do not agree with you on. This is the same tired argument championed by the ultraconservatives and the religious groups since abortions were first performed.
If you believe abortion is murder, you are correct, the economic argument is dehumanizing. If you do not; if you just view abortion as another means of controlling one's body and by extension economic situation, then abortion rights are empowering. There's nothing wrong with taking the 'easy way out' and saving yourself 18 years of massive expenses.
If you believe abortion is murder, you are correct, the economic argument is dehumanizing. If you do not; if you just view abortion as another means of controlling one's body and by extension economic situation, then abortion rights are empowering. There's nothing wrong with taking the 'easy way out' and saving yourself 18 years of massive expenses.
15
I get cranky when I hear people who want to eliminate freedom for others because they think they have the right answer.
Whether it's religious intolerance, political intolerance, racial intolerance, or family planning intolerance - it goes against each person's unalienable right of Liberty.
It's great if you find a way that works well, and you want others to try your way. But it's wrong to try and legislate away the rights of others.
Whether it's religious intolerance, political intolerance, racial intolerance, or family planning intolerance - it goes against each person's unalienable right of Liberty.
It's great if you find a way that works well, and you want others to try your way. But it's wrong to try and legislate away the rights of others.
24
My husband and I see things a little differently than Ms. Szala. We are ardently pro-choice. We support comprehensive sex education and contribute to Planned Parenthood.
We have raised fourteen children--four home made and ten adopted. Two were non-Caucasian infants and the other eight were between three and twelve when they arrived.
We had all the issues of a large family--getting nine kids to twice-weekly soccer practice, the fun of teaching a dozen kids to drive, and almost two dozen trips to the hospital emergency room. Two kids came with neurological issues and a third had FAS. One child had a severe heart defect and another was diagnosed with Type I diabetes six years after she arrived. But far more serious were the major emotional issues that come with kids that have been neglected and abused. At one point were were spending over $500 a week, out of pocket, on counseling.
Was it work and was it stressful? You bet it was. Would we do it again? In a heartbeat.
Anti-choicers frequently sneer at a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy, labeling her reason as "convenience". I ask them how many kids they've fostered or adopted, and the answer is, invariably, zero. I ask them why not, given their professed concern for fetuses, and the answer is always something vague like they already had three kids, or that their work schedule didn't allow them the time to raise another child.
In other words, it wasn't "convenient".
We have raised fourteen children--four home made and ten adopted. Two were non-Caucasian infants and the other eight were between three and twelve when they arrived.
We had all the issues of a large family--getting nine kids to twice-weekly soccer practice, the fun of teaching a dozen kids to drive, and almost two dozen trips to the hospital emergency room. Two kids came with neurological issues and a third had FAS. One child had a severe heart defect and another was diagnosed with Type I diabetes six years after she arrived. But far more serious were the major emotional issues that come with kids that have been neglected and abused. At one point were were spending over $500 a week, out of pocket, on counseling.
Was it work and was it stressful? You bet it was. Would we do it again? In a heartbeat.
Anti-choicers frequently sneer at a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy, labeling her reason as "convenience". I ask them how many kids they've fostered or adopted, and the answer is, invariably, zero. I ask them why not, given their professed concern for fetuses, and the answer is always something vague like they already had three kids, or that their work schedule didn't allow them the time to raise another child.
In other words, it wasn't "convenient".
43
Such a poor argument.
"Above all, it’s a profoundly dehumanizing argument. It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress. Parenting presents undeniable challenges, but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children."
It is maddening that NYT editorial board would allow such sophomoric relevance fallacy onto its OpEd pages, but here we have it. The argument isn't that parents who are struggling should be able to kill their children. The argument is that a woman has a reproductive rights and any abrogation of them can be economically burdensome. This is a very different thing than Ms. Szala's straw man. Please, if you are going to present the views of traditionalists at least let the Jesuits do it. They actually have training to make a decent argument.
"Above all, it’s a profoundly dehumanizing argument. It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress. Parenting presents undeniable challenges, but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children."
It is maddening that NYT editorial board would allow such sophomoric relevance fallacy onto its OpEd pages, but here we have it. The argument isn't that parents who are struggling should be able to kill their children. The argument is that a woman has a reproductive rights and any abrogation of them can be economically burdensome. This is a very different thing than Ms. Szala's straw man. Please, if you are going to present the views of traditionalists at least let the Jesuits do it. They actually have training to make a decent argument.
8
The point at which I knew that the NYT is providing a platform for misogynists to stuff propaganda down my throat and dress it up as rational economics: "Parenting presents undeniable challenges, but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children." After reading that sentence, I close my browser.
Can you imagine a law regulating or restricting vasectomies??? Men can make choices about their bodies and women are too dumb?!?
This is all fine and dandy - author had a support network and raised a kid. But it DOES NOT make a case for the government deciding what a woman's choices should be. What's dehumanizing is women being subjected to a bunch of rich, white guys' laws about their bodies. Don't ever forget that!
1
“Opposition to abortion rights is a key factor keeping women and kids in poverty.”
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of those in poverty or homeless, are men.
So stop whining.
Most of the people opposed to abortionn are women, not men. And many feel (in their soul) that this is murder. Until you get over your misandry, stop whining about a fictitious misogyny and CONFRONT whether abortion is murder, you will lose this deal. Stop the razzle dazzle about illegalizing masturbatoin, too: that only turn off the men, your allies (and more men support abortion rights than women).
Facebook is now flooded with movies aobut dying fetuses -- really detailed movies of flailing fetus fingers. They are winning, while you focus on misogyny and poverty and are losing.
(I have not stated my opinon on abortion, so don't assume.)
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of those in poverty or homeless, are men.
So stop whining.
Most of the people opposed to abortionn are women, not men. And many feel (in their soul) that this is murder. Until you get over your misandry, stop whining about a fictitious misogyny and CONFRONT whether abortion is murder, you will lose this deal. Stop the razzle dazzle about illegalizing masturbatoin, too: that only turn off the men, your allies (and more men support abortion rights than women).
Facebook is now flooded with movies aobut dying fetuses -- really detailed movies of flailing fetus fingers. They are winning, while you focus on misogyny and poverty and are losing.
(I have not stated my opinon on abortion, so don't assume.)
You better believe it's dehumanizing. Bringing new life into the world is the greatest contribution we can make for humankind. Pregnancy should be celebrated, fathers required to take their full share of responsibility for children, society providing a safe and healthy place for mothers and children and families. Of course abortion must be a woman's legal right to choose, for otherwise we can be made reproductive slaves of men who rape us. But abortion is a sad termination of new life and should be a last resort,
Sanders has already demonstrated that his communist instincts have a dominate hold on him. He has supported Israel’s enemies, like Ellison,, & Hamas.Compared to walking away from his heritage,getting into bed wiith Reactionary Theocrats to further his Socialist agenda is easy..
