Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

In Med Schools, the Abortion Curriculum Has Left the Classroom

By Louisa Pyle, RH Reality Check. Posted April 15, 2008.


In a sane world, abortion would be included in medical school curriculum where appropriate, just like any other common, safe procedure.
04mwl228at
ms4c
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Originally posted at RH Reality Check.

As recently as six or seven years ago, abortion was included in my medical school's curriculum, but no longer. The comprehensive curriculum I naively expected that would provide medical students with the knowledge to meet the common needs of their female patients simply does not exist. At a party last weekend I asked a few second years, four twenty-three-year-old men, to report back to me if they hear the "A" word at any time this semester. They gleefully dubbed themselves the "Medical Student Moles for Choice." Abortion is a shadow that wisps in and out of medicine, much like the quiet shadow of abortion in many women's lives, not addressed directly, not discussed in coffee shops or over family dinner.

Medical school is, in many ways, a language school. Someone told me once that a medical student learns over 20,000 new words in their first two years of school, and in addition to the new vocabulary, I soon became capable of saying things over dinner that one should never say. "Rectum" no longer induces giggles and "vagina" is boring, not sexy or empowering. And yet, the word "abortion" is still said with a pause, a nod, a little quieter than the rest of the sentence. I'm happy when we talk about it at all: for me, the problem is the deafening silence. That a procedure more common than an appendectomy would never be named: In the halls of science and healthcare, that to me is an abomination.

At one time at my medical school, a state institution of strong reputation in the Deep South, the physician responsible for the classroom teaching in women's reproductive health, "Dr. L," included a full hour lecture on the medicine and science of abortion care in the OB/Gyn curriculum. She included her own stories of patients, the hooks on which we medical students hang all this physiology and chemistry in our overtaxed memories. Even so, the students of this relatively conservative locale responded with powerfully reproachful marks on the course feedback forms. As student feedback influences not only the next year's teaching of any course but also the tenure and performance assessment of the teachers, physicians, themselves, Dr. L. was forced to remove the lecture. During the following few years, including my turn with her, she managed to sneak in ten minutes on abortion safety when discussing contraception. "Abortion is safe," was the message I heard, "but if you have a problem with it, you better be sure you know how to offer your patients appropriate birth control."

The real blow didn't come until the following year. Dr. L. moved on to another institution. With her went any mention of the science and medicine of abortion; the ethics class debate on the subject remains. This is how abortion education disappears from our medical schools - subtly and quietly. The students come and go, teaching physicians come and go, and few of us notice this loss from the classroom, the laboratory, the hospital room.

Is it hopeless? Of course not. I have a dream curriculum, and I believe it can be attained. Including questions on abortion and other aspects of comprehensive reproductive healthcare in national medical board exams would re-enforce to medical schools that the subject should and must be taught. Recommended curricula from professional bodies like ACOG (the American College of OB/Gyns) could encourage directors of curricula at both the medical school and residency level to include abortion care requirements. Specific line item requirements from the national accreditation bodies could remind medical school deans every eight years that abortion is part of normal medical care. Until that day comes, with the support of Medical Students for Choice, we students will continue to fight for our own education. At the University of Alabama at Birmingham, we've invited abortion providers to talk with us about their careers and to teach us about the practicalities of the abortion procedure and running a practice, shadowed providers at a local clinic, and lobbied the administration for permanent, sustainable curricular change.

And what kind of curricular change would we endorse? No medical student can expect to graduate proficient in any single surgical technique, including abortion. But medical schools do spend four years preparing us to do anything in medicine, and preparation requires at minimum that one can say the word. The ethics of abortion can be discussed. Along with lectures on infertility and ovarian cancer, there would be lectures on the medical facts, the evidence-based medicine, of abortion. Specific training would be required on options counseling, just as we learn specific phrasing for eliciting a sexual history, or helping a patient quit smoking. The pharmacology of mifepristone (medical abortion), Plan B, and hormonal contraceptives would be used to help students understand the complexity of hormonal changes that result in the menstrual cycle. Electives would be available in the history of women's reproductive control, family planning, and abortion. And lastly, as part of the OB/Gyn rotation completed by every medical student, they would observe an abortion (with an opt-out option only), just as they observe birth, assist in C-sections, and perform routine Pap smears. This is the reproductive health curriculum I dream of at night, where students who do not wish to comprehensively serve their patients are forced to defend their position. Quite simply, this is a curriculum where abortion is included where appropriate, just like any other common, safe procedure.

