Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Abortion is violence...says abortionist

Quoting from The abortioneers, which I featured yesterday.

Really, you should read the whole thing. There's too much to quote.

There is violence in abortion, especially in second trimester procedures. Certain moments make this particularly apparent, as another story from my own experience shows. As a third-year resident I spent many days in our hospital abortion clinic. The last patient I saw one day was 23 weeks pregnant. I performed an uncomplicated D&E procedure. Dutifully, I went through the task of reassembling the fetal parts in the metal tray. It is an odd ritual that abortion providers perform – required as a clinical safety measure to ensure that nothing is left behind in the uterus to cause a complication – but it also permits us in an odd way to pay respect to the fetus (feelings of awe are not uncommon when looking at miniature fingers and fingernails, heart, intestines, kidneys, adrenal glands), even as we simultaneously have complete disregard for it. Then I rushed upstairs to take overnight call on labour and delivery. The first patient that came in was prematurely delivering at 23–24 weeks. As her exact gestational age was in question, the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) team resuscitated the premature newborn and brought it to the NICU. Later, along with the distraught parents, I watched the neonate on the ventilator. I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother's uterus – but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable. Yes, I understand that the vital difference between the fetus I aborted that day in clinic, and the one in the NICU was, crucially, its location inside or outside of the woman's body, and most importantly, her hopes and wishes for that fetus/baby. But this knowledge does not change the reality that there is always violence involved in a second trimester abortion, which becomes acutely apparent at certain moments, like this one.

But here's the howler:

I must add, however, that I consider declining a woman's request for abortion also to be an act of unspeakable violence.

Isn't that hilarious? If you refuse to act, that is-- DO NOTHING-- it's an act of unspeakable violence.

We have to launch a campaign to stop the left's inflationary and conflationary language.

An act of violence is when you physically assault someone.

If there's no assault, there's no violence.

Refusing to do anything is not violence.

And isn't it a leftist mantra that violence breeds violence?

And isn't interesting that refusing a woman is the bigger more heinous violence than taking a human life

Feminist supremacy, anyone?

The pro-choice movement has not owned or owned up to the reality of the fetus, or the reality of fetal parts. Since the common anti-abortion stance is that the fetus has a right to life, those who support abortion access necessarily deny such a right. However, in doing so, the fetus is usually neglected entirely, becomes unimportant, nothing.

"Fetuses are not that important," says Joyce Arthur.

Instead of acknowledging what is on the placards, abortion rights activists may say in response to them that they are fake pictures or that abortions don't really look like that. However, to a doctor and clinic team involved in second trimester abortion, they very well may.

I just wonder why more pro-lifers don't issue the challenge: if the photos are fake, where are the real ones? Show what abortion looks like. I've been issuing that challenge for a couple of years now, and no one has taken me up on it.

It is worth considering for a moment the relationship of feminism to violence. In general feminism is a peaceful movement. It does not condone violent problem-solving, and opposes war and capital punishment. But abortion is a version of violence. What do we do with that contradiction? How do we incorporate it into what we are as a movement, in particular a feminist movement?

Since when has "contradiction" been a problem among feminists? They're products of post-modernism, aren't they?

The thing is: if our thoughts can accommodate our internal contradictions for some time, reality can't. Reality is not some post-modern projection. It has rules independent of our thoughts.

The principle of non-contradiction applies.

Oh, and says the abortionist:

We need not be afraid to acknowledge the value of early human life – which I would suggest from my perspective on the “front line” is missing from mainstream abortion rights discourse.