Archive for the ‘pregnancy’ Tag
Actually it more often hits at night, but it does indeed drag down the morning. It’s the same old thing, really. I just can’t get over the cruelty of forcing children to be born into a world that, by definition, doesn’t want them. Which means, of course, that they spend their first nine months housed in a uterus washed in stress hormones or other toxic pressures. Their lives from then on are not, by definition, predictably healthy. What can be predicted is that society will be paying the price in eighteen years or so for the damage done by the circumstances of their lives – very likely poverty. And the sad thing is, folks will blame it on the individuals instead of the system that created the problem in the first place.
And yes, my heart aches for the agony of women forced to suffer any number of possible agonies at the behest of politicians who have little or no understanding of the complexity and potential complications of pregnancy and birth. And for their families suffering the consequences. Beyond that, it horrifies me to see the movement toward branding women as criminals should circumstances lead them to avoid inappropriate pregnancies.
Is all this a variant on animal husbandry?
“I know it’s hard on a woman,” my acquaintance/friend said, “but I’m thinking of the baby who needs a chance to live.” “Funny thing,” I’m thinking. “Caring for the life of the potential baby/ child/ person is one of the most significant reasons from my point of view for leaving abortion decisions to the people and situation directly involved.” Forcing a child to be born into a situation of being unwanted is nothing short of child abuse that in the long term affects not only that particular individual, but the culture and government that will potentially be dealing with the consequences.
As my sister, the mother of two adopted boys, once said. “A baby is not a Lifesaver” and I would add that a woman’s womb is not just a warm, cuddly container. Okay, forget for the moment about the potential damage to the body that harbors the womb. Forget that part of the process is change to the immune system that prevents the expulsion of the zygote, embryo, fetus, with the potential for long-term effects on the mother’s health. Just focus on the damage to the well-being of the potential person being bathed in the stress hormones circulating via the mother’s blood stream and transmitted by the connecting placenta.
Or maybe the potential mother is sufficiently healthy and well supported that she manages to carry off a relatively stress-free pregnancy. Then the baby has lived for approximately nine months in a comfortable environment from which it is shockingly expelled at birth. Now here’s where we see a lovely diaper ad in which the baby is placed gently on the mother’s breast and, at the best, gazes lovingly into her eyes, drawing on the new source of comfort and support. But this is a baby who started out unwanted. For whatever reason it can’t remain there. Torn, or even gently removed, from that cozy place, it begins life in a condition of grief. And no, that baby is not unfeeling – that body memory will stay with him or her, maybe to be recalled years later in a deep therapy session but always, consciously remembered or not, to be a source of pain. No, a baby is not just a piece of candy to be passed around, no matter how caring adoptive caretakers may be. Have you noticed all the stories lately of adults seeking to learn more about their birth parents, longing for contact with that initial nine-month home?
“But unwanted babies can always be adopted” my acquaintance/friend claims. Really? Show me the evidence. But if that is the case, then the people who would force the birth of an unwanted child should be supporting massive research into the understanding and support of adoptive situations. Especially the adoption of babies with major, or even minor, birth anomalies calling for special care – often expensive. Or racially complex situations. Yes, I have read news stories of exceptionally loving and giving foster care or adoptive parents who have successfully pored love into the development of several children. They are in the news because, like all news, it is exceptional – out of the ordinary. As my sister said, “babies are not just Lifesavers.” Logic, even morality, would require that those who would ban abortion should be ready to support equally strict governmental legal and financial support to all involved.
I sometimes think that those who oppose abortion have in mind the vision of an attractive young woman in her early twenties who engaged in unprotected sex and now doesn’t feel up to devoting a life to the care of her love baby. Of course, I find myself confused when I say this because, as I understand it, those who fight to ban abortion would also ban contraception. Be that as it may, there are many reasons why people seek abortion. How about rape? Or family rape called “incest?” Not too nice for the child born with the genes of a rapist. Or youth — a young body not quite ready physiologically to sustain a pregnancy and birth and certainly without the wherewithal to commit to a lifetime of support? Or body anomalies that lead to a life of suffering? Or a family’s loss of a mother who dies in pregnancy or childbirth. Yes, that does happen. There are so many other reasons that a seasoned medical person could describe.
But at bottom lies poverty. It’s not the wealthy who will, in general, suffer under abortion bans. As my former husband used to say, “Money can buy anything.” And certainly it can buy an abortion. The fact is, those who suffer under abortion bans – in addition to medical practitioners who are not free to put care of their patients first – are those living in poverty.
Well now we’ve hit on the ways in which government could be helping to avoid the damage of abortion bans. If caring for the child is really at the root of such laws, then there will be active campaigning for that same government to support paid maternal medical care for all, extended parental leave, and family support to guarantee all families adequate healthy housing and provision of food. Plus full and expert mental health care for adults suffering the effects of being unwanted for one reason or another.
Exploring the issues related to abortion bans is not easy – much too complicated to be solved by decree. But there is one thing clear. Those who will suffer are babies born into a world that doesn’t want them. So back to my acquaintance/friend who feels sorry for the mothers but cares about the child. Are you willing to think again?
