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

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...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...