1
Abortion is a religious issue. When Evangelical "sex" Christians achieve the power to control the sex and reproduction of some woman they have never met, they are, in fact, her gods (as described in Genesis 3, verse 5). They claim to know her good and her evil but the best thing about being god, as Plato told us, is the power to hurt people and they can't hurt you back.
Having that kind of power over other people is the essence of ownership, and that's the bottom line.
Having that kind of power over other people is the essence of ownership, and that's the bottom line.
1
The choice should be up to the mother not "society".
3
Once again, the operant word here is choice. Women have choices. You made your choice. Let other women make their choice.
3
The author represents the anti-abortion group, Human Coalition. The NY Times lists the name of the organization but not its mission. NY Times should inform readers what the organization stands for.
4
What a nonsensical article. Of course the choice to have
Or not have a child is economic . It's not dehumanizing to think about it in that fashion but the cold hard truth.
Or not have a child is economic . It's not dehumanizing to think about it in that fashion but the cold hard truth.
1
Ms. Szala appears unwilling to admit that it is not abortion and economic security which should be intertwined, but rather, full, unfettered, uncensored access to all reproductive health services and economic security. Hers is an entirely false argument because her basic premise is a typical right wing straw (wo)man, which she then neatly elides with "dehumanizing and murder." Her party is determined to relegate women - particularly those on the margins economically, to permanent subservient procreative chattel, under the religious doctrines and dictates of right wing Christian men. The fundamental truth is that women must be accorded full healthcare privacy and primacy - access to all contraception - which should be covered by all insurance plans and Medicaid, and the right to determine when, or if, they choose to have children. Unplanned pregnancies do occur, as do catastrophic fetal anomalies incompatible with life - no one has the right to shame, intimidate, intrude, or otherwise impede a woman's right to make the best decisions she can for her own life. Ms. Szala: butt out. Your choice was your choice, but your party seeks to eliminate that choice for everyone else. 5/9, 9:19 AM
2
Women have many reasons for seeking an abortion. It is a very personal thing. Not all are economic.
However, in general for too many it is true that there are "fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics."
Does that mean we should deny the abortions and promote the fundamental injustices? No.
If one is concerned about those fundamental injustices, then do something about them. That we have not is not itself a reason to deny abortions to all women whatever their motives.
However, in general for too many it is true that there are "fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics."
Does that mean we should deny the abortions and promote the fundamental injustices? No.
If one is concerned about those fundamental injustices, then do something about them. That we have not is not itself a reason to deny abortions to all women whatever their motives.
4
When a woman tells me she is "pro-life" what that tells me is that she believes that if she were ever to face an unwanted pregnancy terminating the pregnancy would not be an option she would consider - I accept that at face value. When a man tells me he's "pro-life" what that tells me is he doesn't want to have to pay for an abortion. Big difference.
Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one.
Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one.
4
"it’s a profoundly dehumanizing argument. It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects"
This is true of most economic analyses - people are merely economic objects. There is little humanity in the dismal science.
This is true of most economic analyses - people are merely economic objects. There is little humanity in the dismal science.
4
Well said. Abortion should be legal, because sometimes there really is no safe, practical alternative. But we, as a society, should do everything we can to make sure no woman will ever need one. After all, no one subjects herself to an invasive, potentially painful and unpleasant medical procedure for fun. They do it because the alternatives seem so much worse. If our society really cared about preventing abortion, we would embrace pregnant women and encourage motherhood, or at least make it easier to find societal support for facing its challenges (which are many, and can last throughout a mother's lifetime). Abortion is an economic issue because our society isn't willing to pay for the alternatives, and shifts the tangible and intangible costs of babies and child-rearing to women who are least able to bear the burden. Instead, we make decisions like the recent passage of the ACHA, which will pull the rug out from under even more single families. The hypocrisy of the Republicans is bind-boggling.
5
I applaud Lori Szala for having the courage to have a child when she was young and single and her her family and friends for supporting her. Ms. Szala, however, had the freedom to CHOOSE what she wanted to do with her own body and with the pregnancy. She and her family could support the child, providing education, health care, food and shelter or could access governmental programs that did the same or both while she finished school and began a career. Probably, she had access to prenatal care, to give the child the best possible chance to be healthy when born and herself the best possible chance to survive the pregnancy. Unfortunately, we live in a society where there are folks who want to take the choice away from women. At the same time, many of these same folks want to remove what they consider to be oppressive blocks to freedom - Obamacare with its mandate to cover care for pregnancy and for children, even those with serious, expensive illnesses as well as to cover mothers with preexisting conditions, Medicaid, which helps those without money get care, housing help, aid to schools etc. Support of anti-abortion legislation means a woman MUST carry a fetus to birth, no matter her condition or that of the fetus. That is the legislation with which we who support choice disagree. Protect the right to choose; limit the need for abortions. Plus, support health care for mothers, mothers-to-be and children: and good education to give kids a future. That saves kids!
5
I would be open to a solid argument in support of the author's position, but this opinion piece is basically an argument by anecdote. Such an argument makes a point only about the author's life, and nothing more.
The author's feelings about her life may be very powerful, to her, but do not inform us about the lives of the millions of other girls and women who have to make this kind of decision.
The author's feelings about her life may be very powerful, to her, but do not inform us about the lives of the millions of other girls and women who have to make this kind of decision.
8
i will be anti abortion when men own up to their responsibility in the creation of that life and circumstance or when there is a "pill" for men or when men experience being pregnant. Lets not forget the economics in play when we ban abortion and it becomes "safely" available to only those of means. Abortion is a serious decision for any woman and i would hope that negative stories from either side would be ignored and that only the message from the heart and mind of the woman involved gives her the answer.
4
There is an underlying motivation for some in the anti abortion camp that is never mentioned: consequences of behavior. As one Republican said last week of pre existing conditions, if you lived a 'better life' you would not become ill. This is about women having unmarried sex. They want a severe enough consequence to make women stop. Republican 'in loco parentis' Tough Love. For some it's about returning to the era of male dominance and keeping women economically dependent. And that's why they are also against contraception. Expect an increase in proposals to make contraception illegal if Pence becomes president.
9
I note that one thing Ms. Szala did not list as something her organization offers is contraceptive counseling and how to deal with men who refuse to do their part in birth control. I recently had a male client (in court) who, at age 24 had fathered 6 children with 5 different women. He told me he was allergic to latex, as if that were his only choice. The freedom of choice to abort must be available to all women and those coerced into not utilizing birth control must be counseled how to deal with men like that.
11
Yet the reality is, that working women take an enormous hit on their finances when raising kids, because the workplace is still mostly set up for a working father and stay at home mom.
You can change that paradigm, but it will take decades before it fully takes effect.
Having children and raising them is expensive, takes time, energy, effort, dedication.
They just don't raise themselves.
