Aborted Logic


She could give them up for adoption to some of the churches that are going to way of the dinosaur.
Oh my god. What a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad plan for limiting abortions. What a sad life for that poor sucker of a kid who came next.
How about we sterilize said woman? Hitler really gave eugenics a bad name.
I believe you misunderstand the intent of the legislation. The law would no doubt require her uterus to be ripped out and pinned to her sackcloth dress while she stood in the stocks being spat on by the righteous. Then she would have her option of stoning, drowning or being burned at the stake.
No, and that's why after n+1 abortions, she should have her uterus removed. The trick is ensuring women never know what n is, so it'll have to be something like a die roll, where for each abortion we add one more "you lose" side.
@3 My first thought was they should just tie her tubes while they’re in there. Except, that would be removing her right to choose her own reproductive path.

I have a hard time believing multiple abortions are good for you (of course, halfway through my third (fourth) pregnancy, I’m not so sure pregnancy itself is good for you…). What she did and said is calloused – to assume you should be ahead of others who’ve waited their turn and then to blab about her multiple abortions without knowing the circumstances of others around her. But this one woman cannot possibly be the typical abortion-seeker.
Seems like the legislation should just follow that of whatever dictated that my friend and her partner were able to adopt two kids in six months. The first was a newborn of a woman already declared an unfit mother by the state; the second was the newborn's toddler brother. So if the state knows the mom is bad but she keeps shooting out kids anyway, the state (apparently) keeps taking them away and adopting them out to loving couples.
How else are we going to teach her a lesson?
"A reader writes" sounds a lot like hearsay to me. Loving the Madonna/Whore dichotomy of the poor, genetically unfortunate woman trying to have a child (sob) vs. the rabid abortion seeker.
oh, if someone were to apply a "sane" limit in this case...

The "it was no big deal" and "had several more appointments to keep that day." sums up the mentality of many who go through with this, after the second one they become desensitized. I also believe there should be a limit for those seeking abortions for other reasons than having been the victim of a rape or having their lives seriously threatened by it perhaps.
@6, when a woman is so blatantly irresponsible and stupid, i think the right to choose her reproductive path should be changed. if not for her, or for her child, then for the rest of us, so that those unbelievably fucking STUPID genetics don't spread.
besides, if she's so blase about aborting them, i doubt she really ever wants them.
of course, one must consider that abortions as they are can put the patient at risk of infertility and y'know...that's there. after a certain amount of them, just...snip something here, twist there. i'm not saying lie to women about it. but...5's idea might not be so bad.
lemme be straight, i'm pro-choice. i'm just not pro-STUPID.
That story is such bullshit. Even 27 years ago, what emergency rooms were providing anything other than emergency abortions?


That's not how abortions work. There's no access to tie a woman's tubes.
Freedom to marry anyone you want isn't in any state constitution, but I support it. It's one of those implied rights. thank god we have activist judges who find these implied rights, otherwise words like liberty and equality just don't have any content, right?

So this means for that freedom to be effective, you don't have to have a birth before you want to! That's freedom, too. It's all part of this fundamental freedom. Freddom, freedom, freedom!
Are vasectomies for deadbeat dads also on this list?
This woman makes me sick and gives abortions a bad name. I think people on both sides of the spectrum can agree that this is not what we want to happen.

Give that messed up POS as many abortions as she can handle. Please allow her to rid society of the burden she is threatening.

I would much rather these insane biotches continue to have abortions than to become those woman who continue to fill this world with unloved, uncared for, unwanted, resented children who just grow up to repeat the disgusting mistakes of their parents.

To all anti-choicest, if your concern really had anything to do with the "child" you would do some serious research on the negative psychological effects unwanted children face. And how many of you adopt these unwanted children? How many of you actually "save them"? Get off your high horse and realize that you don't really care about them ... you just want to have control over woman and their sex.
Easy solution: Cap and Trade.

You're welcome.
who is this "they" you're talking about? How many women do you know who have had to go through multiple abortions and just shrugged it off? Judging from my friends who have had abortions, they were not "desensitized," but simply felt that their actions were in their best interest, as well as the best interest of their potential offspring. Even if it happened more than once. By placing a limit on abortions you're saying you can only fuck up a couple times, and then you must bring a child into the world. And yes, I know you can put it up for adoption, but there's not exactly a shortage of children who need adopting in this world, it seems necessarily callous to add to that number and force the mother to go through the emotional turmoil of carrying to term.
@17 - I'm not one of those "anti-choicest" people but it is a well known fact that the waiting list of for adoptive parents of newborn babies is very long. There are plenty of parents waiting to give babies a new home.
@13 - I know, I was being facetious.
I'm with #1 only I would make it a referendum. Should Churches that are against abortion be charged for the upbringing of children of women who forego an abortion? The answer is YES! That would shut their fucking mouths.

I'll wager a beer or two that Andrew Sullivan was just trolled, Andrew trolled Dan, or Dan trolled us.

