Thinking aloud again

Thanks to A for this one.
Goes well with this, from The Liberties, Dublin:

I hosted a woman from Eire recently. (for ASN)

Late twenties, taking professional training, single, one child already, she was in need of an abortion from the UK as she had not hope of a reasonable life with a second child.
Salient factors which made me so sad:
No support from her child's father - even though he lives near and everyone knows he is the father - and apparently NO pressure on him even to keep in touch regularly - what's that about??

NO way she could share what was happening to her - not even with a close female friend..in a small community which 'knows everyone's business' and condemns any idea of abortion..

BUT of course meanwhile, thousands of women come every year from Eire to have UK abortions - *

so - I asked -
do you think maybe one or more of your friends may have had an abortion themselves, or know someone who has?
              Oh NO!
But then you haven't told them, so maybe they haven't dared tell you?
            Oh hmmmmm I see what you mean...

Rather without hope and impertinently, I suggested she might at some future time seek to tell a friend so that she might start to break down this vicious silence which forces Irish women to be sooo alone when they have abortions, and allows the people of Eire to continue to live hypocritically in a fantasy in which NO - ONE has abortions - especially not anyone WE know.

Rather without hope, and understanding my point entirely, but caught in the middle of her material circumstances, she agreed she would think about it and wished it were possible, one day...

We parted with affection and sadness.


*(The Irish Family Planning Association estimates that between January 1980 and December 2010, at least 147,912 women travelled from the Republic of Ireland for safe abortion services abroad.

I have noticed how there's a flurry of attempts on all sides to stop people from asserting an opinion that might upset or inconvenience others.. The libel laws are one example - see this for details - and these are designed to stop us from exploring and exposing the wrongdoings of those we pay to serve us or those who manage and lead our biggest enterprises - they're not just about protecting silly 'celebrities'' peccadilloes...

Then there's the religious lobby, which seems to think no - one is allowed to upset them - or their beliefs - well why NOT? THEY upset ME all the time!!!!

As the BHA said:

Living in a free society means that we have the right to offend people, and in turn be offended by others. A free society does not ban books, nor does it stop people from voicing their opinions, nor allow people to be blackmailed and intimidated. In a free society we can, and should, challenge each other’s beliefs, through free and open debate, and rely on rational argument and reason rather than threats and censorship.
 
One event in particular last week brought the question of blasphemy and censorship to the fore. A talk on ‘Sharia Law and Human Rights’ organised by the Queen Mary Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society, which had to be cancelled after threats of violence interrupted proceedings.
 
Free expression, the free exchange of ideas and free debate are hallmarks of an open society; violence and the threat of violence should never be allowed to compromise that. No one has the right not to have their most profound beliefs challenged.(BHA WEBSITE)

Got an email from CND:

The government has just admitted, in answer to a question from CND Council member Caroline Lucas MP, that spending planned before 2016 on replacing Trident has shot up by 50%. That’s an extra £2 BILLION pounds of our money that they want to spend on nuclear weapons BEFORE Parliament has finally agreed to replace Trident at all (the decision is due to take place in 2016). We don’t want these weapons, we can’t use them, and the project hasn’t even been authorised by Parliament, so why are they spending so much money?

As if this was not shocking enough CND Vice-Chair Jeremy Corbyn MP recently discovered that the much heralded Lib-Dem-led review of alternatives to Trident will never be published. It seems that the government is afraid to discuss this matter, and is trying to suppress the debate.

It looks very much as if there is an attempt to force through the replacement of Trident, by spending lavishly ahead of the decision and refusing to discuss alternatives.

BLAST BLAST BLAST so to speak. I was listening to Strangers and Brothers on the wonderful radio4 extra - and the nuclear bomb was described  - in the context of 1945 - as the most terrible nest of spiders. It seems as if the knowledge of the last 60 years has made NO difference whatsoever to ANY of our governments' capacities for investing in (other people's) death. It's not enough to join in destroying Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of  - what - ?? - but the UK and the US together seem to want to continue to threaten whoever they see as an enemy with nonsense and cruel wicked tools. GRRRRRRR

From Abortion Rights..
Anti-choice amendments proposed for Health and Social Care Bill

Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries, with the help of former Labour minister Frank Field, has tabled two amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament (at least it was until the government decided to have a ‘pause’ for ‘conversation’). The amendments are based on the erroneous notion that women are currently being deliberately misled about the true physical and mental risks associated with abortion – by both abortion providers and medical regulators. To remedy this, Dorries and Field have launched their Right to Know campaign, which proposes the introduction of counselling from outside groups who do not themselves provide abortion. It also calls for the removal of responsibility for drawing up clinical guidelines for abortion from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (as they have an absurdly liberal agenda and have been infiltrated by pro-abortionists, apparently). There’s more about this on this website, but it’s worth repeating that abortion providers, like all healthcare providers, are obliged to receive informed consent from a patient before a medical procedure can go ahead. Bpas, for example, is licensed by the Secretary of State to provide abortions on the basis that counselling is provided beforehand, and indeed around 20% of women they see decide not to have a termination following their counselling. Requiring women to undergo further counselling is both unnecessary and insulting. It presumes that they are incapable of making up their own minds when presented with the clinically relevant facts and ultimately seeks to delay and deter them from choosing abortion. The call for ‘independent advice and counselling’ opens the door for anti-choice ‘Crisis Pregnancy Centres’ to become formally involved in the process of abortion support. As has been seen in the United States, the primary aim of many of these organisations is to dissuade women from having abortions by providing inaccurate and misleading information about the procedure. There is no place for them in the provision of non-directive pre-abortion counselling.

Although it is not expected that either of the proposed amendments will succeed on this occasion, we urge our supporters to contact their MP and express their opposition to such moves. We’ve created  a briefing sheet which you may wish to include. You can find the name of your local MP here.

This came from the IPPF
Thought it might be the start of a discussion about men, women, abortion, public - vs- private opinions, etc etc..

A qualitative study reveals men’s attitudes towards abortion in Uganda pose barriers to women involving men in abortion decisions and seeking men’s support for post-abortion care.

Moore AN, Jagwe-Wadda G, Bankole AJ (2011) Biosoc. Sci. 43, 31-45.

 Summary:

Abortion is illegal in Uganda except to save the life of the woman. Nevertheless, the practice is quite common: about 300,000 induced abortions occur annually among Ugandan women aged 15-49 (Singh et al., 2005) and a large proportion of these women require treatment for post-abortion complications. In the male-dominant culture of Uganda, where men control most of the financial resources, men play a critical part in determining whether women receive a safe abortion, or appropriate treatment if they experience abortion complications.

 

This study examines men’s roles in determining women’s access to a safe abortion and post-abortion care. It draws on in-depth interviews carried out in 2003 with 61 women aged 18-60 and 21 men aged 20-50 from Kampala and Mbarara, Uganda. Respondents’ descriptions of men’s involvement in women’s abortion care agreed that men’s stated attitudes about abortion often prevented women from involving them in either the abortion or post-abortion care. Most men believe that if a woman is having an abortion, it must be because she is pregnant with another man’s child, although this does not correspond with women’s reasons for having an abortion – a critical disjuncture revealed by the data between men’s perceptions of, and women’s realities regarding, reasons for seeking an abortion. If the woman does experience post-abortion complications, the prevailing attitude among men in the sample was that they cannot support a woman in such a situation seeking care because if it had been his child, she would not have had a covert abortion.

Since money is critical to accessing appropriate care, without men’s support, women seeking an abortion may not be able to access safer abortion options and if they experience complications, they may delay care-seeking or may not obtain care at all. Barriers to involving men in abortion decision-making endanger women’s health and possibly their lives.

 

Full text available at: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FJBS%2FJBS43_01%2FS0021932010000507a.pdf&code=02aca6a727f3937e799cf8f415584175

 Commentary: As we look to increase male involvement in reproductive health, it is important to evaluate men’s attitudes to determine the benefits and risks of male involvement. Qualitative studies such as this from Uganda could help determine what type of education and interventions might best support women’s access to sexual and reproductive health care.

 

This article by Moore et al from Uganda confirms two interesting aspects of the relationship between women and men when it comes to unwanted pregnancy and abortion. The first is that there is a disparity between the reasons men give as to why a woman would want an abortion (primarily to cover up infidelity) and the reasons women themselves give (insufficient space between pregnancies, desire to continue school, abusive home relationship). The second is the fact that women make decisions regarding unwanted pregnancy on their own, every day, regardless of men’s attitudes toward abortion. Just as we know women will seek abortion for an unwanted pregnancy regardless of criminal risk or risk to their lives from unsafe providers, the same is demonstrated in this study for women who lack support from the men in their lives. Women seem to know that they are putting themselves at risk of abandonment and even violence from their partners (the known, possible outcomes if their partner was to find out about the abortion). In addition, they face the risks of criminal prosecution and death from unsafe abortion. None of these risks, however, stop them from seeking what they feel to be the best solution to an unwanted pregnancy for themselves and their families.

One of the more interesting findings is that this lack of support for, and suspicion of women who seek abortion, is focused primarily on wives whose roles are different from a mistress or ‘concubine’. According to one respondent, “It is not common for your wife to tell you [about their unwanted pregnancy]. Maybe if she is a prostitute/concubine. She can tell you, ‘I did not want this pregnancy so let us abort.’ But for a woman who you are married and stay within the home, she cannot tell you about aborting.” In addition, the majority of men said it was acceptable for schoolgirls to have an abortion. But, disturbingly this was not because of the best interests of the girls, but rather “the man responsible could be brought up on defilement (rape) charges if the schoolgirl is found to be pregnant”.

