:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 ::

In a paper aptly titled "Stuff 'n' Nonsense About Abortion", Heather Mallick refers to Dr. Henry Morgentaler as "distinguished". She fails to really elaborate on what actually distinguishes the man. In his own words: "I have personally been responsible for some 100,000 abortions in Canada, and I'm quite proud of this accomplishment... This is my calling in life; it's my art!" He goes on to say, "I should be given a medal for the compassionate service I have performed for women in this country." 100,000 Canadian women surgically raped and emptied of life and HM just can't get enough of it.

HM wants this malevolent creature awarded for his twisted efforts and wrote a paper on it that somehow bothered three members of Canadian parliament. According to the three, they were troubled by the fact that abortion has been linked to breast cancer, emotional and psychological trauma, substance abuse, child abuse, sterility and more. "Ridiculous," HM replies as she sticks out her forked tongue and claims abortion is rubber and they're glue.

"They're stooges," she explains. She argues that abortion can't possibly effect them, because two of them are men and one is an older lady (whose clothing HM makes fun of). Newsflash: men and older ladies are not islands unto themselves. They have mothers, sisters, daughters, cousins, aunts, friends, co-workers, etc. who are hurt by abortion, so they are not immune to the negative backlash. I don't understand HM's duplicity, for in her school of thought, it IS actually ok to be a man with an abortion opinion as long as you are aborting 100,000 children. Otherwise, men are not allowed to comment on the subject. Nor are old ladies who can't have babies. How about 4th graders who can't have babies yet due to being 9-years-old? Do they get an opinion? Because I remember being in despair when my mother aborted my baby sister or brother back in 1980. I was learning how to write poetry about fuzzy little chipmunks, making Christmas wreaths out of red and green tissue paper, and dealing with the fact that my mother was in another town killing my sibling. People have to be ovulating to care and respond? Is that all you got?

HM says she knows for a fact that abortion doesn't cause stress leading to child abuse. She does not believe in a sense of yearning for what she refers to as "cells [women get] rid of". I have more news for her. A child I wanted died in a D&E. S/he went away forever. I will never see him/her, smell him/her, hold him/her, know him/her. That life is over and gone. The grief is impossible. And then there's the other thing...

In sworn testimony abortionist Martin Haskell says, "And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps... It's not unusual at the start of the D&E procedures that a LIMB is acquired first and that that LIMB is brought through the cervix and even out of the vagina prior to disarticulation and pryor to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise up to that point... When you're doing a dismemberment D&E, usually the last part to be removed is the SKULL itself..."

Ah, let's be fair, HM is very technically correct in referring to the baby as "cells" in the way that you and I are also "cells". But typically, we don't refer to human beings with skulls, limbs and beating hearts as "cells". That's just wishful thinking on the part of the abortion supporter. I'm not saying I ever thought my child was "cells", but I was encouraged to believe that s/he was the size of a walnut and that s/he would be anesthetised (like that made it acceptable), but I had no idea what a D&E really involved (besides killing). Now, of course, I know. If someone had shown me color illustrations I think I would have run screaming from the building.

Aside from dealing with the loss of my child from my life, my new D&E knowledge causes me significant anguish and rage. It is a known fact that people under intense emotional stress may have a tendency to lash out. My fury over all this is just under the surface; it has shortened my fuse. It became crystal clear that I had to find healthy ways of dealing with it after I took my open hand and smacked my son in the head when he was 18 months old. He headbutted me in the face, and I just was not prepared to deal with anymore pain. POP! I lashed out. You'd think you wouldn't do that because you wouldn't want to be a child-abusing jerk. But when you know you have vivesected your other child; you realize you already sunk as low as you could possibly go with that one act, so all bets are off; popping your toddler in the head isn't too debasing for you. Fortunately, I had enough awareness to immediately identify that my actions were unacceptable and stemmed from my own self-loathing as a mother who killed my child's sibling. No one suggested these things; I just knew. I got professional help right away and never repeated such unhealthy behavior. Abortion doesn't affect males, it doesn't cause child abuse? Is that all ya got?

HM claims that people like me are "anti-choice". Sounds alarming, but it means nothing. If I'm anti-choice, is she anti-life? Or, by her own standards, if she is against a man's choice to rape a woman in a dimly lit parking lot, isn't she anti-choice? Isn't pretty much everyone anti-choice when it comes to certain things that are being chosen? "Anti-choice"? Is that all ya got?

She says people like me think women deserve "abortions with a jagged soup ladle and no painkillers". Is that really what we think or is that what abortion supporters SAY we think. Is that all ya got?

On the subject of abortion and substance abuse, HM talks about all the drug addicts she knows and how she has interviewed them in their drugged state (after "smoking and snorting"). When she asked them the question of whether or not abortion has any connection with substance abuse "they didn't understand the question." Well good grief, if you're talking to people all hopped up on smack are you really gonna be surprised if you ask them where the john is and they don't understand the question? Is that all ya got?

Drawing from first hand experience HM recounts her day at the Morgentaler abortion facility. She describes the women leaving the place as "chirpy". Well I have to admit that when I left, I was still so completely doped up on Valium that I presented with confabulation myself. Hello, anyone with medical knowledge knows that confabulation is not uncommon post-operatively. At the time, I was also kind of glad that I hadn't died on the table (because I was so ill) and very glad that my HG hell was "over". If she had been there she would have said I was "chirpy" too, but she didn't follow me to the hotel where I sat in a tub hemorrhaging from a legal abortion. She didn't see me in the silence of the night trying to force the un-openable window open so I could leap from the top floor and smash my "chirpy" frickin brains out on the sidewalk below. Considering post-op confabulation and relief that you didn't die (or any other kind of immediate relief) as indication of what abortion means to a woman's life without longitudinally studying her over the course of her life? Is that all ya got?

HM is incensed by the mention of the well-studied abortion breast cancer link (ABC link). She calls educating women about their cancer-risk "cruel". I guess she doesn't think that women have a right to know that 16 of 17 statistically significant studies report increased risk of breast cancer among women choosing to abort their children (only one says otherwise) or that 7 studies report a more than twofold increased risk. She fails to mention (or, GASP!, maybe she doesn't know) that some of these studies were done by abortion supporters who were disappointed to find the link, but not so much that they would hide it and lie to women. As Dahling put it, “I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of what is.”

Wake up already. This is not new news developed to counter legal abortion. This stuff was around as long ago as 1970 when the World Health Organization gathered data that suggested an increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion. Still HM claims the ABC link is ridiculous and cites her neurotic newspaper reading and avid fact-collecting as credentials lending to her authority on the subject. She says breast cancer is caused by having breasts. Is that all ya got?

I have to say the woman is a witty writer, and if I hadn't been so horrified by the blatant inconsistencies I might have even laughed a couple of times. When I started this journal entry I was pretty miffed, but after having chopped it down to bite-sized pieces I am filled with curiosity and lenity and am beginning to wonder just how far some people will go to convince themselves that the horror they support (and have perhaps been through or helped others to go through) is really in some miraculous (yet irrational) way a good and heroic thing. Some people bend over backwards to have an abortion and a smile. And that million dollar smile advertises for the next woman. What an unbelievable pity.


:: ashli 11:59 PM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?