This 'serial abortion' story sounds like the 'conservative kid flummoxes liberal professor' story. Trite, button-pushing, over the top, improbable, agenda-driven, and probably having a zillion variants passed around on email forwards.
@20 what makes you think someone forced into carrying out a pregnancy is going to give their child up for adoption? Just because they are forced to carry out an unwanted pregnancy because of some neanderthal's limit on abortions does not mean that they are automatically going to carry out the ideal conclusion which would be to give the baby up for adoption.

I find these multiple abortion as birth control types grotesque as well, don't get me wrong, but I honestly believe that it is also the best all around solution for those unfortunate people.
Dan, you're missing the point. That child has a right to be born into its horrible life and suffer through a chaotic childhood, whether its horrible, uncaring, mentally fractured parent wants it or not. We can only allow women to kill so many babies before they have to stop, right?

And Loveschild @11, I'm sorry, but you utterly lack credibility in this issue. Are you an abortion care provider? Have you done any long-term studies of women who undergo multiple abortions? Do you even know anyone who's had even one abortion (and by "know" I do not in fact mean "be casually acquainted with and secretly contemptuous of," but rather a meaningful relationship which might actually grant you insight into her emotional state)? You're talking utterly out your ass and everyone can tell. Go back to Bible-thumping about gays. You're still wrong but at least you have a coherent position there.
1. Whoever questioned the veracity of this story has a VERY good point. The fact that Sullivan felt this was credible enough to post says a lot about his mindset.

2. Assuming this woman actually existed, she sounds like she was mentally ill. So, ABSOLUTELY parent material. Oy vey.
@23, I agree. Especially because at the end the writer did a nifty little conflation of late-term and early-term abortions: "I am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose to abort, but there must be a sane limit to the ability to obtain an obscenely large number. And it's difficult to envision the circumstance where the need to have such a late-term procedure would be truly justified."

Along with all of the misgivings already expressed above, I have a hard time believeing that ER's are giving on-demand late-term abortions. I haven't read Roe V. Wade in a long time, but I thought that was the point.

I have little sympathy for adoptive couples who won't take an older child.
Cap and trade is an excellent idea. It would also create a market for abortion futures.
See, this is what I really don't understand about the Woman Who Aborts as Birth Control: Is it really "convenience"? It's really more convenient to make an appointment, wait, undergo the physically traumatic procedure, and recover, rather than using contraception in the first place or a morning-after pill? It's why I find these stories so dubious.

Don't get me wrong; I can *believe* such women exist, because irresponsible morons exist as a percentage of every group, but I can't believe they exist in any significant number -- not enough to deny other women their rights to choice. I'd be very interested if anyone can come up with a study that cites real numbers and cases.
I've been pointing that out myself in the past.

I'm amazed that the anti-choice continues to flog the "OMG Sluts are using it as birth control!" Like it's waaayyyyy more fun to shell out $400+, run a gauntlet of screaming, violent protesters, and have your uterus scraped out every few months than it is to spend a few bucks on a pack of condoms or a few more bucks on a prescription of birth control. And if such a woman existed -- a woman who actually got a thrill from going and having abortions--we'd want her in charge of a baby WHY?

Oh, yes, the old "she can give it up for adoption" chestnut. Because women are just brood mares or something. Plus, a woman who's so completely irresponsible that she doyyyyy forgets to take her pills or oooooppps forgets to tell him to put a condom on is going to do the prenatal stuff that's critical to ensuring a healthy (adoptable) baby.

Also, isn't this a little 3/5 of a person rule? I mean, if you're in favor of someone being allowed to have one abortion, why shouldn't they be allowed to have 50? It's either a life or it isn't. If you're freaking out because someone hit their "abortion limit" you're basically admitting that you've got some weird unboxed feelings about abortion but you don't want to get off the friggin' fence. Or you're just freaked out that women are having sex and not "paying the price" like you feel they should be, but want to keep the option legal for women you happen to care about in your own life.

The stupid, it burns!
@20: I have similar feelings. It reminds me of people who squeal over kittens and puppies at the pound but fall out of love when the animals grow up.
I'm with @9 and @13. "A reader writers"? I'm a reader, and I write that this story sounds completely fabricated.
I call bullshit.
Of course it's bullshit! Even if some semblance of the damned thing actually happened names, places and events were changed to make the story more "interesting."

We should write one of our own ...
25 Sadly I do have a personal relation (not through studies) with a woman who went through a very similar experience and just as I describe after the second (for no life threatening reason) became desensitized to going through with them, it messed up her relationships. It was only through her friends, faith and learning more about what she was doing to her mind and body that she changed her mind on and what she saw as casual visit to the doctor. I have come to know that only through faith and self learning can attitudes on this be changed because some will seek them even if it's illegal in a more risky way, that however does not mean that more strict regulations should not to be placed. There's a societal need of informing women of the dangers to their emotional and physical health and that needs to be done in a more approachable non judgemental way also.
I have to agree, I'm also questioning this story.
@31: Or like saying, I don't know... THESE gay people can be married and society won't fall apart, but THESE gay people can't get married.
All I can say about Jon and Kate Plus 8 is ... ewww.