The authors suggest further research to explore any differences that may exist between men’s public anti-abortion rhetoric and private feelings or behavior. This is of particular interest as “the language men used to describe their opposition to abortion was so uniform, it bespeaks the effectiveness of religious and cultural messages that condemn abortion”.

As a movement, we need to learn how to get our messages so embedded in the societal lexicon that we move towards language that is supportive rather than dismissive of women.

 Kelly Culwell, MD, MPH Senior Adviser, Abortion, IPPFabortionteam@ippf.org

 

Here I am, listening to Lastfm, and sitting in the dining room of the house in sussex. The sun has been shining most of the day, so I've been clearing the old rockery, taking the lichen off the sundial, taking the honeysuckle out of the shrubs on the sea side, sitting in the sun reading a trashy novel.
The house is full of memories for me; most but by no means all about family.
What's that they say, about women living in the past the present and the future all at once? At this time, the future is only a few months at a time, given that I can't travel whilst I have a stepmum in a nursing home..so  - and especially here, it's the past that I find fills me up.
Drawing contours on a map of London on rainy sunporch days
sitting out in the sun with two generations below all round me, calling for a cold white wine, and GETTING IT!
watching young persons getting into the sea - sooo at ease
swimming in clear clear water, so you can see the pebbles and the fish below you;
And earlier memories of my Dad propping up the coal shovel with a poker, so as to roast the chestnuts -then eating them with a shake of salt on newspaper.
Parents feeding the blackbirds with grated cheese on the windowsill.. and they  - the bbs - are back nesting in the big hedge again - so I can't trim it for a month or three this year.
And A's screwed up face watching the tassly ball handing over her, six weeks old and very hairy.
Little K, alligator..!
And I won't dwell on the pain - D making it clear that I wasn't the one on his mind, and A turning up by surprise, when I didn't want him on mine.
And living through the days - catatonic when K was so ill, and again after my dad died.

The sun has gone in, but everything's still bright - and a calm day for a change!
The lizards haven't been out at all today. Maybe in spite of the sun it's been just too cold.
Maybe because I have been faffing around their rockery too much.

 I was glad to see a recent thoughtful TV exploration of the UK's treatment of very premature babies.
The conclusion that seemed inevitable was that  23- weekers and below should not be resuscitated - ever - a decision of policy that would prevent individual doctors having to make unpalatable and painful individual choices.

Now I should say at once that I DO know how I would feel in this situation, because I have been there. Our second child was born a month early and became very sick within hours of birth, stopped breathing many times, was in an incubator and lacked all reflexes for days. There never was a point at which doctors knew he would become badly and permanently disabled, but in discussion both I and my partner were very sure that when/ if that moment came, all attempts to revive him should be stopped.. I know my heart was breaking but I also knew my limits... and I didn't see myself asking the rest of society to pick up the job of caring for him for us when we became incapable of doing so.
I also felt - and do now - that we are merely animals in a capricious world, and it ISN'T our 'right'  even less our 'duty' somehow to 'save' every life that is born, regardless of all other factors.
In the mix too somewhere there is the idea that Doctors and Nurses must try to act like gods and 'save' life - however damaged and lacking a human future - and the world of professional accolades and rewards feeds this.. you don't see many doctors getting huge public rewards and senior roles for working long shifts 'saving' the mentally ill, or preventing communicable diseases...not 'sexy' like saving babies...

Then into the argument comes the Disability lobby: I say here that if someone is capable of arguing their corner then clearly they are participating in society: it's the tiny infant that is very unlikely ever to participate in society that we are talking about here... but of course now living disabled people and the parents of people with disabilities will feel differently - and much the same argument is made against legal abortion: since we wouldn't want to kill a mature child now with us, how could we possibly advocate destroying any future child in the womb? Recent blogs have aired this position about prem babies, and as ever those who have survived often make claims that this 'proves' that all others must be.. I can't share this position, however cold that makes me seem.
I come back to my basic position.. given that we are so many, and we are merely mortal animals, and there are sooo many live, capable, suffering individuals who need attention, I don't think 23 weekers and below should be treated strenuously to keep alive....we should accept that sometimes babies die. ouch dreadfully sad, but we all die.

Now I have been reminded I shall write some stuff!

Is anyone else horrified by the pressures on girls (and also on boys)to remove all their body hair.
I didn't much like it in the 70's when it seemed that to prove you were a feminist you had to KEEP all your body hair - which meant for me very ugly legs.. and being round women whose armpits stank abominably... I refused to join in, shaved legs and armpits but not the pubes nor expected men to be hairless!
Now I am much too old to care about those parts no - one can see..and pull out the facial wires old age donates - but I am appalled that  young women should think they have to shave their pubes to be acceptable and young men that they must seem to have no upper body hair to show how lovely they are.. GRRRRRRR