Is it just me or is the tone of this piece basically a “how-to” on how to test–and then “choose”–about the life of your baby with Downs Syndrome?

I remain shocked (and I hope to always be by pieces like this).

__________________________

Brigitte objects: There are a few things in that article (beyond the obvious) that bug me a great deal. Talking about women who are “at risk” or “at high risk” of having a child with Down’s syndrome takes for granted that having a child born with the condition is an unmitigated bad thing. And it is not. True, having a Down’s syndrome child is different, and perhaps more challenging, than having a “normal” child (although I’ve met plenty of “normal” children who were very challenging and generally quite the handful). But it’s not a disaster. Also, parents are not “choosing to terminate a Down’s pregnancy”. They are “choosing” to terminate an unborn baby they believe has Down’s syndrome. (How come those articles don’t mention the false positives, huh?) I don’t care how much disdain you may have for the condition and for people who are born with it; but these are human beings just like you so don’t talk about them as though they were undesirable things.

And another thing. “National guidelines say that all women should be routinely offered screening for Down’s by the NHS. Screening is voluntary, and some women choose not to have it.” They’re trying to make the women who would prefer not to test every single aspect of their unborn babies appear to be the bizarre weirdos, and that really bothers me. There is nothing wrong with not taking every test authorities recommend. Life isn’t testable. It is, or it isn’t. And to repeat myself, testing for conditions that can only be “fixed” by killing the person carrying them is not medicine.

“Unwanted pregnancies” come, in part, due to articles like this one.

Flipping through Women’s Health magazine, (online is subscriber access only) I come across an article. 28 Days of Hot Sex! The Secret to Keeping Your Libido Amped! (their bold). Tips on having great sex is standard fluffy magazine fare. So I peruse the article, because really, I’m not immune to thinking 28 days of Hot Sex! could be nice, however highly unlikely, only to discover the reason why we are learning about 28 ways, not 30, not 11, is because the article attempts to follow a woman’s menstrual cycle.

Now that I just lost all our male readers, I can be more candid. “When women hear the word menstrual, they tend to think cramps and discomfort,” says our resident (female) PhD of the hour, quoted in the magazine.

Lady–there’s a reason for that.

Of course it is a myth that all women have a 28 day cycle. This will be true only if you are on the Pill, ie. you are manufacturing a fake cycle thanks to pharmaceutical companies. Otherwise, as any wise person will tell you, it can be anywhere between 25 and 40 and still be normal. Bygones. We (royal) keep reading.

Now I’m not a big fan of “how to have great sex” articles in the first place, which shall be the subject of a different post, but in short it comes down to the idea that if you love someone and they are committed to you–and yes, ladies and gentleman–that commitment comes only in marriage, you can probably figure out the “hows” without a guide. Maybe a little practice, perhaps. But no guide. Because really, the committment creates the great sex.

No, says Women’s Health. It’s all about hormones. Fair enough, I play along. Those play a substantial role in women’s lives. Let’s not pretend otherwise. There’s been moments when I thought I might weep while reading the newspaper, and while some headlines can indeed be sad, I am usually able to turn my frown upside down. So certainly they play a role.

But the article goes on to highlight the hormonal ups and downs, all the while happily declaring you can have sex Every Single Day Of Your Cycle! Even Day One. (Think about that for a second.)

At this point, I decide this article is written by space aliens. Male space aliens.

But my main point is this (those of you still reading can email me to claim your prize): The article happily goes through every day of your cycle outlining what sort of satisfying sex you can have, the hormonal ups and downs and never once mentions ovulation, fertility, or any of the very concrete reasons why women have a hormonal cycle in the first place.

I look forward to their next issue, which will surely contain an article about what can happen when women have sex during the fertile time of  their cycle.

But I’m guessing they’ll just leave that to Today’s Parent.

____________________

It’s a good thing Brigitte is always ready to ask the tough questions: I’m just wondering, what’s the opposite of an amped libido?

____________________

Andrea adds: Opposite of an amped libido could be one on the Pill, Brigitte. Oh the irony.

President Barack Obama is average, says Charles Krauthammer in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel. He never once mentions abortion, and gives Obama a fairly negative assessment in spite of his policies on that, probably because Krauthammer is himself pro-choice. What I note is how non-conciliatory Obama is on just about everything. (And I’m surprised Der Spiegel ran this interview.)

Oklahoma has drafted new laws, which would require a woman to see an ultrasound before an abortion and/or answer questions in a survey about why she is having one.

I favour both of these ideas, as does the woman who helped draft the laws:

“Do they feel they have no other choice? Is it financial? What are the reasons that lead up to that very desperate choice of a woman?” said Republican state Rep. Pam Peterson, who played a key role in drafting both laws.

If you only have one choice, it isn’t really a choice. And these ardent pro-choicers know that when women see their babies on an ultrasound, they tend to not want to kill them. It’s called information, and unless you have a hidden agenda, it shouldn’t be so scary.

______________________

Rebecca adds: Surely we’re the only ones with a hidden agenda, right?

______________________

Andrea adds: Correct, Rebecca. It has been empirically proven that only right wing religious nutbars can ever have a hidden agenda. Pro-choicers on the left came out all clear.

It’s got to be a sign of a bored and tired culture that we even have enough time to try to chronicle our happiness/unhappiness.

(If I tried to ask either of my grandmothers whether they thought they were more or less happy today than in the past they would not have comprehended the question, I’m quite sure. And not just because neither of them spoke English. Even with translation, neither of them spoke Oprah.)

Reading this took me right back to my days in the library for my Masters (with my pretty heavy emphasis on the Holocaust). I would read about the size and shape of gas chambers. I would read about Mengele and his experiments on little kids. And I would cry as I took notes. It’s been a while since I had that reaction to reading something. But I can’t lie; I felt sick to my stomach while reading this. Consider yourself warned:

When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realised that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing the procedure as usual, removed the laminaria I had placed earlier and confirmed I had adequate dilation. I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain – even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

(h/t)

______________________

At the risk of sounding heartless, Brigitte would like to beg a question: “dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.” Sadder than what?

Breaking news! The New York Times ran a story that was fair to pro-lifers. Seems there was quite a lot of shock and revulsion over this; check the comments.  

Came with this photo spread, too. They warn you that the photos are graphic.

Too bad no one warns women that the procedure is very graphic before they do it. (The photos are of aborted fetuses.)