Beat me to it - great minds and all.

And @11, based on your previous ramblings, I seriously doubt you have even the slightest understanding of the struggle the overwhelming majority of women go through when coming to the decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy. The sheer audacity of even attempting to present yourself as any kind of authority on that particular topic is so patently offensive, I cannot begin to express it.
The argument that your typical abortion-seeker sees abortion as a casual choice is just more evidence that the anti-abortion crowd does not give a shit about babies. Hear me out. If they really imagine that a woman who gets abortions is making a casual choice, that means that they view having the child as an equally casual choice. And what kind of monster thinks that having a child is something that you can just casually do, like getting a goldfish?

That, and their opposition to birth control. All across the board, everyone knows that birth control prevents abortions better than anything else in existence. All across the board, anti-choice people claim that their goal is to reduce abortions. So you'd think that, all across the board, these people would be the most fierce advocates of birth control access. And yet, all across the board, the anti-choice crowd are the most avid opponents of birth control.

In other words, they are not trying to prevent abortion. They are trying to prevent sex. They see a fetus not as an innocent victim (like they claim), but as a symbol of sexual consequences. And if there's one thing the anti-sex crowd hates, it's sex without consequences (especially for women). That is the only reason they could possibly be against both birth control AND legal abortion. It is such a glaring paradox that even they have to be aware of it.
I, a reader, write that this one time, like, 15 years ago, I was in the emergency room waiting for treatments for burns sustained while rescuing kittens who had been set on fire. All of a sudden, a nun burst into the ER crying saying she needed an abortion because she'd been raped by a Communist, and her fellow nuns had kicked her out of the convent.

There happened to be a group of Operation Rescue members in the ER who had been injured while setting fire to the kittens that I rescued (because their mother was an irresponsible slut who couldn't keep her legs closed!). They became irate, screaming that this nun would be going to hell for aborting her baby. They all pulled out their stoning sacks and began to stone her to death right there in the ER.

Well, despite my injuries, I jumped up and was able to pull the nun to safety before it was too late. What a contrast we presented -- one women who saves kittens and nuns from angry mobs, and an angry mob of pro-lifers who sets fire to kittens and tries to stone nuns.

True story.
Irving -- yep. I'm honestly shocked and amazed that H8 was upheld in the CA high court... telling one segment of group A that they have this right (that it won't be taken away from them) whereas telling the rest of group A that they can't have that right for themselves seems like a pretty direct violation of equal protection under the law.
Also, seconding the point that's been said a bunch of times already, but needs to be hammered into people's heads:

If someone really, REALLY is just casually getting abortions every month so that it's become routine, she is the LAST person that you want to deny abortions to. You do not want her raising a child. And if she has some big, born-again Christian turn-around, she will end up raising another Loveschild, and we don't want that either.

Also, adoption is not a universal alternative to abortion. There are not nearly enough non-abusive foster parents out there for adoption to be some guaranteed, run-of-the-mill option. Especially with people trying so damn hard to prevent gays from adopting; and (surprise! surprise!) many of those people are also anti-birth control and anti-choice. So much for giving a shit about babies, or knowing jack shit about basic "cause and effect."

There may be a waiting list for people who want new-born, healthy, and white (or sometimes Asian) babies. Not so long of a line for older, physically or mentally disabled, or brown babies though, is there?
"removing her right to choose her own reproductive path" seems a ridiculously small penalty to extract from a serial killer....
Loveschild @ 36,

Thanks for sharing your personal understanding. Your friends situation only speaks for her personal situation.

I have two friends, and I'm talking 10+ years long. Neither of them became desensitized to it, both of them are Christians. The decisions were very difficult for both, and one had to endure making the decision twice.

This is a very complex issue. One can't just rely on the personal testimony of one friend, as no one person can speak for all. We need to work to keep abortion safe and legal, while also providing affordable contraception, affordable maternal and pediatric health care, comprehensive sex education, access to maternity leave, and increasing the minium wage. It only makes sense for those who strive to lessen the number of abortions performed to support measures to lessen the number of conceptions. And, to work to eliminate the poverty that is often linked to the lives of those who seek abortions. That is why groups like Planned Parenthood need our support.

@36 I have a personal story as well. About 10 years ago I used to volunteer at a daycare in an alternative school for teenage mothers. Many of these young mothers were coerced into carrying out their pregnancies by closed minded people with no intent on actually helping the girls through their pregnancies or with their parenting. These same girls felt that they "could not" give these children up for adoption after "what they had been through" (the pregnancy that is, it's selfish, but these are teenage girls, they are inherently selfish). The majority of these children were not well cared for, they smelled of cigarettes, some would wear the same clothing for a week, the mothers had little to no empathy for their own children, they were too young to understand about bringing life into this world. The children that were seemingly well cared for were mostly being raised by their grandparents who also resented their grandchildren for being forced into parenthood again. The babies and toddlers themselves were always sick and dirty and stressed. Many had to take medications from ailments brought on by stress and anxiety.

