Cross posted from the Culture Vulture:
About a week or so back, the Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ (ALRANZ) published a post on their blog which covered the the Women’s Choice 2011 Suffrage Eve Debate that took place on September 22 at Auckland University.
At the event various political party representatives were asked the following question by ALRANZ:
“Our 36 year old abortion laws are medically outdated, what action would you like to take to reform the law?”
Now before we go any further I think that it’s important to point out that this question is both a form of logical fallacy known as ‘begging the question’, and also highly ironic.
It is begging the question because it assumes that the premise that NZ abortion laws are medically outdated is actually correct, without actually proving that premise to be true.
This is a loaded question, because it starts by forcing the person being questioned to accept ALRANZ’s unproven assertion that NZ abortion laws are medically outdated.
No matter how a person answers this question (either “I would do X”, or “I wouldn’t do anything”) they have basically given their assent to the proposition that NZ abortion laws are medically outdated.
And just think, pro-choicer’s accuse pro-lifers of being deceptive in their tactics.
The massive irony in this question comes from the fact that NZ abortion laws are actually medically outdated, but not in the way that ALRANZ is trying to suggest here.
Our laws are outdated because they don’t reflect best medical practice regarding informed consent (no independent counseling, no cooling-off period, lack of information provided to women about risk factors, etc.), instead our current abortion laws leave NZ women majorly vulnerable to serious, and unforeseen health and emotional problems.
Let’s move on from the issue of this question and look at how the politicians responded to it, and how ALRANZ and other pro-choicer’s felt about one of these responses in particular.
You see, many of the political candidates referred to abortion as a “traumatic decision” in their responses, and this is where things get interesting, because ALRANZ, and other pro-choicer’s, took exception to the notion that abortion can be a “traumatic” event, in and of itself, for women.
Instead of accepting that the act of abortion can actually be a massively traumatic event, which has psychologically scarred a lot of women, they try and pass this trauma off as being caused by other things (and therefore not actually being real abortion trauma).
Here’s the list of things that ‘Mothers For Choice’ claims are the cause of abortion related trauma:
The distress lies in the process to get an abortion.
The distress is in the lengthy waiting times.
The distress is in the multiple appointments.
The distress is having to convince two certifying consultants that they should approve your own decision.
The distress is going to an unfamiliar environment and feeling that you should be ashamed of something you shouldn’t be.
What these comments expose is that pro-choice lobby groups, including ALRANZ, are more committed to abortion than they are to the women that it effects.
If they really did care about women then they wouldn’t be trying to downplay, or write-off the very real and very traumatic abortion experiences that have hurt many women, and which have everything to do with the actual procedure of aborting an unborn child, and not with these other administrative matters.
Not only does this show that the pro-choice movement has little regard for the real and lived experiences of actual NZ women hurt by abortion (instead their commitment is to the pro-choice narrative that abortion is a totally trauma-free experience), it also shows that the pro-choice movement is starting to become more and more like the flat earth society, due to their unreasoned rejection of the huge and growing amount of anecdotal and scientific evidence now available to us which shows that abortion is a psychologically risky procedure for women.
At the end of the day, and despite all the protestations of these pro-choicer’s, the many women who have experienced abortion related trauma won’t be fooled by this hollow rhetoric, for they know that even if their abortions had taken place quickly, when they wanted, with minimal appointments and no certifying consultants, and in a totally familiar environment, they would still be facing the same hurt as a result of their abortion.