If you want to avoid abortions, rearrange the workplace so its more hospitable for working moms.
You can change that paradigm, but it will take decades before it fully takes effect.
Having children and raising them is expensive, takes time, energy, effort, dedication.
They just don't raise themselves.
If you want to avoid abortions, rearrange the workplace so its more hospitable for working moms.
3
You can wrestle with your feelings all you want. Don't try to force them on others. A woman shouldn't have to rely on legislation in order not to be forced to have her body used to increase the population. My right to control my body does not impinge on your right to control your body. Follow your heart and leave me alone. All this mourning of the little guy who died due to miscarriage is bogus. How many people ever cared what happened to that tissue? How many ever even knew the gender of a 10-week fetus? How many funerals have you attended for them?
8
Classic conservative argument. Blind us with anecdote, generic suffering and alternate solutions while quietly suppressing a constitutionally protected right. Your story is great and uplifting but truly doesn't negate a pro-choice argument. You chose. That was your right, to choose. That you were able to birth a child in your teenage years and one day make it so far to direct a NPO and have an article featured in the NYT means that you are an exception, not the rule - an example, not an average. If there's a problem with progressives staunchly protecting abortion rights with correlations, then there's a massive problem with conservatives oversimplifying solutions, relying on anecdotes, and ignoring aggregated data. Here's an anecdote: my significant other got pregnant after we had been dating for two weeks. She chose to have an abortion, and years later we're still together and it has never bothered her. It wasn't an easy choice, but it was still a choice. Myself and many other liberals do not disagree with you, that there should be an endless search for better solutions - easy access to birth control, lowering economic inequality, better adoption services. But even the perfection of alternate solutions will only make the rate of abortions an asymptote to zero. Your ultimate ideal will still leave countless women at the mercy of draconian laws unbending to the will of the individual, denying them of personal freedoms and unleashing a whole slew of anecdotes to your contrary.
9
Your story highlights the fact that this issue should never have been made into the cartoonish Either/Or Evil/Pure set of opposites that political types have been exploiting for decades.
OF COURSE some young women are able to raise kids early. Most of us have ancestors who married very young and had huge families.
OF COURSE with a large social network and friends and family a pregnancy can be supported. But as you well know, the conversation has been degraded into accusations of "murder" and "the mother should learn to love her rapist's child" type absurdities. Take the politics and GOP fundraising out of this issue and let complexities back in - including yours.
OF COURSE some young women are able to raise kids early. Most of us have ancestors who married very young and had huge families.
OF COURSE with a large social network and friends and family a pregnancy can be supported. But as you well know, the conversation has been degraded into accusations of "murder" and "the mother should learn to love her rapist's child" type absurdities. Take the politics and GOP fundraising out of this issue and let complexities back in - including yours.
2
Talk about an unrealistic, airy-fairy"bootstrap your way to stability" screed. The author was able to do this starting _29_ years ago. Does she realize how much the economy has changed since then? Does she realize that many parents live far away from their families because that's where the jobs are? That people are doing good to hang onto two poorly-paid service jobs because those are the majority of the work out there--and those relatives who might be home are out working those 2-plus jobs? Does Szala even know how much community college costs now (it ain't cheap when you are making less than minimum wage) and how hard it is to get scholarships/grants in general? It's downright insulting for her to wave away how much economics has to do with if a woman can raise a child. And it's even worse that she straight out calls any mother who makes the choice not to a greedy baby-killer.
8
Despite the mainstream media portrayal of social modernism, back in the 50s,60s & even 70s having a child out of wedlock or just having sex before marriage, and it being publicly known by all, was the worst social taboo a girl could have happen to her. This was and depending on where you live in the US, still an issue that drives the need for girls/women to seek abortions.
In today's world, it is normal for a girl to have sex and pop out a kid before marriage or live with the birth father and not be married.
Rape & incest are still reasons for keeping abortion legal - many men/ boys of all races & religious backgrounds feel it it their right to do with girls/ daughters/ their sisters or any woman as they please and society still affirms that message in schools, fraternities and the current work place, like white supremacy it is a "just between you and me" validation.
Until society and the churches teach that sexual acts against women/ girls/ sisters/ daughters is not allowed, the need for abortion will continue.
Society allows prostitution because men demand access to the sexual act just as females demand the need for abortion due to men that cannot control or do not want to control their sexual desire for power.
In today's world, it is normal for a girl to have sex and pop out a kid before marriage or live with the birth father and not be married.
Rape & incest are still reasons for keeping abortion legal - many men/ boys of all races & religious backgrounds feel it it their right to do with girls/ daughters/ their sisters or any woman as they please and society still affirms that message in schools, fraternities and the current work place, like white supremacy it is a "just between you and me" validation.
Until society and the churches teach that sexual acts against women/ girls/ sisters/ daughters is not allowed, the need for abortion will continue.
Society allows prostitution because men demand access to the sexual act just as females demand the need for abortion due to men that cannot control or do not want to control their sexual desire for power.
2
I don't think you're saying anything as revolutionary here as you think.
A repeated refrain is that the GOP seems to care about the life of the unborn child, and that's it. Once it's born, too bad. Concerns for the mother either before, during or after her pregnancy, terminated or not, too bad. Welcome to womanhood as a pre-existing condition, and no mandated maternity or family leave.
It would indeed be horrible, horrible, horrible to abort a wanted child simply because you felt you could not afford it. I don't think anybody on either side disputes that or wants that.
A repeated refrain is that the GOP seems to care about the life of the unborn child, and that's it. Once it's born, too bad. Concerns for the mother either before, during or after her pregnancy, terminated or not, too bad. Welcome to womanhood as a pre-existing condition, and no mandated maternity or family leave.
It would indeed be horrible, horrible, horrible to abort a wanted child simply because you felt you could not afford it. I don't think anybody on either side disputes that or wants that.
1
Is it that hard to use a condom?
NYT - Please stop printing opinion pieces by hypocrites who say we need to have a serious discussion about abortion while calling it "killing our children" at every mention of the word. This is the second one in a number of months and the intractability of their "reasoning" position still drips from every sentence. They all, like Lori here, are nothing but religious zealots who will not stop until they force their distasteful brand of Christian idolotry down our collective throats. Like all anti-abortion activists, she dodges the issue of criminalization - who is going to jail for having an abortion in her Christian utopia?
Her insistence that those of us who are Pro-Choice are advocating abortion as an economic solution is ludicrous and wrong, the kind of right-wing lies that dominate the Trumpian airwaves. She admits that she was able to make a choice in her life. She and her conservative religious ilk would remove that choice from all others. Her assertion that a poor, unprepared woman who leaves the abortion clinic with the same problems she came in with is patently ridiculous. A real discussion about abortion and birth control would include a look at overpopulation the strain on natural resources that it is causing all over the world, but that topic is a non-starter with these close-minded crusaders. Let these liars preach their circular arguments to their own crowd - The Times and its readers don't need to hear their sermons.