These girls were required to take classes in parenting, to attend career counseling, as well as having the option of classes in cooking, sewing and other home economic type subjects. These classes were required in order to be at the school. Yet that did not change anything about these girls. Their attitude was that they knew better.

One of the little boys in that daycare went on recently to impregnate an 11 year old girl. He himself was 11. She had the baby.

This is what it really means to force unwanted children into this world, and these scenarios are certainly not limited to teenage mothers.

Should abortion be the only option? Of course not. More education to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place should be priority number one. But should abortion be a prevalent option to prevent these sorts of tragedies being inflicted upon innocent children with no say in their rearing? Yeah, it definitely should be. Is that the only reason that abortion should be an option for ALL WOMEN ... nope ... but it is a pretty compelling argument. If you don't believe me, volunteer in a similar daycare yourself.
I don't believe your story.
I know for a fact that kittens don't burn...
i'm totally sure that this story is completely true, and happens all the time. by which i mean, what fucking bullshit.

if true, we don't legislate peoples' lives based on the most-fucked-up-asshole-i-one-time-met-while-i-was-having-a-meltdown-and-completely-in-a-position- to-judge-because-i-am-so-fucking-holy-and-self-important model. if we do, then we have to get busy on banning alcohol, guns, candy, and wedding movies.
The story may be false, but it's well documented that half of women having abortions have had at least one previously.


This is the dilemma of a free society: people are free to make choices that others may not approve of.

That is such a load of BS - NON-judgmental? I have never heard ONE WORD from that mouth of an anti-abortionist that WASN'T judgmental, what between "you're going to hell!", "sinner!", "murderer!", "baby-killer!", "slut!", and all the rest. You and your ilk are hypocrites, plain-and-simple.

@41 strikes the nail on the head: anti-abortionists don't give a shit about the "life of a child", because if they did, they'd do everything in their power to ensure that EVERY CHILD born was wanted, loved, and properly cared for. But, they don't. They just want to impose their morally rigid standards of sexual behavior on everyone else, and punishing women for exercising control over their own bodies is one way they hope to achieve that.
Everyone has failed to mention this and yet advocates it as a solution...

Has anyone here (female) tried to get an elective sterilization without first having children or - even with children - at a "young" age (under 35)? It's nearly fucking impossible.

"Young women with no children may have difficulty finding a surgeon to perform the procedure." http://www.birth-control-comparison.info…

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/c… Contains only a reference to the ABUSE of sterilization procedures.

Women who are probably not good candidates for tubal ligation include those who:
* Are younger than age 30, especially if they have never had a child. http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/t…

In addition, a brief scan of many other sites referred to "couples" and "you and your partner" making this decision. Bullshit. If abortion is the woman's choice, so is sterilization, but it's constantly refused as an option for people who don't have 6 kids already.

(Beyond the scan of the internet, I have also been turned down by 6 doctors in the last year for elective sterilization. Wink and a nod and a "you'll change your mind" from most. One said he wouldn't turn me into a whore. Nice, huh?)
Also, furthering 47's point, Planned Parenthood probably prevents far more abortions than all megachurches combined, and not only because they offer proper sex education and birth control. When a pregnant teen (or pregnant anybody) goes into planned parenthood, they're given a pamphlet that has info on ALL their options: info on prenatal care if they want to keep or adopt the child (and info on adoption), info on abortions, etc. They don't just point these people to the nearest abortion clinic. They're not some sort of abortion nest like anti-choicers always say they are. Just because they provide ALL the legal options, and not just some...
The casually aborting woman is a myth. Just another example of fear mongering scare tactics used to undermine support for women's reproductive rights.

Even if somewhere (probably where unicorns, jesus, and the boogy monster live) this one woman does exist she does not need an abortion limit. She needs mental help! Get her to a therapist who can help sort out the delusions that are causing her to believe abortion is the best form of contraceptive.
Maybe we can just legalize late term up until say, 8 years old. The little monsters aren't real people yet, and those that are talked out of abortions by right wing zealots or christians could still make a sane decision later.

I can back up the story @42: I was the nun.