Medicine today is "evidence-based." Treatments must be proven, tested, and extensively evaluated -- the application of the scientific method for the benefit of consumers of medicine. In this way we protect our patients from damaging or unproven treatments. But in my medical school experience, it is very specifically the evidence surrounding abortion care that is omitted. We would like to think that medicine is a special place, constituted exclusively with those passionate about healing, not judging. The fact is, medicine is a community of human beings, every member carrying their own perspectives and prejudices. Our lack of abortion education has little to do with the choice of institution, or location, and everything to do with the universal issues of politics and fear.

Every activist for choice faces possible retaliation and danger; it is a risk we know well. In medicine, however, a relatively benign level of sidelining can suddenly block a physician, or nurse, or any healthcare provider from the community altogether. Without sanction from the professional field, in the form of a practice license, or training opportunity, or job, we cannot offer ourselves to the women and families we are here to serve. By nature an outspoken person, I sometimes now choose silence myself, thinking to the far-flung future, and my someday patients. Sometimes, without the support I get from my fellow students through Medical Students for Choice, I suspect my anxiety would win and I would never speak up at all.

I'm listening to Ani DiFranco's "Hello Birmingham." The song is for me a sort of lullaby, sung from the city of Buffalo to my city, Birmingham, recognizing the anti-choice violence survived by both cities. I listen to it when I'm angry, or moreover, when I need to remember to be angry. I turn it on when I find myself becoming numb to the norms of silence and misinformation. Sometimes, I turn it on when I get afraid, when I wonder if someone has me on a hit list. Would they even bother? I'm only a student. I have not yet performed an abortion, not yet had the chance to walk away from a day's work knowing I have changed someone's life, gave them myself, my hands, my years of training, as the tool they need to empower themselves, take back their control, perhaps just begin to unravel this one moment in their life. I cannot imagine any greater privilege.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion, healthcare, reproductive justice, medical students for choi

Louisa Pyle is the President of Medical Students for Choice, a bi-national grassroots nonprofit organization that focuses on creating tomorrow's abortion providers and pro-choice physicians by improving reproductive education in medical schools.

Her day job is as an MD and PhD student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Abortion...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Apr 15, 2008 2:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no need to be so disturbed by the lack of 'abortion' since any med student worth his or her salt will ask questions or learn more on their own, not to mention there is so much to cover in a med school curriculum, you'd have to be pretty weak to knee-jerk over it.

Abortion is not exactly cutting edge medicine, the reason the medical profession see's abortion is largely a matter of irresponsible people.

The fact that women keep harping about abortion is evidence of these women's stupidity (not to damn all of you women ou there), why oh why would you even have unprotected sex if it was going to lead to fertilizaton of an egg? Abortion in trying circumstances or by accident is valid, using it as a form of birth control is not.

Whenever I hear abortion I think: Are there not greater problems in this world then the killing of unformed human beings by irresponsible people? And lets be frank, everyone who is a human being is a fully developed end result of the embryo.

I'm neither pro life, nor pro abortion, since the issue is more complex then for or against, would you want to have been aborted your only chance at conscious existence?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Abortion... Posted by: bouyant
» RE: Abortion... Posted by: Smartcookie
» RE: Abortion... Posted by: e rice
» RE: Abortion... Posted by: Smartcookie
» RE: Abortion... Posted by: penstamen
» RE: Abortion... Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Abortion... Posted by: marilee
» RE: Abortion... Posted by: hugh7
» Give me a break! Posted by: J_Mo
» RE: Give me a break! Posted by: J_Mo
The Alternative is Ugly
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Apr 15, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we're going to take safe, professional abortion out of the curriculum, we'd better replace teaching about this relatively simple procedure with lots of lectures about diagnosis, intensive care and surgery for women with ruptured uteruses, punctured bowels and septic shock. In the pre-Roe days the abortion rate was as high as now, but the complications were much higher because desperate women were forced to use back-alley quacks instead of qualified specialists.