Every stage of my career has called for making complex things simple, but no matter how much sleep I lose, or how much thinking I do in between, or how much I focus on the issue when I do my daily half-hour walk, or how long I sit in front of the computer and try, there’s just no way I can make it simple. The killing of the right to abortion reaches into every aspect of life like athletesfoot creeping into the tissues. So I’ve decided to focus on just one piece of it, ignoring the women and their families who are impacted, the chipping away at freedom, the children who are threatened with the loss of a parent, the pain suffered by women denied palliative medication …. Nope, I’ll pretend the only thing that matters is that every zygote should be allowed to develop into an embryo, every embryo should be allowed to become a fetus, and every fetus should be allowed ultimately to be expelled from the uterus on its path to the outside world.
It seems to me that the first thing that matters is that the environment in which the development happens should approach an ideal if we want to reach our survival-to- birth goal. But there seems to be a problem when we look at the evidence.
“According to this year’s America’s Health Ranking Annual Report, the U.S. infant mortality rate is 5.9 deaths per 1,000 live infant births, while the average rate of infant mortality among the OECD countries is 3.9 deaths per 1,000 live births. Compared with other OECD countries, the U.S. ranks No. 33 out of 36 countries (Figure 62). Iceland is ranked No. 1 and has the lowest rate with 0.7 deaths per 1,000 live births. Mexico is ranked last with 12.1 deaths per 1,000 live births. New Hampshire and Vermont are tied for the top state in the U.S. with 3.9 deaths per 1,000 live births. These two neighboring states have achieved an infant mortality rate equal to the OECD average. As the bottom-ranked state, however, Mississippi has an infant mortality rate more than twice that of the OECD average at 8.9 deaths per 1,000 live births and internationally ranks below all but two of the OECD countries. Over the past 50 years, the decline in the U.S. infant mortality rate has not kept pace with that in other OECD countries. When examining sex- and age-adjusted infant mortality rates from 2001 to 2010, the U.S. rate was 75 percent higher than the average rate in 20 OECD comparable countries.” (Copied from the web.)
If you’re curious, OECD refers to “the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [which] is an international organization that promotes policies to improve the economic and social well-being of people worldwide” (Also copied from the web).
Since this kind of information is easily available for anyone dedicated to the “pro life” position, it’s obvious that the next step, after requiring every pregnant woman to give birth, is to press for the provision of ideal health care for pregnant (and potentially pregnant) women. That, it seems to me, would require lobbying on a federal level, or at the many state levels, for funding for universal maternal care.
Also, given that human infants are born helpless, requiring many years of care just to stay alive, one would assume that those who are pro the life of all fetuses would lobby to follow through with the project by funding parental leave for a sufficiently long period of time as well as providing perpetual support of the health of the parent(s)/caretakers with adequate insurance. And, of course, there would be the need for food and shelter throughout the years. That would require lobbying for sufficient affordable housing for all families as well as sufficient incomes to provide food and clothing.
I said I’d keep it simple. None of this says anything about the overall quality of life of the individuals as their lives develop. Just the basic demand that life be required.
There’s nothing so beautiful as a happy, thriving child. And nothing so sad as a child born into poverty, neglect, and even abuse. So why am I pro-choice?
#1. I am not in favor of condemning a child to misery and a tragic adulthood which might well ultimately negatively affect the surrounding society.
#2. The person carrying the embryo/fetus/ultimate child is not an empty box just carrying a load. That person is a host whose body functions change to supply the necessities for the potential life within. Indeed, the life within may cause severe health hazards for the bearer. Consider, for example this observation to be found on p. 43 of the September 2021 issue of the Scientific American.
Autoimmunity may be an unfortunate by-product of the
Complex immune response women need to bear children
And that’s not the only health danger — even to the point of death.
#3. The life of the pregnant one is every bit as important as that of the potential child. In fact, given life circumstances, may be many times more crucial to the goodness of life.
#4. For all these reasons the decision to birth a child is one that belongs to a woman, her doctor, her relationship to others, and her spiritual advisor.
No doubt there will be those who refuse to read Warren’s book believing that they already know what she will say and that they won’t like it. What a shame to miss out on this well-wrought memoir of a woman who has experienced so many of life’s contingencies. From impediments to education for reason of financial difficulties to creating a successful plan to accomplish the goal; from refusal of a place at the legal table for reason of gender to loss of a teaching job for reason of pregnancy. From almost making it to the presidential nomination to following through on plans through her position in the Senate. From recognizing (p. 167) that “You can’t fix a problem you can’t see,” through seeing the problem, proposing a plan, and acting on it.
If you are old enough to remember the days when you could be denied access to a job because of being a woman, or be removed from a teaching job so students won’t have to witness the “show” of your pregnancy, then you’ll get some of the “I’ve been there” feeling. Or maybe you’re young enough that you never had to imagine such a situation. Either way, you will be exposed to situations you will not experience. And one page will draw you on in fascination to the next. In other words, If this were a novel rather than a memoir there would be raves for a fascinating story .
monagustafsonaffinito 