@53: I have multiple friends who are 100% positive they will never want children (and believe me, it's for the best). They can't find a doctor to tie their tubes. Even finding one to give them IUDs when they were in their mid-to-late 20s was an uphill battle, because "you never know when you'll change your mind and want children!" It's nice to know that deep down, all we are to these people are wombs.
@46 -- what would be your preferred punishment for a woman who has an abortion? Death penalty? Life in prison?
I should probably add the background that I am in my late 20's, grad-school educated, have a solid career, own a home, own a car (why? Eh, hangover from Midwest upbringing...trust me, it's the last one I'll ever own), have a high credit score, have a stable relationship where this issue has been discussed...and after all that good decision making, I can't be trusted with this decision. I mean, I could have chosen to be an underwater basket weaving major and royally screwed up my life, but I managed to choose and follow through with an educational course that has set me on a path to success (and was trusted to make that decision at the tender age of 18). I could have decided that a number of "easy" jobs I had throughout school were more fulfilling than the difficult but rewarding job I have now, but I didn't (and I would have been trusted with that decision). I could have opened and maxed out credit cards for which I couldn't afford to pay the bills, but I only used credit as necessary and never excessively (and major multinational banks trusted me with that decision). Hmmmmm...good stuff.
This is perfect for a cap & trade market!
"it's difficult to envision the circumstance where the need to have such a late-term procedure would be truly justified."

really? it's that difficult? does this clear it up?

comments here really (wisely, i'm sure) limit the number of links per post, because i could go on. and on. late-term abortions are not, by and large, late because women can't make up their minds, or take the decision lightly. it's because they're wanted pregnancies that end badly, or because their access to abortion is so limited that time itself is the enemy.

and dan, fer fuck's sake - what kind of mother would *anyone* be WHEN THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE ONE? the judgment snap isn't necessary, or relevant. no one wins in an unwanted pregnancy, right? so someone who chooses abortion over and over isn't less moral than someone who chooses unwanted children, over and over. it's her life. she can live it however she sees fit. she's qualified to decide for herself what that is. women are full-on people and everything.*

*if the story that's relayed is true, which has a very strong urban-legend ring to it. the simplistic, suspiciously straightforward-sounding cases like, 'woman barges into ER cavalierly demanding sixth abortion' does not pass the sniff test for b.s. just FYI.
Seems to me that the State would have could reasonably require a woman who "ran out of abortions" to be sterilized (either permanently or temporarily, but preferably permanently).
it's well documented that half of women having abortions have had at least one previously.

So? Birth control fails.
In over 20 years of doing abortions I have only met one woman who was doing it over and over (I did her fifth). Even so, I wouldn't have described her attitude as casual---she was more studiedly indifferent than that. I have long-since learned that I don't know everything inside someone's head, or wherever she had buried her rationale.

When I was presented with her case, I wanted to say "NO WAY!" but wiser heads pointed out that this was the last person who should become a mother. (Who knew Dan Savage would years later be quoting my med school professors?)

BTW 53 and 59, I'll do your tubal, but I don't live in Seattle....

Of course you do because you don't have the slightest concept of the rule of law.
@53, @59 - I got a tubal at 31 while having no kids, because the doctor forgot to ask me that question. She was actually running really late the day of the surgery (OB/GYNs pretty much are always running late), and remembered only when the anesthesiologist was about to start administering the drugs. "You do have kids already, right?" I replied, "No, and I intend to keep it that way." So I kind of lucked out. But that was the 5th OB/GYN I'd requested a tubal from.

By the way, I highly recommend the tubal. It's been AMAZING never having to worry about birth control for all these years.
@42 FTW!
This story smells of bullshit. Was she drinking a mai tai and smoking a cigarette as well?
I enjoyed the original story: The "good" couple knew that they had a "chromosal" (chromosomal) reciprocal translocation that would kill 75% (not 50 or 66%) of their fetuses, but went ahead and got pregnant repeatedly anyway. In essence, she was using abortion to prevent giving birth to a genetically damaged baby. The only difference between her and someone who gives birth to a Down Syndrome baby is that here the translocation kills the fetus earlier (many Down syndrome fetuses also die in the womb). She's using God to do her repeated abortions for her, so that's morally OK, according to her.
Lesson learned:
Abortion by God: good. Abortion by science: bad.

In fact, the ability to get an abortion ALLOWS more children of couples like the "good couple" in this fable to have normal children, e.g. couples of carriers of things like Tay-Sachs Disease would never risk having ANY children, if they don't have the potential emotional and financial resources needed to take care of a deaf, dumb, blind, paralysed child that dies at age 2.
You know, I heard about a girl who used hot dogs as dildos and went to the emergency room over 50 times to have hot dogs removed from her vagina. I am SHOCKED and DISGUSTED that she is abusing the ER with her sexual irresponsibility.

Think of all the innocent orphans that could have been fed with those hot dogs!
69 is very right, of course. Kudos!!

But I am going to quote 42 until the end of my days.

It's not so much that birth control fails the woman, but that the woman fails the birth control.

Hormonal contraception, USED CORRECTLY, is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy.

The 11% of sexually active women who don't use contraception account for half of all abortions.

I'm a little slow. What's the problem with having an abortion (even as a "birth control method")?
Apparently, no one commenting on this thread is aware of the correlation between women who get repeated abortions and women who are trapped in abusive relationships.
Laurelgardner @ 74,

No, I'm aware of the correlation.
By abusive relationship you mean that she keeps killing her kids?

