From a pro-choice perspective, it seems it all comes down to intent.

Pro-choicers are in favor of abortion rights—but when a mother-to-be selectively aborts just one of her two fetuses, even pro-choicers get uncomfortable. […]

In Slate, William Saletan attempts to unravel the reasons behind the discomfort.

At least two pro-lifewriters have expressed befuddlement: If you are OK with abortion, why aren’t you OK with selective reduction? “After all, a reduction is an abortion,” Saletan writes. But it all comes down to the “bifurcated mindset [that] permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are ‘activated eggs.’ A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don’t want is a pregnancy.” With a reduction, you can no longer have that distinction, because both a wanted and an unwanted fetus exist in the same pregnancy. And someday, the wanted fetus will be walking around outside your body, “a living reminder of what you exterminated.”

And sometimes, I’m sure, a fetus can one day be a pregnancy and the next day be a baby, all during the same pregnancy depending on the mother’s state of mind. So does the number of fetuses matter, or is it the perspective that needs changing?

…to politicians who oppose abortion. Nadine Dorries has been rocking the boat with an abortion amendment bill, which would give women a longer period of time to reconsider having an abortion.  Reasonable enough. But during a recent session of Questions to the Prime Minister you’d have thought she was the unpopular girl on a school ground instead of an MP.

Nadine – one of those politicians who needs no surname – had a big day, though not  necessarily a good day.

[…]

At PMQs Mrs Dorries rose in the eye of the tempest and told Mr Cameron to stand up to Nick Clegg.

Mrs Dorries: ‘The Lib Dems make up 8.7 per cent of this Parliament and yet they seem to be influencing our free-school policy, health and many issues including immigration and abortion.’

At this moment she was engulfed by heckling. Mr Speaker imposed order. Mrs Dorries, continuing: ‘Does the Prime Minister think it is about time he told the Deputy Prime Minister who is the boss?’

This won tremendous noise. The PM, who had Mr Clegg beside him, was at a loss. He started: ‘I know that the Hon. Lady is extremely frustrated …’ Laughter. Loud, lusty, leery, male laughter. ‘Frustrated’! What a word!

Mr Cameron meant that Mrs Dorries was politically frustrated that he had not supported her amendment, but he did not complete the sentence.

‘Frustrated’! Ha ha ha! Mr Cameron: ‘Perhaps I should start again.’ More mirth.  Mr Cameron: ‘I’m going to give up on this one!’ And with that he sat down and gave Mr Clegg a blokeish push on the shoulder. How the House loved it.

_______________________ 

Andrea shakes her head: Honestly. It’s like Cameron and Clegg are 14 years old. But that might be doing a disservice to 14 year olds.

Recently, the pro-life community in Canada has been upset by the discovery that up to 17 weeks of leave are granted to women after an abortion. Now, one’s initial reaction might be that this is crazy. What on earth does a woman need 17 weeks for if there is no baby?

But this is where we in the pro-life community know better.

We know, for example, that abortion not only mars the life of an unborn child but that of the woman as well. Abortion causes physical and emotional damage, and this requires recovery.

Almost 10% of mental health problems are directly linked to abortion. Women with a history of abortion experience an 81% increase in the risk of mental health problems compared to women who had not had an abortion. The study also reveals that, post-abortion, the increased risk for anxiety disorders was 34%; for depression, 37%; for alcohol abuse, 110%; for marijuana abuse, 220%, and for suicidal behaviour, 155%.

We also know that coming to terms with abortion is a grieving process.

So, while it may seem ludicrous on the surface, I think this policy might actually give us room for hope and growth. I’m aware not everyone will agree with me (you can call me a nutty optimist), but we do agree that abortion isn’t “no big deal” and admitting the horrific act of abortion requires a recovery time acknowledges this.

Nearly half of all abortions are preformed on women whom have already had abortions. If used correctly, if counseling is offered by us, if we can help acknowledge the loss and the pain, 17 weeks might just be long enough to break the cycle.

__________________

Andrea adds: I’m afraid I would put you in the nutty optimist camp. First of all, I’m not sure that women who have had abortions are even aware of this “loophole.” Secondly, while it is certainly true that women experience a decline in mental health after abortion, offering state-funded benefits to recover from this merely solidifies the idea that no matter what your choice is, no matter how terrible, we’ll help you out. There ought to be repercussions somewhere on the road–otherwise we are nurturing women into making bad choices. This is what state funds do, my opinion would be entirely different if private sources of charity were kicking in 17 weeks of help. At this point in Canada one of the best things pro-lifers can hope for is that the state stops funding what is a lifestyle choice. This means defunding the abortion procedure itself, and certainly not funding benefits afterwards.

___________________

Jenn adds: I was thinking that as well, that women aren’t aware of this leave time, and that if they are they still wouldn’t take it. Taking 17 weeks off work means an explanation on the woman’s part (to family, friends, co-workers who will ask), something she probably doesn’t want to do. The women I know who have had abortions usually want to return back to their “normal life” straight away to avoid thinking too much about it.

An interesting read from the National Post that concludes,

Pregnancy is not a medical infirmity. It is a natural state. Abortion is not a medical “treatment”; it is a service. Women seeking abortions of healthy fetuses out of convenience or sexism — that is, women who are not seeking relief from authentic psychological or physical suffering — are not “patients.” They are clients.

