Abortion Decisions Only Made Difficult By Anti Secular Attackers NOT Women

40

By Donald A Collins

 

Moving but far too slowly past the religious bugaboos of anti abortion stories and gay rights bashers, it is refreshing to read in the August 17th Washington Post, a splendid article entitled “Stop calling abortion a ‘difficult decision’”.

Since over 40 million abortions occur globally every year, abortions are not exactly rare events. However, before abortion became such a medically safe procedure if religious loonies hadn’t made obtaining one difficult for so many, it was often a very dangerous and needlessly expensive service to obtain, provided by poorly trained providers in unsanitary, clandestine settings.

In many jurisdictions here and overseas, abortions are still difficult to obtain. So from that standpoint abortion is too often “difficult”.

However, the author of “Stop calling…”, Janet Harris, president of Upstream Analysis, a news and social-media analysis firm, makes clear her position about what constitutes difficult. Her qualifications to comment are excellent: “She was previously the communications director of Emily’s List, a political action committee supporting Democratic pro-choice women running for office.”

Harris begins,

Planned Parenthood calls abortion “a difficult decision” in many of its consent forms and fact sheets. When NARAL launched a film on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2013, the president of the pro-choice organization called abortion “a difficult decision” women and couples face.

40 COMMENTS

  1. I once heard an argument that goes something like this. If you oppose a women’s right to choose, you are farming that women’s uterus. You are saying to the women, who doesn’t want the baby for whatever reason, even reasons of life and death or pregnancy by rape, that you are going to take over her uterus for 9 months, force her to carry a baby she does not want with all of the psychological trauma this will cause to the women, then force her to be responsible for this child till she dies. How is this any different from intensive pig farming.

    If your god tells you not to abort, then follow the maintenance manual. But don’t dare force your gods rules on anyone else, a god that probably does not exist. Arrogance in the extreme.

    Religion, like sex, should be practiced by consenting adults in private.

  2. Religion is the greatest obstacle to critical thinking, it must be removed for us to be free. (Of course we should use non-violent methods to remove it because we do not want to emulate the sadistic vile methods that religion has employed to punish rational people who reject religion.)

  3. On a site that recently hosted an argument that put moral pressure on women to terminate, it seems odd to single out religious arguments as being anti-choice.

    Abortion will almost always be a difficult decision, both emotionally and ethically, which is why it should be made by the woman, and people (men especially, but women too) who think they know better what she should do should keep their noses out.

    That includes “secularists”.

    • Robert Aug 27, 2014 at 6:55 am

      Abortion DOES involve a difficult decision. When women decide to abort, some other people have great difficulty coping with the fact.

      Yep! Like the father, or those (state/family etc) who may end up paying for the upbringing of the child – in circumstances lacking the resources to do so to decent standards.

  4. The old guy in the pic – ‘I’m pro-life’ – . Having surrendered his own life to ideas as fanciful as a Harry Potter book. Taken the most unnatural sexual stance possible by decommissioned his genitals ( at least as far as women are concerned). Has no idea of what a real job is like much less the vicissitudes of caring for a family full time. What kind of a life is he talking about? Suffering the good old catholic way.

    @Robert – well said!

  5. I absolutely agree with the article, everyone talking or writing about abortion uses the word or a phrase with the word “difficult” and I always feel the same uneasiness then. Maybe the circumstances are difficult for some women, but normally everyone has a clear opinion on whether being pro-abortion or “pro-life”. From the beginning I knew that I didn’t want children and I’ve never changed my mind, so abortion would have been my choice if necessary, so this is not generally a difficult decision, only religion makes it difficult.

    • Claudia Odile Aug 27, 2014 at 3:36 pm

      I absolutely agree with the article, everyone talking or writing about abortion uses the word or a phrase with the word “difficult” and I always feel the same uneasiness then.

      Frequently, in the case of anti-abortionists, it is a combination of wish-thinking that abortion SHOULD BE difficult, and campaigning to try to make it difficult.

      Maybe the circumstances are difficult for some women, but normally everyone has a clear opinion on whether being pro-abortion or “pro-life”.

      I think that is a false dichotomy.
      I don’t think many people are unconditionally “pro-abortion”! Most views include some medical ethics and regulation. – Particularly in relation to late abortions.

      but normally everyone has a clear opinion on whether being pro-abortion or “pro-life”.

      I’m not so sure on that!
      Many so-called “pro-life” anti-abortionists, have no idea about life, cells, zygotes blastocysts, spontaneous abortions, embryos, foetuses, natural miscarriages of deformed foetuses, responsible parent-hood, or medicine!
      They just have a chanting parrot mentality, spouting bigoted dogmas, which have been spoon-fed to them by the preachers, who provide pre-digested opinions to those lacking the mental capability to form their own!