No, more likely 74 is talking about this correlation. 25% - 45% of all women who are battered are battered during pregnancy. Pregnancy can cause an escalation in the violence, so terminating the pregnancy can de-escalate the violence.
@20 - the waiting list for white babies is very long. Emphasis on the word white.
Oh, and add healthy. It's a short list to get a baby born addicted to crack, or HIV+.

@ 76,
No, abusive in the fact the man who got her pregnant doesn't want kids but refuses to use a condom. Abusive in the fact that if she gets birth control, the man will beat her "for cheating on him".

Also, the only place I've heard of Abortion being used as birth control was the former USSR. Oddly, enough back in the days of the commies, couples were encouraged to have breed as many children as they could, and so birth control pills and condoms were illegal. However, since abortion was legal and health care was free, abortion was used as birth control and the average abortions a Russian woman had in her life was around 10. Since legalizing other forms of birth control/contraceptives after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the number of abortions performed in Russia has dropped but it has the highest number of abortions in the world.
The idea that a woman who has had an abortion is therefore unfit to be a mother is so ridiculous. You guys can argue about details, but do you have any real sense? What does the care of a child have to do with the abortion of a fetus? You're victims of the propaganda of a vast minority. Back up and take a look at yourselves.
Who cares if the occasional woman has "too many" abortions. People who have an issue with that can deal with all those damned frozen embryos and get over their dramatic finger waggin at all the imaginary naughty naughty sluts out there. And if the abortion issue bothers them so much and they want to make compromises then what the hell are they willing to give up? Are they really prepared to make compromises to those of us who find the concept of embryonic personhood to be ethically bankrupt? Especially in a world that is overly taxed by a large population that consumes way too much. Can we talk? I would like to qualify their private decisions please? Such compromises might give woman number one, the “saintly mother” in Sullivan’s trite little story some problems.

#20 - It is not the responsibility of women to give birth for others, too bad if there are plenty of people out there who want to adopt. Women, even the "bad" ones, don't owe them anything.
@ 80,

Thanks for the link.

My guess is that Sullivan's mindset is a product of being a lapsed Catholic who can't quite let go of all of the dogma, and the fact that he is personally highly unlikely to get anyone pregnant means that the whole wacky reproductive "choice" thing just doesn't resonate with him.

@42 and 70,

I saw this anecdotal incident happen, too. I was waiting to get a light bulb taken out of....oh, never mind (and besides, they took Rod Stewart in to get his stomach pumped and then they scooped out the crazy abortion lady first anyway - bastards.)

Three more anecdotes to add to the 'denied sterilization' sub-topic.

1) My younger sister, had one child and damn near died delivering him. Asked for sterilization and was denied because she might change her mind. Got pregnant a second time, almost died three times carrying her and was on bed rest for I believe three months because the baby wasn't "attached" well (they were afraid the baby would fall out is how it was explained to me). Asked to be sterilized again, and was denied again!

2) My mother had three children back to back in a row, despite repeatedly requesting to be sterilized after the first one (she was in her 30's and didn't want to risk another surprise). Eventually she got them to see sense... after she stopped using the catholic run hospital in the area.

3) Sister of one of my brother in laws has been trying to get sterilized for 10 years now, and in spite of the fact that she's addicted to more substances than I can name (meth, crack, and alcohol are the three I know for sure... probably, almost certainly, there are others), in spite of the fact she has had 6 children by probably as many men (she doesn't actually know who any of the fathers are) all of which have been taken by the state and are being raised by her parents, and in spite of the fact that her parents are freaking loaded and are perfectly willing to pay it all up front in cash if need be... can't find a surgeon to do it. She might get cleaned up, meet a nice boy, and decide to be freaking June Cleaver after all.

*shrug* -- females really are just walking wombs in this country.
@53 yes, i did.

i'm lucky i had kaiser, i can't imagine my request having gone over well if i was going to 'sacred heart' ... or 'providence'. or 'emmanuel'. for obvious reasons.

i was discouraged in such feeble ways that i didn't consider it serious attempts, more of a litmus test of how determined and how aware i was of the permanence of the surgery. including a private meeting with the OB who would do the surgery, because he wanted to sniff out if there was a man behind my choice. (there was, though he was behind me in the sense, 'if that's what you want, i'm all for it.')

these roadblocks were minor and delivered more in a CYA manner. i was twenty-three.

so if anyone's having trouble getting a tubal they want, i recommend hitting up a kaiser OB.

and i second whoever it was that said having that done was a huge relief. it's been amazing, not to have to worry about that for so many years. it took (almost) all the threat of monthly panic away.