Her insistence that those of us who are Pro-Choice are advocating abortion as an economic solution is ludicrous and wrong, the kind of right-wing lies that dominate the Trumpian airwaves. She admits that she was able to make a choice in her life. She and her conservative religious ilk would remove that choice from all others. Her assertion that a poor, unprepared woman who leaves the abortion clinic with the same problems she came in with is patently ridiculous. A real discussion about abortion and birth control would include a look at overpopulation the strain on natural resources that it is causing all over the world, but that topic is a non-starter with these close-minded crusaders. Let these liars preach their circular arguments to their own crowd - The Times and its readers don't need to hear their sermons.
19
Amen. The inflammatory "Parenting presents undeniable challenges, but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children" statement alone should have kept this from getting published here.
2
The author concludes with, "Our society must not settle for leaving women who face unplanned pregnancy no hope but abortion."
However you cut it, the issue of abortion - whether to take a pregnancy to term - resides with the individual woman. Whatever her reasons or circumstances (financial or otherwise), the decision is hers and hers alone. Economic considerations are but one of any number of reasons a woman would obtain an abortion.
The crux of the abortion issue (if and when an abortion is ever contemplated) is who owns the individual woman's body, the woman herself or the state.
Freedom, a woman's autonomy mandates that any discussion of reproductive choice start and end with the premise that the individual woman herself is the mistress of her own fate.
However you cut it, the issue of abortion - whether to take a pregnancy to term - resides with the individual woman. Whatever her reasons or circumstances (financial or otherwise), the decision is hers and hers alone. Economic considerations are but one of any number of reasons a woman would obtain an abortion.
The crux of the abortion issue (if and when an abortion is ever contemplated) is who owns the individual woman's body, the woman herself or the state.
Freedom, a woman's autonomy mandates that any discussion of reproductive choice start and end with the premise that the individual woman herself is the mistress of her own fate.
10
Despite the subject matter, I almost laughed aloud at "amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress." Has she read the bill passed by the House? Paid attention to the Flint water crisis? Considered the repercussions of our geopolitical pursuit of cheap oil? Wondered how Sessions as AG will impact communities that have worked out consent decrees with police departments in an effort to stem police shootings of citizens? Killing those who impede economic progress, metaphorically if not literally, is practically the American way. All this concern over unborn fetuses, but so little over born people, with friends and families and hopes and lived experience.
12
Ms. Szala just made a solid argument for choice. She accuses abortion rights activists of being "patronizing" and "dishonest" in connecting lack of choice and economic inequality and asserts that unplanned pregnancy doesn't always lead to "economic failure." She then goes on to describe how a friend, a sister and community college helped her to have a child and still succeed in climbing the economic ladder. Yet Ms. Szala is quintessentially patronizing -- and blind -- in assuming all women facing unplanned pregnancy can rely on the kindness of others. Her organization, Human Coalition, is attempting to provide a such a network of support in various cities; yet, unless Ms. Szala believes pregnant women are obliged to trust her organization, or should be forced to consider it because she does not believe in abortion, she is simply furthering the argument for choice.
Technology is dramatically changing this argument. It's possible for a woman to order a pill over the internet that will give her the ability to choose. When a woman no longer requires help to reliably abort, the practical fact that pregnancy is private and personal becomes apparent.
The "abortion clinic" as a location is being regulated out of existence just in time for that to become somewhat irrelevant. A forward looking debate would see abortion as part of internet privacy, not a fight over bricks-and-mortar.
The "abortion clinic" as a location is being regulated out of existence just in time for that to become somewhat irrelevant. A forward looking debate would see abortion as part of internet privacy, not a fight over bricks-and-mortar.
Does Ms. Szala recognize the importance of sexuality education and access to all methods of contracts in reducing unplanned pregnancies?
I am happy for Ms. Szala that she was able to make her decision to give birth. Perhaps she might extend respect and compassion to women who make different choices for their own reasons.
I am happy for Ms. Szala that she was able to make her decision to give birth. Perhaps she might extend respect and compassion to women who make different choices for their own reasons.
3
While I think this is a powerful message, I would also love to have contraception mentioned as well. Inexpensive, accessible, and reliable contraception will not solve the need for abortions, but it will alleviate the demand.
2
i agree with your comment.
Unfortunately, thanks to the GOP & Christian voters, funds for Planned Parenthood services will be removed as an option for many poor women that really need, along with prenatal exams, etc., they will not be able to get the birth control needed to prevent unwanted pregnancy thus illegal back alley abortions.
Unfortunately, thanks to the GOP & Christian voters, funds for Planned Parenthood services will be removed as an option for many poor women that really need, along with prenatal exams, etc., they will not be able to get the birth control needed to prevent unwanted pregnancy thus illegal back alley abortions.
1
I agree with Concerned Citizen, you made a choice, but you also didn't make good choices to have prevented the pregnancy in the first place if you didn't want it then. That's where sex education and reproductive health clinics, even providing abortion, are the answer, and yes for unwanted pregnancies. And for a small point in your essay. It's not a "child" until it's born and then is a baby, but until then it's a fetus. Personal experience aside, your bias takes away a lot of your arguments.
4
Scott: thanks, but it's a BABY at a certain point -- I'd say, it's a baby when you love and want that child -- but it suddenly becomes a "clump of worthless cells" when you don't want the burden or cost of childbearing.
A baby can be "born" at 22 weeks gestation -- still a fetus, technically -- OR you can argue, like ethicist Pete Singer, that you can kill a BORN BABY who is full term and past, 3-6 months of age -- since a baby that young has no "moral conscience".
The difference TODAY with medical science between an unborn baby of 7, 8, 9 months gestation -- and a born child, delivered through labor in the hospital -- is incredibly narrow and even non-existent.
We routinely save babies today, who would have died just 20-30 years ago.
A baby can be "born" at 22 weeks gestation -- still a fetus, technically -- OR you can argue, like ethicist Pete Singer, that you can kill a BORN BABY who is full term and past, 3-6 months of age -- since a baby that young has no "moral conscience".
The difference TODAY with medical science between an unborn baby of 7, 8, 9 months gestation -- and a born child, delivered through labor in the hospital -- is incredibly narrow and even non-existent.
We routinely save babies today, who would have died just 20-30 years ago.
1
Concerned: The vast, vast, vast majority of abortion are done at under 12 weeks. The rest are for the most part done because of an abnormality in the fetus.
3
One of the keys to reducing the number of abortions is making sure "unplanned pregnancies" don't become "unwanted pregnancies." There is a big difference between the two, and the difference is often economic support in the form of a strong social safety net. That means strengthening the social safety net so these women will have confidence that they can feed their children after they are born. They must believe that a safe place for their child is on the horizon. They must know that there is security and hope ahead.