Clients have wishes; they do not have inalienable rights. When the wishes of clients run counter to society’s health, or other people’s natural rights — and by “people” I include unborn babies who were viable before their skulls were surgically crushed — then regulation of the practice is not only admissible, it is desirable, and nobody should have to fear censure from powerful special interest groups for saying so.

To my happy surprise when I curiously googled “green birth control,” I found this blog entry.

One area that many overlook on their journey to go more green and natural is family planning. Few of us likely have the emotional and physical strength as well as the resources to go through life without trying to prevent pregnancy at least at some point in our lives.

So what is the greenest and most natural way to prevent pregnancy? This is one area where I gravitated to the more natural options even before my natural family living journey actually began. I had strong opinions about some of the more mainstream birth control methods. Let’s look at some of the options and I will tell you what I decided upon..

Chemical Contraceptives– When my future husband and I discussed birth control methods and family planning for the first time we found we were on the same page as far as family size was concerned. We were not on the same page about how we would prevent pregnancy though. The most common method it seems for young women, then and now, is oral contraceptives or other chemical-hormonal contraceptives like the IUD, various injections, the patch, and internal rings. My husband assumed I would not have a problem with these methods but he was very wrong.

I wasn’t trying to lead a natural or green life yet but I knew with 100% certainty that I would NOT take hormones or use chemical contraceptives. I wasn’t going to introduce these things into my system and mess with my body in that way.

These contraceptives have many side effects, they increase chances of serious diseases like cancer, and using them supports the corrupt and powerful pharmaceutical industry. All of this makes them a not-so green choice and for me an unacceptable choice.

The method she decided upon, without any political reason, just a desire to keep unnecessary hormones out of her body, was NFP.

Many women I know only use organic beauty products and eat mostly organic food but don’t question swallowing a chemical concoction every morning. Yet going green is everywhere around us, our coffee, our politicians, our lawn mowers. I didn’t agree with everything this woman wrote, but I was happy to see someone acknowledging the internal green (along with acknowledging that having children takes strength!) and brave enough to question the norm.

We try always to be fully informed, educated and aware of the decisions we make don’t we? I think for many people today, especially when it comes to what we do with and put in our bodies, we’re looking for second opinions and reading the labels. It’s important, with pharmaceutical and food processing companies pulling so many strings, that we as consumers actively seek out information.

I wouldn’t buy a box of cereal without reading the label, and I wouldn’t feed my children mystery foods. These labels are trustworthy, because they aren’t created by Nabisco or McDonald’s, they’re legislated by independent government agenices. Why? Because it wouldn’t make sense to let McDonald’s decide what did and didn’t go on the package. They would be biased, wouldn’t they? They’d want me to eat those fries without knowing how full of fat they were.

For the most part, I’d be applauded for this label reading by the rest of the world. And yet somehow, when it comes to abortion and contraception, people stop clapping when you want to read the label. I think Right to Know is working toward a noble and awareness raising cause, to provide council to women about abortion from someone other than the abortion providers themselves.

Many people assume that women considering abortion have access to independent information and advice. In fact there is no legal guarantee that they do. And where counselling is available, it is often provided by the very same private providers that carry out abortions.

More here:

There are currently more than 6,350 lawsuits filed in federal district courts throughout the United States that have been centralized before Judge David R. Herndon in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

All of the cases involve similar allegations that Bayer failed to adequately warn about the risk of serious and potentially life-threatening side effects of Yaz and Yasmin birth control, such as a stroke, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis or gallbladder disease.

[…]

Yaz and Yasmin are birth control pills that contain a newer type of progestin, known as drospirenone, which has been linked to an increased risk of blood clots and other injuries. The Yaz and Yasmin litigation also involves cases filed over a newer version of the birth control pills, sold as Beyaz, as well as generic equivalents, such as Ocella and Gianvi.

Although the first trials are approaching, the number of lawsuits is expected to continue to grow as Yaz and Yasmin lawyers review and file additional cases in the coming months and years for women who have experienced health problems from the birth control pills. Early estimates suggested that more than 25,000 women may eventually file a Yaz birth control suit.

From Melbourne,

EXCLUSIVE: HEALTH authorities have launched investigations after a seriously ill woman was rushed to Box Hill Hospital last week following complications during surgery at a Melbourne clinic that specialises in late term abortions.

The woman remains in hospital in intensive care following complications during a late term abortion at the Marie Stopes Maroondah clinic, formerly known as the Croydon Day Centre.

The Herald Sun understands the Medical Board of Australia held a special hearing yesterday to quiz medical staff involved in the procedure.

It is believed that one of the doctors involved has previously been criticised by the MBA.

Marie Stopes International Australia CEO Maria Deveson Crabbe said the company had launched its own investigation.

In May, another doctor from this clinic was charged with giving hepatitis C to 49 women. He was released on bail.

I guess I thought they were already supposed to be regulated like hospitals, silly me. From the Huffington Post:

The Virginia Department of Health will release proposed clinic regulations on Friday that target abortion providers and could potentially shut many of them down.

The new temporary regulations, which will be formally voted on Sept. 15 by the state Board of Health and should go into effect by Dec. 31, will classify clinics that provide five or more abortions per month as hospitals.

This news broadcast on teens going “under the knife” with parental consent made my head spin.

I’d like to think I’m not alone in my reaction to this video footage, and while we’re repulsed by young girls damaging their outsides to conform we should remind ourselves to be equally repulsed when they damage their insides to conform.