The radical right does not care that outlawing abortion will not decrease the rate, nor that it will imperil the lives and health of millions of women. They'd rather be self-rightous than right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Alternative is Ugly Posted by: e rice
» No, it's not repeated.... Posted by: morticia
En-Darkenment
Posted by: talkville on Apr 15, 2008 3:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Word "Abortion" has a long and twisting etymology winding all the way back to Greco-Latin times.

For the medical practice and procedure as part of a general curriculum in the training of medical workers to be relegated to "self-teaching" and "back-room" brushing up, is but an indictment of the sorry state of what goes under the general term "Academia". Especially in these days of Form and Values, when those who feel Guilty about "eating from the tree of Knowledge" and resist it in so many ways, it's nothing short of a travesty that institutions bearing the name "Medical School" are succumbing to these same guilts. Not only can knowledge and understanding and the search for truth be gained; it can also be lost, and in surprisingly short generational time.

Those who long for that "Lost Innocence" and a return to some Eden prior to ingestion of the Apple have gained much ground. Even in the Academy (which, we must remember, emerged and formed itself out of those medieval cloisters and monasteries of long ago named "Universities". Perhaps the Academy is "returning to its roots"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: jnelson4765 on Apr 15, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Abortion is a hard thing to go through, but having caring professionals who can help women through a hard choice is absolutely necessary. It's heartening to see that there are people coming through school with the courage to provide these procedures, and honest counselling.

I had not known that the teaching of abortion is being silenced in medical schools - that is a distressing trend. I only hope that you and yours manage to stop that before there is no place to get an abortion because no one knows how to do it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Thank you Posted by: Vik
» RE: Thank you Posted by: e rice
What? You Don"t Feel The Love Of Christ?
Posted by: LMNOP on Apr 15, 2008 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like institutionalized homophobia, his is just another glaring example of the price that all of us pay for the privilege of living among Christians.

Christianity is like a cancer on this government, and the abortion issue is just another metastasis, like the ban on stem-cell research and equal rights for homosexuals. People need to learn that even if most rank-and-file Christians are nice, Christianity is not; That it is anti-freedom, anti-democracy, anti-woman and anti-human; that it will work continually and tirelessly to thwart freedoms and democratic principles, and impose theocracy on them in its place because it is committed to expunging the freedoms and rights people have claimed for themselves and imposing its own order, which it claims is divine in origin, but is, of course, nothing more than the ancient older that we have spent millennia trying to overthrow; that it is diametrically opposed to democratic power structures, preferring instead authoritarian regimes (God doesn't ask questions or count hands); that it seeks to demean man, who Christianity calls a wretched sinner, and his ideas; that it violently opposes humanism and individualism, proclaiming that man is incapable of contributing anything of value to the world of ideas and is lost without external constraints, which are strictly the providence of the deity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I ALMOST had one. Posted by: J_Mo
» RE: cancer? Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: actions or words? Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: actions or words? Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: actions or words? Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» I was raised Catholic. Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» "Did you ever think..." Posted by: J_Mo
» RE: actions or words? Posted by: JimmyVaughan
It's all about
Posted by: Marlena on Apr 15, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
males controlling female sexuality. Always has been. Ever see "anti abortionists"?? most of them are male...and its males who have fought against it for centuries....i guess a lot of them still believe in the "sacred and holy sperm" and that harming it once its implanted in an egg is tantamount to killing god. The main reason for the witch killings was to get rid of the wise women, who know how to prevent or end pregnancy...cant let women have that kind of control over their body's. So the anti female misogynists are nothing new, we have had them around for thousands of years. These people are extremely anti democratic, and such people hate America with a passion