      {How many times have we been told by the know-it-all, biologically illiterate, that fertilised eggs are human babies, or that they must be humans, because like every other cell (apart from sex cells), – contain a full set of human DNA?}

      http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

  6. I still don’t mean to offend and hope I can convey my thoughts here properly but I did hope that there would be more balance on this forum. I agree that abortion should be left to the individual but cannot accept so much animosity against those that don’t. Yes, perhaps they don’t understand the way you do but I am now imagining a future world where atheist rule and religious believers are persecuted and where women are forced not to terminate their pregnancy because logic demands it due to a population problem……..Maybe overdoing it a bit but????

    • Olgun Sep 15, 2014 at 9:14 am

      I still don’t mean to offend and hope I can convey my thoughts here properly but I did hope that there would be more balance on this forum. I agree that abortion should be left to the individual

      While decisions should largely take into account the wishes of individuals involved, there are in civilised countries laws and codes of medical ethics which give guidance on informed decision making.

      but cannot accept so much animosity against those that don’t.

      There is good reason for animosity against the bigoted ignorant trying or actually imposing their mindless dogmas on other people, where theocracies (like Ireland )enforce antisocial laws against those urgently needing abortions.

      Yes, perhaps they don’t understand the way you do but I am now imagining a future world where atheist rule and religious believers are persecuted

      The religious love to imagine they are being persecuted when their incompetent interference is kicked out of other people’s lives. There is no place for dogmatic ignorance in medical decision making, so they need to get over it!
      Anyone who does not know the difference between a zygote and a human being, is too bigoted or uneducated to have an opinion of ANY value on the subject!

      • Alan,

        I am on the last chapter of RDs “God Delusion” and my understanding is, and perhaps wrongly, that the human condition has to be taken into account and not just religion as a stand alone problem. He asks to study why we need religion. I cannot accept that educated people can excuse using the same methods as the uneducated as a means to an end. As humanists they must learn and understand the human condition and maybe accept, to a degree, because of their intelligence. It is hard not to be philosophical about the whole thing. That “clown” you guys labeled…. Perhaps by putting two discussions together…. You can imagine a Down’s syndrome face on him. Would you be as harsh? I see intelligence and understanding as an inseparable duo.

        • lgun Sep 15, 2014 at 10:29 am

          I am on the last chapter of RDs “God Delusion” and my understanding is, and perhaps wrongly, that the human condition has to be taken into account and not just religion as a stand alone problem.

          In the case of the “clown with the banner” religion IS the problem! He is wearing the uniform of a priest and waving a banner with a message of ignorance based dogma, which can cause some people real harm, while he is posing as an “authority figure”!

          Ignoramuses posing as expert authorities need to be mocked and debunked, if competent rational decisions are to be made in communities.

          He asks to study why we need religion. I cannot accept that educated people can excuse using the same methods as the uneducated as a means to an end. As humanists they must learn and understand the human condition and maybe accept, to a degree, because of their intelligence.

          All opinions are NOT equal!! – Recognising and understanding human ignorance and stupidity, is far from accepting its involvement in political decisions and law making!
          Where it can be practically done, worthless opinions of the assertive ignorant who use flawed thinking processes, can, and should be simply dismissed – as for example YECs are in in most UK schools!

          Only an idiot seeks or accepts medical advice from scientific illiterates who have no understanding of basic biology!

          • Mocked and debunked rather than argued against??? Isn’t that the same as waving my flag in your face as you wave yours. What intelligence does that require? RD mentions that the C of E ” clowns” were responsible for the downturn of religion in England, if I remember rightly. Should you mock or thank them? So religion is NOT the problem with the “clown” but his understanding and intelligence.

            Basic biology is one thing but complete understanding is another. I have my healthy doubts about everything.

          • You can’t have a reasonable debate with such people so “mocking and debunking” is the only reasonable course of action.

            The “waving my flag” analogy once again appeals to your invalid assumption, that Alan has already dismissed, that all opinions are equally worthy and should be treated with respect. (Even though those “opinions” have been shown to be patently absurd time and time again.)

          • I am sorry Alan but I have to be honest and say your “Sermons” are leaving me feeling no different to when I went to a very good friends daughters christening. It was my first and I expected a happy joyous event instead of being preached to for an hour and a half and told we were all sinners including the little child that was to be christened. I refused to shake his hand at the end of the service. Maybe we are not yet evolved enough to accept the layers of humanity but layers we have and probably always will have.

            Sedan

            I didn’t say they should be treated with respect in that they should be counted. Understood, analysed and understood again. Why not dismiss anyone of an IQ of less than ? Have a high council maybe? Give them a uniform? So many lines in the sand with barely a human footprint!!!