re: 'the woman fails the birth control' by Some Idiot Above, why is it that men don't fail at birth control, only women? fer fuck's sake. EVIL WIMMIN, they loves them some painful, expensive surgery! (wtf?) for whatever it's worth to you, and i'm sure it isn't much, one of the nurses on the surgery unit was careful to point out that even tubal ligation was NOT 100% effective. "why, there's a nurse right on this floor who had hers about 20 years ago and just got pregnant a few months back!" well, thanks for the warning. i'll just do the best i can, all right?
But abortion is just a woman's choice, and it's not a life ... just tissue. Why is there anything obscene about getting abortion after abortion? What, in the pro-choice moral framework, allows you to pass judgment on someone who uses abortion as birth control?
@20 re the many people waiting to adapt infants:
I'd suggest Dan's own memoir about adopting. White infants whose mothers behaved exemplarily during pregnancy, people want those babies. A woman who drank, took drugs, didn't eat right, even smoked, etc, because she didn't care about the resultant progeny? The lines eager to adopt those babies are short. Very short.

If you think someone is an irresponsible jerk, why would you want to force them to raise a child OR be responsible for a fetus's healthy development?
Many of Sullivan's correspondents have deeply moving stories, but I don't believe this story at all.
For those childfree people who are having problems getting a doctor to sterilize you: if you claim that you're already raising six step-children or your deadbeat sister's six kids, you're a lot more likely to get a sympathetic doctor. The doctor's not going to come to your home and verify this. Also, don't be snippy--pun intended-- when the doctor asks you what will happen if you change your mind about having children. The doctor is trying to avoid a lawsuit, so cut him/her some slack. The best answer to that question is a confident, "I'll adopt."

There's a female OB-GYN in Everett, Dr. Smith, who will do tubal ligations on childfree women. I don't recall her first name but she did/does the actual surgeries at Providence in Everett. There's also a Planned Parenthood on the south end that will do them; I'm pretty sure it's the Federal Way one. Dr. Mary Beth Whitman in Kirkland and Dr. Megan Kelly in Des Moines will also do them.
@90: I wonder why they haven't instituted some kind of medical waiver. It would take the pressure off a lot of poor doctors who have to deny services to so many women just because of a few suffering remorse.

Or hell, how about a waiting period? You have to book surgery months, maybe a year, in advance. Suffering 12 months for a lifetime of carefree sex (well, in terms of pregnancy anyway) is an acceptable compromise if it means more women can get what they want at all.
i think....
i love you?
So I got through comment 17 & 18, , both of which repeat one of the strangest, yet most oft-repeated lines of argument in these discussion that was also implicit in Dan's post; namely, that the abortion is, in a way, good for the baby, too, because of what a horrible life the baby would have once it was born (because of the horrible mother, or b/c of poverty, etc.)

The logic of this argument seems so patently twisted and absurd to me that it's hard to know where to begin, except to say that there cannot be any good or bad result for the baby, as the baby is now dead. Of course, inherently valuing death more than life might be the necessary premise upon which this argument could be logical. But, hey, why keep the hypothetical speculation about future misery and it's relationship to whether life's worth living to baby's in the womb -- how about adjudicating, say, whether the homeless or diseased or just plain dumb people in the world would benefit from being killed? I'm sure we all have a list at the top of our heads we could come up with...
The people who go on and on about giving a woman her reproductive choice must think babies just appear out of nowhere. After a half-dozen abortions would it be alright if the woman would CHOSE to stop having sex without birth control?
@ 93 you should really go back and read my other comment @ 48.

It is not inherent that these unwanted children will go onto have miserable lives, no, but it is most likely. Children are extremely intuitive. They know when they are not wanted and it is horrifying. Do you know how many of these children hate themselves for being angry with their parents? They hate their parents for not wanting them, for not loving them, they resort to things like self mutilation, drugs, alcoholism, promiscuous sex and even prostitution to punish themselves, to drown out their pain, to override their depression. Many of them do not want to live and they never grow out of that feeling. They don't value their own lives. They need help, if there is any to give. Had they not been born, as horrible is this might sound to you, they would never know this miserable life. The people that may or may not be attached to them now would not know them, remember them.

Also go back and read @88 adoption is not generally an option for these unfortunate souls.

Also note, that removing unwanted tissue from within your body is not killing anything. You need to remove this idea in your mind.