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's all about Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» Hey Jimmy Posted by: LMNOP
» Pfeiffer, my friend Posted by: LMNOP
» More on morality Posted by: LMNOP
» how dare you? Posted by: e rice
» They Know About It Posted by: Arlene
» RE: It's all about Posted by: opalescentscales
» RE: It's all about Posted by: Crazy H
Right-wing, theocratic legislation endangers young women's lives
Posted by: JimmyVaughan on Apr 15, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly, making abortion illegal, except when a woman's life is threatened, does not protect women or their lives. Ominously, today 43 states restrict a young woman's access to abortion by mandating parental consent.

Back alley abortions are potentially deadly. Many women who went to illegal abortionists were often blindfolded and had abortions under conditions of extreme secrecy. Many women who braved these "procedures" survived, but some died and many more were seriously injured.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, many hospitals had separate abortion wards for women bleeding, injured and infected due to illegal abortions. Tragically, many of these women had tried to abort by themselves.

According to the US government's own data, deaths due to illegal abortion approached 50 percent of the nation's total maternal mortality.

Abortions performed by well-trained physicians in sterile environments are extremely safe. After abortion was legalized in the United States, maternal mortality rates fell dramatically. Miraculously, hospital abortion wards closed because they were empty.

Insane legislation crafted by right-wing ideologues and theocrats restrict young women's access to abortion: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Obviously, right-wing ideologues have taken it upon themselves to place our daughter's in danger--they care not one iota who they harm as long as they are allowed to shove their "morality" down the collective throat's of the remainder of the nation.

And now right-wing crackpots and bible-thumping authoritarians work endlessly to inject their poison into our nation's medical schools; further endangering our daughter's lives as a consequence.

My question is simple: When will We The People enforce--by violence, if necessary--the separation of church and state granted to each and every one of us by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Clearly, our daughter's deserve no less, and we fail them--not to mention endanger their lives--as long as we allow right-wing, theocratic bullies to poison our laws with legislation designed to "regulate morality."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hey now Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: not a religious issue Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: not a religious issue Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: not a religious issue Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: not a religious issue Posted by: Crazy H
» reading your posts Posted by: goatini
» oh please, this is laughable Posted by: goatini
» RE: not a religious issue Posted by: wireup
» RE: not a religious issue Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: not a religious issue Posted by: e rice
» my own little fan club Posted by: e rice
» No! Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: No! Posted by: e rice
» i just had a better idea Posted by: e rice
» "OK Wireup, thanks.... Posted by: goatini
» how very interesting Posted by: goatini
Tomorrow's abortion providers...
Posted by: morticia on Apr 15, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...if Roe v. Wade is overturned won't let a lack of medical training impede them! It'll be a reprise of a great entrepreneurial era when anyone with a nerve and a knack could step up and go into biz for him/herself without pesky and expensive training, licensing, regulations or oversight!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: "...common, safe procedure..."
Posted by: JimmyVaughan on Apr 15, 2008 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"demand for abortion is at its lowest point since the early 90's, despite all of the efforts by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW to legitimize it, and to silence the opposing voices by invoking RICO statute and civil lawsuit"

You've glossed over the reality of the situation. No one knows why abortion rates have fallen since 1990. What we do know is that close to half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and 40% of those end in abortion. The U.S. still has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the developed world--nearly twice as high as England and Canada, eight times as high as the Netherlands and Japan--and in December 2008, the Centers for Disease Control reported that the teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years.

In fact, it appears that America is beginning another baby boom. And the statistics support my assertion. The U.S. now has a higher fertility rate than most industrialized countries, and the 4.3 million births recorded in 2006 was the most since 1961. Obviously, this higher fertility rate will result in an increase in abortions owing to the inherent potential danger pregnancy imposes upon women.

Clearly, the radical right-wing of the Catholic Church constitutes a grave danger to all women who require an abortion, whether the need arises from medical necessity or not.