You can't be "pro-life" while cutting or weakening the social safety net that makes the choice to have the child a viable option. Yes, it costs more in taxes. Put your money where your mouth is and support life affirming options...or sit on the couch and knit quietly.
You can't be "pro-life" while cutting or weakening the social safety net that makes the choice to have the child a viable option. Yes, it costs more in taxes. Put your money where your mouth is and support life affirming options...or sit on the couch and knit quietly.
7
What Ms. Szala is in fact saying here is 'I chose not to have an abortion, I'm glad I made that choice, so therefore no woman should be allowed to have an abortion'. I'm happy it worked out for her, but that doesn't mean she should impose her choice on everyone else.
Legalization of abortion is about providing options and letting each woman choose between them based on her own unique situation.
Legalization of abortion is about providing options and letting each woman choose between them based on her own unique situation.
10
Abortion and childbirth are all about resources. Mothers need to have the intellectual, emotional, economic, and network resources to bring a pregnancy to term. They also need to have the willingness without duress to be mothers. People who rail against abortion are not going to care for the child when s/he is born. They will not feed the child, take him to the doctor or dentist, attend her sports and music concerts, console her on the loss of her first love or finance his college education. Abortion is a terribly emotional decision that has to be faced with realism and support.
4
I agree that abortion and economics are not always linked. However the statement that equates abortion with killing a child is incorrect. A fetus is not a child, nor is an embryo. Most abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy. And it's not abortion that is society's easy way out: it's the refusal by society through politicians and outdated morals to support families in distress no matter how the distress is manifested. That doesn't negate the economic, genetic, or other reasons for having an abortion.
Ms. Szala was extremely lucky that her family and friends were willing to support her. Many others do not have this resource. Not having a job, being homeless, having economic issues even before the child is born should give any potential parent concern. Our society berates parents for having children they planned on when years later they have economic problems and tells them that it's their fault and they shouldn't have had children.
Yes, the woman will still have the problems she came in with. But she won't have 18-21 years of a child she can't afford. She may be able to improve her life and then have a child when she wants to. But Ms. Szala's story is the exception that proves the rule: she had resources that were there when she needed them, she wasn't abused or raped, and she decided to have the child. That was her choice. Others will decide differently. And those decisions are theirs to make no matter what resources are available.
Ms. Szala was extremely lucky that her family and friends were willing to support her. Many others do not have this resource. Not having a job, being homeless, having economic issues even before the child is born should give any potential parent concern. Our society berates parents for having children they planned on when years later they have economic problems and tells them that it's their fault and they shouldn't have had children.
Yes, the woman will still have the problems she came in with. But she won't have 18-21 years of a child she can't afford. She may be able to improve her life and then have a child when she wants to. But Ms. Szala's story is the exception that proves the rule: she had resources that were there when she needed them, she wasn't abused or raped, and she decided to have the child. That was her choice. Others will decide differently. And those decisions are theirs to make no matter what resources are available.
6
The only thing in this column to which I object is that the writer ultimately believes that other women should not have the range of choices she herself had. She doesn't ever say so in the column, very carefully tailoring her message for the readers of this newspaper, but her organization aims to "end abortion" so that the only option any woman will ever have is the one that the writer chose. That is its core mission.
It would be great if half of the energy Szala's allies put in to outlawing women from having abortions could be redirected into improving women's economic circumstances in the way she describes (in the car example) in the column -- a goal that we can all share. That would be great. Better yet if ALL the energy her allies put into outlawing abortion could be redirected in that way.
It would be great if half of the energy Szala's allies put in to outlawing women from having abortions could be redirected into improving women's economic circumstances in the way she describes (in the car example) in the column -- a goal that we can all share. That would be great. Better yet if ALL the energy her allies put into outlawing abortion could be redirected in that way.
4
A woman who has been deprived the right to control her fertility is a woman who cannot plan for her future or achieve financial independence. Until we have perfect, no-fail options for birth control, and all women have easy, inexpensive access to them, abortion remains a crucial option for women and cannot be constrained in any way.
6
Contraception today is FREE -- 100% FREE.
It was always free on Medicaid for the poor.
How much cheaper can FREE could it get?
And many methods are nearly 100% effective -- the IUD, the Pill (when used correctly), Implanon, Depo Provera, etc.
Even condoms -- used in combination with contraceptive gel -- is close to 100% effective IF YOU USE IT EVERY TIME.
The real problem isn't contraception -- we have more kinds, better kinds than any time in history -- but that women and men refuse to use the contraception that is THERE, for FREE -- why??? until we can answer that, we are nowhere on the path to a solution.
It was always free on Medicaid for the poor.
How much cheaper can FREE could it get?
And many methods are nearly 100% effective -- the IUD, the Pill (when used correctly), Implanon, Depo Provera, etc.
Even condoms -- used in combination with contraceptive gel -- is close to 100% effective IF YOU USE IT EVERY TIME.
The real problem isn't contraception -- we have more kinds, better kinds than any time in history -- but that women and men refuse to use the contraception that is THERE, for FREE -- why??? until we can answer that, we are nowhere on the path to a solution.
1
@Incredulous: Why do most woman feel obliged to use birth control and plan every pregnancy? Fight for a society that welcomes every pregnancy and adoption without reservation or judgment.
1
Poor women aren't the only women with unplanned pregnancies. The stakes are higher if you are middle class or above. I've never seen an anti-abortionist protesting against pregnancy discrimination. In fact, many "Christian" organizations reserve the right to fire women who become pregnant outside of marriage and do so. I've never known a young female law associate have an unplanned pregnancy. It would be career ending.
4
"Above all, it’s a profoundly dehumanizing argument. It reduces mothers and their children to mere economic objects, and amounts to saying we are justified in killing those who impede our economic progress."
How cynical. Isn't that the Republican agenda?
How cynical. Isn't that the Republican agenda?
I'm so happy for you! That being said, I would not in a million years make the same choice you did. Has the thought every occurred to you that in certain circumstances a woman may simply not want a child because its not consistent with her life goals? At the end of the day, your argument is simply another one positing that a woman should give birth and raise a child because that's what you did.
4
I find Ms Szala's line of argument so very patronizing. Poor victim woman, who would of course have this child if only she had the economic means to do so. Perhaps Ms. Szala is unwilling to face the possibility that a woman would choose abortion because she does not want to continue her pregnancy for other reasons or for no given reason at all. To choose an abortion is to exercise a power over one's own body by one's own choice, to be empowered rather than victimized. Let us please not demean this hard won power of choice,by turning those who exercise it into victims.
3
Unplanned teen pregnancies should never happen. That yours had a relatively happy outcome is extremely unusual and almost entirely due to good fortune.
You seem to casually gloss over just how disruptive to your life that situation was. You cannot argue that raising your child in those circumstance was the best for them - you were still a child yourself!
You made a courageous decision to have your baby. You should have put it up for adoption - and there are many agencies that would have found a wonderful home for that child.