If you want to move onto our fucked up psychiatric and treatment centers in this world, our vengeance over treatment mentality, and the way that the system just dumps the mentally ill on our streets without a second thought, well that is an entirely separate issue which has nothing to do with this perfectly legal, safe procedure.
53 and 59, drive down to Portland, call the Lovejoy Surgicenter. They did my tubal when I was 22, no fuss. Best thing I ever did for myself.
I'm sort of shocked by the attitude of some of the pro-choice commenters. Surely people realise that, in an ideal world there would never, ever be abortions, because there would never, ever be unplanned pregnancies. Abortion is better than totally removing a woman's right to control her own body, but it's better in that it is the lesser of two evils. Just because something isn't the WORST option doesn't make it a good one, the fact that it isn't a good option is why there is something inherently sick-making about the idea of a woman who's willing to repeatedly, and instead of taking other measures, undergo invasive and potentially dangerous surgery as a form of birth-control. I am in the unfortunate position of knowing such a woman, she is 37 years old, schizophrenic and a heroin addict, and she has had around 29 abortions, because she believes other forms of birth control are evil. She is also the LAST person you would ever want carrying a child, so the fact that she does have access to these abortions is a good thing, but there is still something extremely off-putting about her illness and her total lack of responsibility, and regard for personal health.
I believe all women should have access to safe and legal abortions, but I also really hope for a day when sexual education and contraceptive technology have got us to the point where we no longer need them.
I wish I could still be shocked, 97, but I'm too jaded. I wonder if some of the abortion advocates posting these comments about the wretched unwanted children would go up to any adult who has lived through foster care (I have several friends) and say "you shouldn't have been born."

I got disenchanted with the "pro choice" movement when my birth mother (I am adopted) went to a "feminist" magazine with her story about how she had put me up for adpotion and was told by the publishers "we're pro-choice, not pro-adoption," which doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. When I had my own first pregnancy scare, I realized the strenth and courage my birth mother had to make her choice, and I decided any group of poeple who disparaged that could do without me.

What a lot of pro-choicers, even well intentioned ones, don't seem to realize, is that if a woman is poor and the father won't pay child support or she's working/in school and can't get daycare, what choice does she have? And if women are "choosing" to have abortions because there is no other choice, doesn't that mean there is something wrong?
And as long as the emphasis is on making abortions easier to get, the easier it is to say, "Why should we focus on fixing foster care, pushing employers to provide maternity leave/daycare etc. when all these women could just get abortions? "

Sure it doesn't help that there are a lot of batshit evangelical "pro-lifers" out there bombing abortion clinics and trying to make it illegal for unamrried women to get birth control. But somewhere amidst all the howling on both sides of the abortion debate we have lost what I think should be a basic truth: that abortion is an unnecessary tragedy that we should be focused on preventing, not promoting. When a woman has to "choose" between her own wellbeing and that of her child, something is wrong. And, while I think this particular story is bullshit, if there are women out there having repeated abortions, I think somebody should intervene. It's what we do with alcoholics and other people whose choices harm themselves and others, right?
@98: It's a great idea you're pushing, but fixing poverty is huge. Fixing domestic violence is huge. Fixing gender equality is huge and Jesus, so is fixing sex education (as evident in the discussions on Slog).

*Preventing* women from getting abortions isn't going to stop her husband from beating her, help her graduate from high school, or suddenly find her a job that pays a living wage. Nobody suggests that abortion *solves* any of these problems, and nobody suggests that by providing abortions, we think, "Aha! Now everything is OK." (Ok, there might be some people, but who says I agree with them?)

I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't necessarily make me part of any "group." Hell, I'm pro-adoption, rabidly so. And being pro-adoption -- as you say you are, if I read right -- doesn't necessarily mean I *want* children in the adoption system, any more than I *want* women to abort just because I'm pro-choice.

I wish there weren't any children in the adoption system at all, because a lot of children never get adopted and languish in crappy foster homes. But the fact is there are kids there, and there are more every day, and I want them to find loving homes. That's why I support adoption. It doesn't mean I support the problems that lead to it in the first place.

Likewise, plenty of commentators here have acknowledged that abortion is a last-ditch choice, a traumatic procedure, and an extremely difficult decision. Practically every other woman commenting has also emphasized the extreme caution they take in avoiding an unwanted pregnancy in the first place precisely they don't *want* to have to make the "choice." The idea any of them, in that way then, are "promoting" abortions does a massive disservice to them all.

"And as long as the emphasis is on making abortions easier to get, the easier it is to say, 'Why should we focus on fixing foster care, pushing employers to provide maternity leave/daycare etc. when all these women could just get abortions?'"

If that were true, employers would pay for your abortion. Hell, by that logic, they should pay for your birth control, since it's cheaper than an abortion and lets you stay on the job. Yet, from what I know, this isn't true for a lot of employed women.

I live in Toronto. I work for the government, but I'm on contract so I have no insurance. So now I buy my birth control from a women's health clinic. My co-worker, who moved from the other side of the country, told me she wasn't able to get cheap birth control from her local clinic because they only sold it to women under a particular age. She's freakin' 25.

You can try and tell me that it's in the best interests of employers and businesses to stop women from having children so they don't have to provide adequate mat leave or daycare, but I sure as hell don't see it.
98 - For many women abortion is not that bad and unwanted children have nothing to do with the decision. It is often about not wanting to be pregnant and give birth. And the kind of abortions Dr. Tiller frequently performed were necessary tragedies. Silly anecdotes about women having multiple abortions and third trimester abortions aside, women are their own moral agents and there is nothing wrong with thinking that an embryo is not a person. For these people “you should never have been born” is not much different than saying “you should never have been conceived”.