An example of radical right-wing Catholic influenced legislation can be found in South Dakota where the Republican-controlled legislature created sweeping new laws banning abortion in the state which also protects rapists' rights. Now, men who impregnate girls or women against their will--even fathers who rape their daughters--are almost guaranteed to become dads.

This is insanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Under what circumstances.... Posted by: morticia
» okay, it's a Posted by: goatini
» RE: Goatini is ignoring the post Posted by: opalescentscales
» Hey! Again! Yo! Over here! Posted by: morticia
» RE: OK Posted by: morticia
You want to stop abortions? Then provide birth control!!!
Posted by: wireup on Apr 15, 2008 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You want to stop abortion? Then provide birth control. Or don't you believe in that either? Are you one of those who has a hang-up about his sperm being spilled?

In all your nonsense prattling about "pro-life" - a misnomer if ever there was one! - unless it has escaped me, you have not said ONE word about BIRTH CONTROL.

Give us a good, effective, inexpensive, easily accessible method of birth control and abortion will be most likely be a thing of the past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» Never agree with me? Posted by: morticia
No judge, no jury, no trial, no appeal, just a swift execution.
Posted by: SD on Apr 15, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent post! I know that virtually all of the people who read AlterNet are "pro-choice," but I would like to challenge you by presenting another view.

First, I'll point out the obvious: Approximately one-half of the people who enter an abortion clinic don't leave alive. And it isn't by their choice. For the fetus, there is no judge, no jury, no trial, no appeal, just a swift execution. In the US, that wouldn't be allowed even for someone accused of the most heinous crime. Why is it allowed for an innocent fetus? For the convenience/mental health/well being of the mother?!?!

I am "pro-choice," too. We women have the choice whether or not to become sexually active, whether or not to use contraceptives (and if so, what kind of contraceptives to use), if a woman becomes pregnant she has the choice to raise her child or place him/her for adoption (and if so, open or closed adoption)... There are LOTS of choices. But killing your own unborn baby is NOT a legitimate choice. It should be a crime.

A fetus is a human, and if it (he/she) doesn't die a baby is born... Pregnant women who want to have a baby say "I'm going to have a baby," "I felt the baby kick," etc. Deep down, we all know it is a real person. We shouldn't try to use clinical terms like "embryo" and "fetus" (or misleading terms like "clump of cells") to convince ourselves that we are not talking about a human life. Embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, adolescent,... these are just stages of development that humans go through if we don't die. Think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: prosecute, not persecute Posted by: morticia
» RE: prosecute, not persecute Posted by: morticia
» RE: prosecute, not persecute Posted by: morticia
» See "keep talking" post below Posted by: morticia
» Okay. Review your... Posted by: morticia
» Yikes Posted by: LMNOP
RE: "...common, safe procedure..."
Posted by: J_Mo on Apr 19, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, I prefer the term, "termination." That keeps it clinical--which it is.

Entirely clinical.

~J-Mo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abortion
Posted by: bettyn on Apr 15, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the goverment forcing women to bring to term babies with severe birth defects (that will render such children helpless for their entire lives)by essentially outlawing abortions of any kind; said government should PAY 100% of the care of these unfortunate children for however long they happen to live.

Also, the same terms apply if the mother dies during childbirth: 100% care by the feds if the baby lives, and a huge settlement of no less than one million dollars per child if the family has other children who must grow up with-out her. Her widower gets a million also.

Finally, no DEATH PENALTY, period. Enough is enough. Once the fat cats start getting pinched for the taxes THIS law would require, we'll stop hearing about "outlawing abortion".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So..... Posted by: morticia
» RE: You're OK with this? Posted by: morticia
» RE: thank you Posted by: morticia
» RE: please, keep talking Posted by: morticia
» RE: please, keep talking Posted by: morticia
» RE: please, keep talking Posted by: morticia
» RE: please, keep talking Posted by: morticia
» Cont'd... Posted by: morticia
» Cont'd... Posted by: morticia
» RE: HEY Morticia over here Posted by: morticia
» RE: HEY Morticia over here Posted by: morticia
» Hey, SD... Posted by: morticia
» RE: Hey, SD... Posted by: morticia
look beyond abortion
Posted by: anna v on Apr 15, 2008 2:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it comes to federal money (title X ) why don't you do your research. Planned Parenthood does much more than abortions. they provide cancer screening (Pap tests and Mammograms) for low income women. Would you rather have those women die of cancer??? They also provide reproductive education to young people, provide free birth control to women and much much more. So before you start harping about where your tax money is going, try to get ALL the facts about this organization