You imposed an unnecessary hardship on yourself, your family, and your child. Which is the kind of foolish decision an adolescent makes.
You seem to casually gloss over just how disruptive to your life that situation was. You cannot argue that raising your child in those circumstance was the best for them - you were still a child yourself!
You made a courageous decision to have your baby. You should have put it up for adoption - and there are many agencies that would have found a wonderful home for that child.
You imposed an unnecessary hardship on yourself, your family, and your child. Which is the kind of foolish decision an adolescent makes.
1
Ms. Szala talks as if there aren't a thousand options out there for women who opt to keep an unplanned pregnancy. If anything, there is extreme pressure preventing a woman from even considering an abortion anymore. I have never known a woman who chose that route who didn't think long and hard about it. They have often had to face fierce blow back from family and friends, travel hundreds of miles, and endure the predictable cruelty from pro-lifers on what is already one of the roughest days of their lives. Why can't people just leave these poor women alone? Everyone seems to have an opinion about someone else's business with zero information about their unique situation.
2
How dare you write such as this? You had support and made it through..great. Such is usually not the case, and no, abortion is not "easy way out". Women agonize over these decisions and at the end of the day, it's absolutely no one else's business. Don't like abortion? Then don't have one and also work to make sure that contraception is free and readily available.
7
At last a sensible statement. I've said similar things but people still labeled me as pro-murder of children. That kind of insulting is hard to keep from just squashing.
Cherokees, my community, are a nation of people who generally do what she suggests through our family and clan networks. But we also don't tell a woman what to do with her body. She is a responsible human being and must make her own choices.
A woman who doesn't want a baby and is forced to have one enters that baby into a form of roulette where it is just as likely to be raised badly and treated miserably as the opposite.
The current attitude towards welfare and "leave it to the churches" whether you're Christian or not can be answered by saying "leave it to the Mosque!" if your not Muslim or leave it to the Synagogue if your not Jewish.
Then you realize that Christians are really talking about converts and children as a form of property and not individuals that must be raised to be responsible members of a society.
Just my opinion but I hold it from a lot of experience with all of the religious groups. I'm not impressed.
Cherokees, my community, are a nation of people who generally do what she suggests through our family and clan networks. But we also don't tell a woman what to do with her body. She is a responsible human being and must make her own choices.
A woman who doesn't want a baby and is forced to have one enters that baby into a form of roulette where it is just as likely to be raised badly and treated miserably as the opposite.
The current attitude towards welfare and "leave it to the churches" whether you're Christian or not can be answered by saying "leave it to the Mosque!" if your not Muslim or leave it to the Synagogue if your not Jewish.
Then you realize that Christians are really talking about converts and children as a form of property and not individuals that must be raised to be responsible members of a society.
Just my opinion but I hold it from a lot of experience with all of the religious groups. I'm not impressed.
2
This is a religious belief: "An abortion clinic, for a few hundred dollars, ends the life of a child."
In this country, the author may believe it, and she may act on that belief in her own decisions. But she may not force others to. Not everyone believes life begins at conception, or that a mindless, half-inch long, 7-week, tadpole-resembling embryo is a "baby."
Christians, who once believed in "quickening" not at conception, but months into pregnancy, have not even held this belief until recent times-- it's a recent conceit that this is a long-held, God-given, moral conviction. The preoccupation with abortion by Christians is a contrived wedge issue courtesy of Reagan-era, Christian Right leaders seeking an issue by which to herd their sheep.
"Pro-life" voices, who care deeply for a blob of cells, but not for mother or child after birth, would have better luck reducing abortions if they spent less time projecting their unearned disapproval of other people's private sex lives and more on promoting contraception and honest sex education. Sadly, this too would violate their "moral" code.
In this country, the author may believe it, and she may act on that belief in her own decisions. But she may not force others to. Not everyone believes life begins at conception, or that a mindless, half-inch long, 7-week, tadpole-resembling embryo is a "baby."
Christians, who once believed in "quickening" not at conception, but months into pregnancy, have not even held this belief until recent times-- it's a recent conceit that this is a long-held, God-given, moral conviction. The preoccupation with abortion by Christians is a contrived wedge issue courtesy of Reagan-era, Christian Right leaders seeking an issue by which to herd their sheep.
"Pro-life" voices, who care deeply for a blob of cells, but not for mother or child after birth, would have better luck reducing abortions if they spent less time projecting their unearned disapproval of other people's private sex lives and more on promoting contraception and honest sex education. Sadly, this too would violate their "moral" code.
5
You obviously have very firm beliefs about the abortion debate. I would not try to change your beliefs and I am sure even you could not change your own beliefs even if you tried.
Yours has been a success story, but there are many who have not had the same experience as you. I applaud your efforts to help those in distress because of your beliefs.
But, you don't have the moral authority to impose your beliefs upon others. That is the real issue in the abortion debate.
Yours has been a success story, but there are many who have not had the same experience as you. I applaud your efforts to help those in distress because of your beliefs.
But, you don't have the moral authority to impose your beliefs upon others. That is the real issue in the abortion debate.
2
The facts coming out in Texas do not support your opinion. More babies born to Medicaid moms and on Medicaid themselves after Texas passed a series of laws forcing several planned parenthood clinics to close. You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but women's reproductive rights, in addition to enveloping the right of self determination, are also economic in nature.
4
Well that's the answer then. Women who get pregnant in high school should just work their way up the ladder at an investment firm. What's next?
5
Your story is yours alone. Don't project it on to other women. All women have a right to choose. Plain and simple. You choose yours. I'll choose mine.
Who benefits economically from opposing abortion on demand?
Employers and the owners of American firms need cheap unskilled labour. Employers and others who depend on cheap labour have a vested, economic self interest in encouraging illegal immigration and in encouraging teenage pregnancies amongst the endogenous population because this helps to swell the size of the unskilled labour force, drive down wages amongst the unskilled, and provide the near slave labour that has kept America buzzing since the formal end of American slavery.
Churches and other religious groups in the USA rely upon the halfschooled, the poorly educated, the ignorant, the desperate and the poor seeking solace, to swell their numbers, attendance in church and their coffers.
The vast for-profit American prison system relies upon the lucrative incarceration of millions of poor African American men, most of whom were born to unmarried teenage mothers living in the most appalling conditions in inner city projects or in rural poverty in the Deep South.
Follow the money. It's all about the money.
Employers and the owners of American firms need cheap unskilled labour. Employers and others who depend on cheap labour have a vested, economic self interest in encouraging illegal immigration and in encouraging teenage pregnancies amongst the endogenous population because this helps to swell the size of the unskilled labour force, drive down wages amongst the unskilled, and provide the near slave labour that has kept America buzzing since the formal end of American slavery.