          • Olgun Sep 15, 2014 at 11:37 am

            Mocked and debunked rather than argued against??? Isn’t that the same as waving my flag in your face as you wave yours.

            When dealing with people who are not open to evidenced reasoning or expert advice. mocked and debunked is the appropriate response to their incompetent assertions. This is for the benefit of the audience and the people they are attempting to abuse. Psychological treatment for Dunning-Kruger stupid is a separate issue to the wider issue of the common good.

            What intelligence does that require?

            It require the intelligence and perception to recognise the potential outcome of any debate and the numbers of people likely to be persuaded to take evidence-based rational actions. As I said before, “All opinions are not equal”.

            So religion is NOT the problem with the “clown” but his understanding and intelligence.

            Religion IS the disability which is down-grading his clown-thinking processes, and retarding his capability to act in an intelligent manner.

            Basic biology is one thing but complete understanding is another.

            Science needs neither total knowledge nor “complete understanding”, to recognise the validity heavily researched and multiply confirmed information.
            Nor does it need “complete understanding of everything” to recognise those who have negligible understanding of even the basic issues. Anyone who preaches the against contraception on the basis of the “sanctity of eggs”, or against abortion on the basis of “the sanctity of zygotes” is simply an ignoramus and should no more be consulted as an expert witness on medical issues, than Flat Earthists should be consulted on GPS systems Mars probes!

            I have my healthy doubts about everything.

            Then you really need to brush up on evidenced science, which has established Laws and Theories to VERY HIGH levels of probability.

            Scientific definitions and objective records, are not subject to “reinterpretations” by ignoramuses choosing what they would like to believe!

          • Olgun Sep 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm

            I am sorry Alan but I have to be honest and say your “Sermons” are leaving me feeling no different to when I went to a very good friends daughters christening. It was my first and I expected a happy joyous event instead of being preached to for an hour and a half and told we were all sinners including the little child that was to be christened.

            That’s the nature of the religious ensnaring infants.

            Earlier this month, many members of my extended family and their work colleagues, met and attended my grand-daughter’s naming and introduction in an hotel suite.
            There were no religious features of the gathering and everyone arrived and left happy having had a nice buffet, a few drinks, and a grand reunion with many they had not seen for quite some time.

            I refused to shake his hand at the end of the service.
            Maybe we are not yet evolved enough to accept the layers of humanity but layers we have and probably always will have.

            Some have. Some have not!
            Communities run more happily if the religiously afflicted are not permitted to force their views on more rational people.

            The better features of the modern world run on scientific and technical knowledge along with ethical codes of conduct.
            Bronze-age faith-thinking has nothing to offer but the imaginary sin you recognised at the Christening!

          • I didn’t say they should be treated with respect in that they should
            be counted.

            Actually we should count “them.” If we’re doing our job right there should be fewer of “them” every year. However, if someone suggests they should be “counted” in that their opinion is equally valid, then that’s just ridiculous.

            Understood, analysed and understood again.

            Understood – check. Analyzed – check. Now what?

            Your argument appears to be that we should keep going over the same ground and same absurd arguments again and again. Absolutely not. Once “their” absurd opinion (e.g. earth 6000 years old, vaccines cause autism, …) is understood, analyzed and dismissed we move on. We don’t keep debating it over and over (and “counting” their opinion) until they are willing to bring new evidence to the table.

            Why not dismiss anyone of an IQ of less than ? … Give them a uniform?

            What does that mean? Once again you seem to be saying that everyone should be given an equal voice and an equal opportunity to present their views, regardless of qualifications or merit. Any moron or idiot may possibly come up with a useful idea or stumble upon the correct point of view, but they rarely do. The idea that every creationist should have an equal shot at debating Dawkins, or that Hilary Clinton needs to stand on a podium to discuss foreign affairs with Sarah Palin is absurd.

            What’s wrong with wearing a uniform? I fully support the idea that once someone has been demonstrated to be an obnoxious and persistent moron that they should be given a uniform so that people who are trying to have a productive debate will know to avoid them.

    • In an overpopulated world, one where the quality of life for all is diminished by adding more people, why should some people be exempt from laws that promote that quality of life simply because they have irrational beliefs and fears?

      However, “persecuted” is the wrong word. People will be able to believe whatever they want, up until the point it starts affecting the rest of us (e.g. by not getting vaccinated, bringing unwanted extra babies into the world, etc.).

      We don’t “persecute” people for larceny or fraud.