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Basis Of This Pseudo Moral Outrage Concerning Abortion
Posted by: LMNOP on Apr 15, 2008 4:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This objection to abortion on moral grounds by the religions is obviously a contrived and taught position, not a natural and organic moral inclination. If it were natural, there would be widespread support for the anti-choice position from all walks of life, including secular contingents like atheists, agnostics, and other free thinkers. After all, all of those groups share with Christians a moral indignation directed at those who steal, lie, torture and kill in rage. Those are organic moral positions that come from within.

But why is it that only the religious are apparently appalled by abortion? Because it is an indoctrination. You have to go to church and be taught that one. That’s the evidence that this objection to abortion is not an intuitive or natural moral position. If this was a natural, organic revulsion rather than a learned response, we might expect to see plenty of atheists and agnostics angrily protesting at abortion clinics. But we don’t.

Yet the religious expect the secular to be offended by the very thought of abortion without that church indoctrination, and act appalled at us when we are not.

Likewise with suicide and assisted suicide. Not every secular person wishes to avail himself of the option of choosing his own time, place and method of dying, and many of us are concerned that the practice not be used as a screen for euthanasia and murder. That is a valid concern. But only the faithful object to the practice on principle, even when done as intended: only on clear-thinking volunteers. And they expect the rest of us to share that moral judgment even before having the church software downloaded into us, as if it derives from the conscience and not the church.

Likewise again with stem cell research. All thinking people are concerned that this field be approached with thoughtfulness and care, and we recognize in a natural and unforced way that there is the possibility of immoral behavior and tragic outcomes here. But only the faithful object to the pursuit of the subject as immoral out of hand at any level and regardless of outcomes. Only the faithful have declared stem cell research innately immoral. And that, like all other issues already discussed is why the argument from immorality should be considered contrived and invalid.

Morality comes from within, and valid public ethos derives from the consensus of the consciences of all sincere and thoughtful citizens, not just those allegedly receiving instructions from some unseen sky presence as interpreted by a handful of self-serving power brokers known to be more interested in obtaining, concentrating and consolidating power and wealth than right and wrong or the good of humanity.

How about the contrived outrage over being genetically related to apes? Why does that offend only Christians and other authoritarian theists? It’s rather interesting that almost nobody objects to the idea that he or she is a descendent of subhuman primates except for the faithful. What’s so offensive about chimpanzees, for example, and why only to the faithful?

Interestingly, those same people don’t take offense at the assertion that they derive directly and immediately from babies, who are as different from adult humans as simians, and are equally inferior to us if not more so. Is it any more natural to object to be a descendant of an ape than to be a former baby? No.

The moral outrage over the Big Bang, Darwinism, abortion, assisted suicide and stem cell research are all contrived and then indoctrinated to maintain allegiance to the church in the face of various issues that it sees as a threat to its control of people. And that very fact both explains why only the faithful hold these positions and why they’re invalid as moral arguments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Outstanding comment! Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: Outstanding comment! Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Outstanding comment! Posted by: whitechocolate
Abortion will NOT end if it is made illegal - Don't you get it?
Posted by: wireup on Apr 15, 2008 9:47 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What seems to have escaped - ONCE AGAIN! - the anti-choice people is that if you again outlaw abortion, you will not END abortion.

Don't you get it? Are you so DENSE that you refuse to understand this?

Apparently so. Therefore, let me repeat it again.

What seems to have escaped - ONCE AGAIN! - the anti-choice people is that if you again outlaw abortion, you will not END abortion.