Churches and other religious groups in the USA rely upon the halfschooled, the poorly educated, the ignorant, the desperate and the poor seeking solace, to swell their numbers, attendance in church and their coffers.
The vast for-profit American prison system relies upon the lucrative incarceration of millions of poor African American men, most of whom were born to unmarried teenage mothers living in the most appalling conditions in inner city projects or in rural poverty in the Deep South.
Follow the money. It's all about the money.
5
The problem for women and children arises because so many of us Do Not link abortion to economics!
Unplanned pregnancy and poverty are linked.
Unplanned pregnancy and poverty are linked.
4
The Republican Congress wants to take $880 billion dollars out of U.S. local
economies by restricting Medicaid. The Republican politicians want to
force your teenage daughter to have unwanted babies by denying the
availability of abortions to them.
economies by restricting Medicaid. The Republican politicians want to
force your teenage daughter to have unwanted babies by denying the
availability of abortions to them.
1
The right to choose is a fabrication. People can choose whether to get pregnant, but after that you need to let nature take its course. People can't just be allowed to kill babies because they made a mistake and it's causing them inconvenience.
Rape is a violent crime as is incest- they are crimes. Anocephaly is a biological fact. At some point adults have to accept that absolutism does not work with this issue. Work on the issue of male responsibility if you must participate in solutions.
2
Abortion is not merely a moral or a religious issue. It is also a socioeconomic and a crime issue.
The laws on abortion need to reflect the needs of those living under those laws in any given jurisdiction. In the USA as a whole, but especially in states such as Alabama and Mississippi, girls are still being forced to marry at fourteen or younger because they are pregnant.
The USA has teenage pregnancy rates and a teenage birth rate that are by far the highest in the first world. Across the US, African American girls and Mexican American girls have a much higher rate of teenage pregnancies than white American girls. When you look at Alabama and Mississippi, especially in the poorest areas, the rates of teenage pregnancy amongst African American girls go through the roof.
Teenage mothers are much more like to be unmarried and stay unmarried, or get married and divorced. The kids of teenaged unmarried mothers have a much higher chance than average of being convicted as adolescents and adults of serious crimes such as murder and rape. Many teenage mothers have mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers who themselves first gave birth as teenagers.
The biological fathers may also be teenagers. Too often, no male hangs around for very long before moving onto the next teenage girl to impregnate. When there is, rarely, a father who does hang around for a while, he may be impregnating other girls, so then he's trying to provide for more than one family at once.
The laws on abortion need to reflect the needs of those living under those laws in any given jurisdiction. In the USA as a whole, but especially in states such as Alabama and Mississippi, girls are still being forced to marry at fourteen or younger because they are pregnant.
The USA has teenage pregnancy rates and a teenage birth rate that are by far the highest in the first world. Across the US, African American girls and Mexican American girls have a much higher rate of teenage pregnancies than white American girls. When you look at Alabama and Mississippi, especially in the poorest areas, the rates of teenage pregnancy amongst African American girls go through the roof.
Teenage mothers are much more like to be unmarried and stay unmarried, or get married and divorced. The kids of teenaged unmarried mothers have a much higher chance than average of being convicted as adolescents and adults of serious crimes such as murder and rape. Many teenage mothers have mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers who themselves first gave birth as teenagers.
The biological fathers may also be teenagers. Too often, no male hangs around for very long before moving onto the next teenage girl to impregnate. When there is, rarely, a father who does hang around for a while, he may be impregnating other girls, so then he's trying to provide for more than one family at once.
2
This essay makes so much sense and really sorts out the problems related to abortion. I've said so many times: no one really "wants" an abortion. (If people really wanted them, you'd see hoards getting pregnant on purpose, just to seek one.). No, people feel trapped. Women feel trapped. Whether due to poverty or lack of childcare, need to work or finish school.
In France, there is excellent, publicly provided childcare. So society provides that assistance for every woman. Every child. That along with publicly provided healthcare makes it easier for a woman. They don't feel so alone or trapped.
There are ways to fix this country. Meanwhile we have wealthy grifters, with way more than they need, profiting off the presidency.
What a crazy, shameful country we have become!
In France, there is excellent, publicly provided childcare. So society provides that assistance for every woman. Every child. That along with publicly provided healthcare makes it easier for a woman. They don't feel so alone or trapped.
There are ways to fix this country. Meanwhile we have wealthy grifters, with way more than they need, profiting off the presidency.
What a crazy, shameful country we have become!
74
Yet France has an abortion rate of 21% abortions to live births, while the USA has an abortion rate of about 19% to live births - which is proof of the writer's argument that abortion is not about economics, primarily, as French women are much better supported economically than are American women, yet have more abortions.
Writing as one who had an abortion while in college, and while engaged to my fiance who became my husband 6 months later, I certainly did not have an abortion because I was not supported, or because a child would have led to poverty - I had an abortion because I was pregnant and did not intend to be, and because, at 19, I had no intention of allowing that unintended pregnancy affect the rest of my life and close down many options I had for my future.(My fiance felt the same way, but would have supported me if I had wanted to continue with the pregnancy). My feelings after the abortion were ones of relief, freedom, of a burden being lifted, and delight at being able to return to my life as it was, without interruption. I have never regretted the abortion for a day - I do regret being careless enough to get pregnant in the first place and going through all the worry and trauma the pregnancy entailed - while recognising that my youthful carelessness was not helped by difficult access to contraception at the time.
Women and girls will always get pregnant when they don't want to be - abortion is necessary to allow them control of their bodies and their lives.
Writing as one who had an abortion while in college, and while engaged to my fiance who became my husband 6 months later, I certainly did not have an abortion because I was not supported, or because a child would have led to poverty - I had an abortion because I was pregnant and did not intend to be, and because, at 19, I had no intention of allowing that unintended pregnancy affect the rest of my life and close down many options I had for my future.(My fiance felt the same way, but would have supported me if I had wanted to continue with the pregnancy). My feelings after the abortion were ones of relief, freedom, of a burden being lifted, and delight at being able to return to my life as it was, without interruption. I have never regretted the abortion for a day - I do regret being careless enough to get pregnant in the first place and going through all the worry and trauma the pregnancy entailed - while recognising that my youthful carelessness was not helped by difficult access to contraception at the time.
Women and girls will always get pregnant when they don't want to be - abortion is necessary to allow them control of their bodies and their lives.
2
Don't let the fact that you disagree with abortion blind you to the reality that many of us are pro-abortion. Of course people don't get pregnant to have abortions - what a logically absurd argument. It's not a great way to spend a Friday night, but it is for many people the best and preferred alternative to pregnancy. I am not no one and I wanted the abortions I had. I am thankful I had them every day that I wake up childless. Would I have preferred to not get pregnant in the first place? Sure. But that's not what happened, and when I got pregnant I very much wanted abortions.
2
The French nickname for daycare center is "creche," just like the scene with baby Jesus. So nice.