  7. Abortion will almost always be a difficult decision, both emotionally and ethically, which is why it should be made by the woman, and people (men especially, but women too) who think they know better what she should do should keep their noses out. ( Elizabeth )

    You’re carrying egotism to extreme lengths. Pro-choice accepts that the woman has the second last word. The doctors who agree that her decision is within the law and who agree to carry out the abortion have the very last word.

    When a woman makes a decision, let’s hope that she’s not utterly isolated. You would expect the father of the child to have a say — supportive we hope — but possibly not. Certainly, society will have a considerable say, in terms of public opinion and the law. In the Republic of Ireland, pro-lifers make abortion next to impossible. Across the Irish Sea, in England or Wales, she will most likely get her abortion

    • I too don’t buy into the whole fetishizing pregnant women (and mothers) idea that seems to be very popular (I’ve coopted the term ‘fetish’ in this context from someone else on this site).

      A woman/mother has no more rights than anyone else – she has complete and total decision making power over her own body and that’s it.

  8. The differences should be obvious.

    The pro-choice campaigns are about enabling people to make informed choices.

    The anti-abortion campaigns (misnamed pro-life rather than pro-ignorance), are about know-it-all deluded busy-bodies, denying other people the right to make their own decisions – or in some cases – even to seek competent medical advice.

  9. “When dealing with people who are not open to evidenced reasoning or expert advice. mocked and debunked is the appropriate response to their incompetent assertions. This is for the benefit of the audience and the people they are attempting to abuse.”

    Maybe its because I admit to being more in tune with the morons you are talking about (You don’t get too many intelligent conversations on a building site) that I know they will have to have a leap of faith to believe you as they would a preacher and that is why I am questioning your teaching skills. I can only imagine that if you were to be in control of the latest news of Scottish devolution a referendum would be out of the question :-)

    “The idea that every creationist should have an equal shot at debating Dawkins”

    Again…..I would rather a visit to the building site by you guys than the local vicar otherwise you are just preaching to the already converted.

  10. There is no need to question my teaching skills. I fully admit to being fundamentally unable to communicate with people who don’t see logic and reason and who don’t understand basic mathematics. More importantly, perhaps, is that I won’t lie to them or sugarcoat the truth: there is no afterlife, your life sucks, and there’s little you can do about it.

    I can prove that their opinions are invalid, but I almost certainly won’t be able to convince them of it. Perhaps that’s your job; to interpret what others have done in a way they can understand.

    • Actually, there’s far more to what goes on here (for example) than just “preaching to the converted.” It’s true that the posts in this forum are not likely to convert any of the devout, but it does show those who still have an open mind that there is another way, and it reassures those who have forsaken their superstitions that they are not alone.

        • You think it’s a waste of time; many disagree with you (including me).

          Satire and ridicule are very effective and time honored tools to discredit idiots and do a pretty decent job of “pulling the rug from under them.”

          Giving dangerous kooks such as the Westboro Baptist Church et al. respect and consideration legitimizes their position and gives support to their followers.

          • I’m beginning to think that all it does is give you satisfaction and nothing else. You want to dismiss them then argue with them and then you don’t. There was a train of thought that said ” if we give UKIP air time they will show themselves to be complete idiots”. They are now idiots with clout and votes.

      • It is our duty to be all things to all people? How about you affect change your way and I’ll do it mine.

        As Alan said in another post, there is no single cure for this disease and there is no reason why it can’t be tackled in different ways by different people on different fronts.

        • I am sorry but I find it difficult to endorse and effect any change to a movement that shows no rounded understanding on human need. I would no sooner go to a doctor that has no bedside manner and shows no regard for my mental health as he does for my physical health. I got rid of a doctor just like that a few years ago. It seems it is a discussion being had in the profession as we speak.

          • Sorry, but you are looking for a religion.

            Neither secularism nor atheism is going to give you a single philosophy that will answer all your questions and solve all your problems and try to fill all your “human needs.”

            If you want someone to coddle you and tell you everything will be alright you might be able to find secular organizations or benevolent atheists to help you.

            The analogy to medicine would be if you rejected all modern medicine just because you didn’t like the manner of a single doctor. The medicine still works whether or not it is delivered in a manner that suits you personally. So just find a doctor your like and let others do the same.

  11. Sorry, but you are looking for a religion

    I see it as quite the opposite Sedan. I see you in the religious role dogmatically telling me the rules of atheism and how anyone that doesn’t agree is the “devil”. I have an elderly Irish friend who does impersonations of the priests who tortured him through his childhood. If I add an Irish accent to your words there seems to be little difference……. But now I have gone to a place I didn’t want to go to and you did confess to not getting on with people who didn’t understand you so I should, in theory, understand. Twelve hail Marys and a packet of pork scratchings before bed I think.

Leave a Reply