Skip to main content

Pregnant with an IUD

The pro-choice and pro-life movements love a good story. Like all political stories, narratives about pregnancy and abortion decisions are used to humanize abstract arguments, putting the reader in the shoes of someone with whom they can empathize.

I am coming to this story a little late-- it was published on December 3rd-- but it is worth a read.

Titled "Pregnant with an IUD: The Story of My Abortion," it is written by a woman who became pregnant despite having an IUD-- which is normally highly effective in preventing pregnancy. She writes a) about the shock of being pregnant unexpectedly and b) scheduling and obtaining an abortion.

The author portrays comfort at having an abortion and relief that a safe abortion option was available. The essay was published by RH Reality Check, which is a pro-choice media outlet, so the clear expectation of author and publisher was to make a pro-choice point.

One of the interesting, and perhaps rare, things about this essay, from my perspective, is that it could be used by a pro-choice person or a pro-life person to support their view. Both could read it and come away saying, "Exactly! This proves my argument!"

From the pro-choice perspective, one might derive the following: Life is complicated. Good contraceptives alone can't constitute the entire family planning toolkit. Abortion is no big deal as a medical procedure when it is available in good facilities.

From the pro-life perspective, one might learn the following lessons: All contraceptives fail, even IUDs, so sex is never consequence-free. Sex outside of a stable marital relationship can lead to pregnancies that are more likely to be unwanted, and therefore aborted. Being pro-choice comes down to desiring the entitlement to make 'selfish' choices.

Take a read. What do you think?

Links:

Article in RH Reality Check (December 3, 2012): Pregnant with an IUD: The Story of My Abortion

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The irony of the inquiry into Dr. Halappanavar's death

The Associated Press (via  The Washington Post ) reports that the composition of the panel that is investigating Dr. Savita Halappanavar's death in Ireland has changed: Prime Minister Enda Kenny told lawmakers he hoped the move — barely 24 hours after Ireland unveiled the seven-member panel — would allow the woman’s widower to support the probe into why Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian dentist, died Oct. 28 while hospitalized in Galway.   Kenny’s U-turn came hours after her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said he would refuse to talk to the investigators and would not consent to their viewing his wife’s medical records because three of the Galway hospital’s senior doctors had been appointed as investigators. Kenny said that the three doctors would be replaced by other officials “who have no connection at all with University Hospital Galway. In that sense the investigation will be completely and utterly independent.”   This makes sense. Why conduct an inquiry at all

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S