With abortion legalized, we have access to a safe medical procedure. We will not lose our lives by trying to abort by ourselves or going to back-alley abortionists.

I remember - even if you don't - what it was like before Roe v. Wade. And if we again criminalize abortion, we will return to that horrible era. Women will die, once again.

Is this what you anti-choice people want? Yes, I guess it is what you want.

Throughout history women have ALWAYS used abortion - whether you like it or not.

It's really none of your business what a woman does with her own body. IT'S NOT YOUR GOD-DAMNED BODY.

So kindly keep your miserable hands to yourself and leave us alone.

If you want to TRULY do something positive for once in your lives, then work on finding a good, inexpensive, effective, easily accessible method of birth control.

Do this and you will eliminate the problem that you PRETEND to be SO concerned about, when we all REALLY understand that what you TRULY care about is controlling women.

CONTROL OF WOMEN is the TRUE issue here, not abortion.

Acknowledge that and then we have some common ground, we can talk. But as long as you PRETEND to care - when you don't really - and as long as you insist on forcing your will on us and telling us what to do with our bodies, then we have NOTHING to discuss with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» SD, a question for you: Posted by: morticia
» Yup Posted by: JimmyVaughan
» RE: Yup Posted by: e rice
Many females these days are not mature enough to be mothers
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 15, 2008 11:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wiredup - "CONTROL OF WOMEN is the TRUE issue here, not abortion." ARE YOU SERIOUS ! and by whom.

I suggest you look very hard at your own controlling leaders who have a serious issue with birth, males and children period !

As for the ROE v WADE issue I refer to my comment at http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/74773/

While your point about abortion being historically a social tool is correct. It was often expected, after all if you birthed a critter instead of a child. Everyone looked the other way as you did the right thing, if you weren't then certainly the doctor did or one of the community elders. If you were raped or subject to abuse by the landed gentry, your local drunk or whatever. You saw the wise old lady who would instruct you on how to take care of business. If you were a conquering warrior, you'd take away the good stock of unpregnant women, mutilate and kill the pregnant. All this after you had killed every single male you could find. So what is new, in your opinion. We do it today just as we did then. So does making abortion illegal change any of your premises, we have laws, and we have rules. Follow them, as even overturning ROE will not affect a womans right to terminate a pregnancy for the right reasons.
Sure your average Jane who drops her clats at the nearest sign of a bit of fun, may regret her choices and may well end up at your local butchers. But consider that women are well catered for financially under family law, providing they choose their sex encounters wisely. Better yet if you would consider abortion as part of your gneral vocabulary, don't hesitate to get a permenant fix before you go out there creating zygotes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From a med student:
Posted by: makeadifference on Apr 16, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I forwarded this article to a med student doing their residency in London. Following is the response:

"I find it appalling that medical schools in the states arent even teaching let alone mentioning abortion practices!

Here in London, we do learn all about the different ways of giving an abortion...medical (drugs), surgical, and both medical and surgical combined.

I have even seen an abortion of twins in one lady who had already had 3 kids and could not handle the thought of caring for 2 more...financially and emotionally. It was actually an amazing experience because after the surgical abortion the surgeon and I had to sift through the placenta etc. to ensure that we had all body parts from each fetus so that the mother would not get a uterine infection later. In my opinon, it was a very neat thing to be able to see the 16 week old fetuses.

The only thing is, that here in London (UK) the rule is that you can't have an abortion if its over 24 weeks gestation, unless there is a risk to the mother or baby (like a congenital anomaly)...so if the mother wants an abortion they must decide before 24 weeks. Which is fair enough.

Im glad I am getting my medical school teaching over here..."