1
Deep down, I believe abortion is wrong.
However, my stance changed once it became clear that women are okay with it happening.
As a pro-choice man, I now have a very callous and cavalier attitude towards abortion. I have become desensitized to the issue entirely and actually find myself encouraging women to get abortions to alleviate stress on our economy.
Plus, keeping women in the workplace and out of the home means more money for all of us.
Abortions evolved from a life saving procedure to a casual act of utilitarianism, and frankly, I'm all for it.
However, my stance changed once it became clear that women are okay with it happening.
As a pro-choice man, I now have a very callous and cavalier attitude towards abortion. I have become desensitized to the issue entirely and actually find myself encouraging women to get abortions to alleviate stress on our economy.
Plus, keeping women in the workplace and out of the home means more money for all of us.
Abortions evolved from a life saving procedure to a casual act of utilitarianism, and frankly, I'm all for it.
8
Sounds like you need to actually listen to some of those women.
NEVER "casual." Take that back.
1
The abortion issue has not only been politicized but also religionalized. It is shrouded in a nice sounding term like " pro-life, right to live" equating lige of every citizen with a unborn fetus. Justice Goersuch, during his hearing, said that according to the US constitution, an unborn fetus is not the same as a child born out of the womb (or a dish). The Sirica court invented the "viabilty of the fetus" argument to make abortion illegal after the fetus has "heartbeat".
What is missing is the health of the pregnant woman, not just physical but mental What right do these anti-abortion fanatics have to dictate a raped woman to live with the birth and raising of an "illegaly conceived fetus" hat about the mothers daily anguish of the rape event? What if its not rape but abandoning of the relationship by the man? He does not have to suffer the mental and physical anguish.
we should rename pro-choice as pro woman's health - physical and mental. Every woman has aright to live a dignified peaceful life. Show me a religious argument thhat says life of a woman is not important.
What is missing is the health of the pregnant woman, not just physical but mental What right do these anti-abortion fanatics have to dictate a raped woman to live with the birth and raising of an "illegaly conceived fetus" hat about the mothers daily anguish of the rape event? What if its not rape but abandoning of the relationship by the man? He does not have to suffer the mental and physical anguish.
we should rename pro-choice as pro woman's health - physical and mental. Every woman has aright to live a dignified peaceful life. Show me a religious argument thhat says life of a woman is not important.
10
The US Constitution says nothing at all about when human life begins.
The most dishonest feature of these "Federalist Society" frauds is their charade of looking for the powers reserved by the people in the Constitution, which lists only the powers the people delegated to government.
These people are completely dyslexic in their own presumptions of divine perfection. That is why they poison everything they touch.
The most dishonest feature of these "Federalist Society" frauds is their charade of looking for the powers reserved by the people in the Constitution, which lists only the powers the people delegated to government.
These people are completely dyslexic in their own presumptions of divine perfection. That is why they poison everything they touch.
1
One of many objectionable points in the piece is the implied notion that many women suffer from guilt and regret, or even major mental health issues, after an elective abortion. This is a myth that unprincipled anti-abortion advocates have been trying to sell for years, and it's simply untrue, as demonstrated by considerable research. Yes, it does happen, but incipient mental illness can be activated by many life events, including going to college, getting laid off, or getting a promotion. The same is true of abortion. In addition to relief after an abortion, there may be sadness that this wasn't the time, but major emotional crises are uncommon.
1
There are and have always been,clear exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother, and defective fetuses -- and for clearly underage girls (who are victims of statutory rape, even if they "consented" to sex).
Forcing a woman to gestate and bear a child she does not want is no different than forcing her to submit to a marriage she does not want, or restraining her and mutilating her genitals, or forcing her to wear a hijab, or denying her the right to appear in public unaccompanied.
A just society would recognize all these acts as part of the same fabric of oppression. They should be categorized as crimes against women.
A just society would recognize all these acts as part of the same fabric of oppression. They should be categorized as crimes against women.
318
So your argument is that unless we let women murder children, we're oppressing women, is that right?
Understand, I realize this is probably not what you want to be arguing, but to a social conservative that IS what you're arguing. To them, these are children, full stop. And until you realize this and change your message from one of "let me murder my baby if I want to", you will never, ever convince them.
Understand, I realize this is probably not what you want to be arguing, but to a social conservative that IS what you're arguing. To them, these are children, full stop. And until you realize this and change your message from one of "let me murder my baby if I want to", you will never, ever convince them.
1
As a practical matter, when it comes to minors, aren't most of these situations resolved because the minor is pressured to have an abortion, usually by parents
who don't want the extra economic burden or who think that it is good for her to
have the abortion ?
who don't want the extra economic burden or who think that it is good for her to
have the abortion ?
Agreed, abortion needs to be a legal option, period. It's not just a matter of economics, but personal autonomy. I saw in another comment reference to abortion being an "interim" option until there was an adequate social safety net and community support for pregnant women. I strongly disagree, abortion is an interim option until birth control is 100% reliable and always used, genetic anomalies and birth defects are 100% correctable, and rape doesn't occur.
2
"no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children" - indeed, nobody does. So Mz. Szala's argument is a strawman. We are discussing abortion, not infanticide. Fetuses are not children, as has been established in law a long time ago. The decision to carry to term belongs to the one doing the carrying.
15
The moment the author calls abortion "women killing their children," is the moment she alienates not only those who disagree, but many of those who have had legal abortions. Like calling Trump voters "stupid," this is no way to make the case against abortion with those who disagree.
202
Check the website for Human Coalition, for whom Lori Szala works. Their mission is to end abortion, calling it a 'human rights holocaust'. There is no understanding that women may lack the support and ability to finish high school, whose families don't even 'barely have the resources to send me to college' as hers did, who don't have a family member who can care for their child as she did, or who don't have the education, training and ability to get a full-time job. Her organization helps women 'enter substance abuse treatment programs, regain their children from foster care', 'sign up for government benefits'. Her organization, supported by donors, cannot support every poor woman who wants an abortion. I completely agree that we should do much more to address poverty, and that abortion is not the only choice, but it is a woman's choice, and her human right.
226
What human rights do unborn, LIVING human fetuses have?
Or are they to be murdered at will?
What if the pregnant woman is not poor -- not unmarried -- not underage -- but simply wants to kill her fetus because the fetus is female -- and she wanted a baby boy?
Is that OK too?
Or are they to be murdered at will?
What if the pregnant woman is not poor -- not unmarried -- not underage -- but simply wants to kill her fetus because the fetus is female -- and she wanted a baby boy?
Is that OK too?
This group had an op-ed in the NYT not all that different from this one 2-4 months ago.
I would like to hear more from women who have had abortions for the many various reasons they find it necessary. I think we've heard enough from this group for a few years.
I would like to hear more from women who have had abortions for the many various reasons they find it necessary. I think we've heard enough from this group for a few years.
1