If the American 'sheeple' don't do something to preserve their "individual" rights you will see pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control, geriatric conditions, STD's, AIDS, etc. You will also have doctors who disprove of an individuals life style and refuse to provide care for an AIDS or STD patient. They might even choose to mistreat and be guilty of malpractice. We shouldn't provide medical licenses to individuals that cannot put their personal beliefs aside for the welfare of their patient(s).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: From a med student: Posted by: e rice
» RE: "detachment"? Posted by: e rice
» RE: "detachment"? Posted by: Rishy
» RE: "detachment"? Posted by: e rice
RH
Posted by: 8 nontheist on Apr 16, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw the letters RH in your blog. I did a search via Google & wikipedia. As you can guess-I found nothing about your publication, organizatin or the meaning of RH.
Could you send me an e-mail to gzyzkrys@verizon.net so I can learn of your publication RH(?), your organization RH & the meaning of RH. Is RH an indication that a person with an RH has a unique qualification to discuss RH & counsel lay people about RH (Similar to a nurse being an RN or an x-ray technician being an RT)?
I've been interested in RH since I found that 1 of my aunts died of a botched abortion in 1940. A couple of my aunts had abortions after WW II. They survived & had more healthy children. Having an abortion or performing an abortion was illegal at that time. It was an open secret that a woman could get an abortion in a US hospital under the guise of having a D & C.
OK, cut to 2008- from time to time abortion foes have picketd hospitals or clinics which do abortions. I've been pro-choice since I was a teen ager. That meant that I always used condoms when I had sex. I didn't have sex without a condum till I was sure that my partner was using bc pills, the coil, etc till I was ready to father children. It takes a lot of money to raise a child. I have 4 grown sons.
I worry when a woman's right to have an abortion is restricted. I think of my aunt who died from a botched abortion. Thinking of a woman dying from a botched abortion or bearing an unwanted child is un-American & uncivilized. Enough of preaching to the choir.

I should be grateful if you answered my questions via E-mail. Thank you,
larry lynch

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» rh = reproductive health Posted by: undrgrndgirl
"Pro-Life" = Anti-Woman
Posted by: wireup on Apr 16, 2008 5:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no doubt that if the mis-named "pro-life" portion of the community had their way, we would now be living in the world of the HANDMAID'S TALE.

If you haven't read it, "pro-lifers", by all means do so. I'm SURE it will warm the cockles of your woman-hating hearts.

And, you might also want to see the film. It's even more graphic than the book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abortion not for medical reasons, but for the sake of Art.
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 23, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is another self absorbed moral defying left leaning political expressionist who takes abortion to the bizzare extremes. So let us do abortions for the sake of art;not just eugenics, commerce or even medical curiosity.

Abortion as an art sport by Jill Stanek

In search of taboos to breach for breach's sake, the liberal artistic community is finally dredging the bottom of the barrel: abortion.

Interesting that it took them longer to mock abortion than crucifixes. You likely missed the comedy video sketch Damon Wayans of WayoutTV.com posted last week called AbortionMan
So I'll describe it for you, or you can view it at YouTube.

In "AbortionMan" a young woman calls her boyfriend to tell him she's pregnant....

[T]he sleazy guy hangs up the phone and calls for AbortionMan to rescue him from the plight of progeny....

AbortionMan makes quick work of things, kicking and punching the mother in the abdomen and stomping on it when she collapses to the ground. The stomp aborts the crying, bloody preborn baby, who flies through the air and lands in the bushes where he or she presumably dies....

Damon made this sketch for the negative attention buzz, to make people like me mad. Celebrities desperate to hold the waning spotlight are so sad....

One person getting way more negative attention than she expected was Yale art student Aliza Shvarts.

Last week, the Yale Daily News announced Shvarts' exhibit in a senior art show opening yesterday would feature a number of her own very young self-aborted children, mixed with blood and smeared on plastic sheeting wrapped around a cube and suspended from the ceiling.

On the surrounding walls videos would play Shvarts completing her self-abortions in a bathtub.

Shvarts said she obtained the human elements of her project by artificially inseminating herself multiple times over the course of nine months and then ingesting abortion drugs.

The debate is heated regarding the authenticity, mindset or even sanity of the art authors work, still it brings into question some very basic problems that are not unlike the discussion we have here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement