START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

An OB/GYN’s Thoughts On Abortion

  • 1 of 3
An OB/GYN’s Thoughts On Abortion

Okay, Iím gonna go out on a limb here and write a post that literally scares the bejesus out of me. The other day, I was doing a podcast interview with Owning Pink blogger Stacey Curnow, and she asked me how it feels to write stuff like I did in my upcoming book Whatís Up Down There? Questions Youíd Only Ask Your Gynecologist If She Was Your Best Friend, which is more about me and my vagina than you probably ever wanted to know. In this book, I write about the sexual dysfunction I suffered with my ex-husband, the HPV I contracted from my current husband, the porn my hubby and enjoy from time to time, the elective C-section I decided to have, and yes — I write about the painful decision I had to make as an OB/GYN about whether or not to do abortions.

But I’ve never had the guts to write about abortion.

Why? Well, itís such a hot button issue — and it can be so divisive. When you start talking about abortion, people who have been respectful, open-hearted, and friendly with each other suddenly turn into sharks. And Iím afraid of bringing that into our Owning Pink community.

But I also donít want to live in fear, and I donít want to be silenced. So thank you Stacey, for inspiring me to speak my truth and help me believe that we as a community can tackle anything, as long as we respect each otherís right to agree or disagree with kindness and to honor what another says as true, without attacking.

So here goes.

Itís hard enough when youíre not an OB/GYN to make peace with where you stand on the abortion issue. But when youíre an OB/GYN, itís even harder. I was raised in a family with three Methodist ministers, attending church at least once or twice a week for my entire young life. Countless Sunday school teachers and pastors taught me that abortion was sinful, and while Methodists tend to be relatively liberal about supporting a womanís right to choose, that choice was supposed to apply to the faithless, not the church-goers.

  • 1 of 3

Read more: Family, Gynecology, Health, News & Issues, Obstetrics, Pregnancy, Women's Health, , , , , , , ,

have you shared this story yet?

go ahead, give it a little love

Lissa Rankin

Lissa Rankin, MD is a mind-body medicine physician, founder of the†Whole Health Medicine Institute training program for physicians and other health care providers, and the New York Times bestselling author of†Mind Over Medicine: Scientific Proof That You Can Heal Yourself.† She is on a grassroots mission to heal health care, while empowering you to heal yourself.† Lissa blogs at†LissaRankin.com and also created two online communities -†HealHealthCareNow.com and†OwningPink.com. She is also the author of two other books, a professional artist, an amateur ski bum, and an avid hiker. Lissa lives in the San Francisco Bay area with her husband and daughter.

254 comments

+ add your own
5:30PM PDT on Sep 29, 2012

@Aileen C: "I'm not sure whether the author is still reviewing the comments or not, but we Pro Lifers always reaffirm that it's not just the mother's body. What about the baby?"

Aileen, by that logic, we could also reaffirm that it's not just your body. What about the cancer victim? And then we could say that you MUST donate that lifesaving bone marrow to him/her, no matter how painful it is to you or how much it will negatively impact your life. The government does not even force people to donate blood after a catastrophe, when people are dying from lack of blood. Why, then, is it OK to force women to donate their uteruses? It makes no sense! Prolifers want to give fetuses GREATER rights than "postbirth" humans have. If *I* don't have the right to use any part of another person's body without their consent, then neither does a fetus. Each person has the total autonomy over their own body, and has the right to deny others the use of it, even in the sad instances where that denial will result in the others' deaths.

2:46PM PDT on Sep 29, 2012

I'm not sure whether the author is still reviewing the comments or not, but we Pro Lifers always reaffirm that it's not just the mother's body. What about the baby? They never are so compassionate as to use general anesthesia for the one dying. (i.e. Too much trouble, it's expensive, etc.) Silent scream. You may have seen that footage before. In the end, it's still a moral issue. It's an assault on the baby, ending in murder. And the women may want to do the "procedure" but most of them end up in the worst state of their lives: depression, suicidal thoughts, alcoholism, remorse, etc., carrying that baggage for the rest of their lives. I've met them: they are left very different than before, devastated [for killing their own child.] There's a vast number of their testimonies online. Listen to them.

6:49PM PDT on Jun 9, 2011

Oi. I think most everyone has some opinion on this subject. I could be wrong. It's so controversial.

6:25AM PDT on Mar 19, 2011

The author actually did bring up the point that most of the time abortion wasn't exactly the thing most women wanted to do in the first place. Oftentimes there are very real fears that go along with the decision making process. There are plenty of cases of women who genuinely think that they cannot give their fetus the quality of life they think it deserves because of circumstances the mother can't control. And a lot of the time that is why women go to OBGYNs. They didn't want to do it but they feel like they had to do it.

11:35PM PST on Jan 11, 2011

@Cindy S: "I agree with Deanna, the a fetus (baby at that stage) who is defensless should be protected by the law (if not our conscience). "

Then you must also think that a defenseless 6-yr-old who is dying of leukemia should ALSO be protected by law (if not our conscience), Cindy. So you have no problem with the government forcing YOU to donate bone marrow to save his/her life, no matter how much that surgical extraction will disrupt your life, or how much that surgery will affect you financially, or how painful that surgery will be for you. After all, why should an unborn fetus deserve more protection than a 6-yr-old?

9:02PM PST on Jan 11, 2011

I agree with Deanna, the a fetus (baby at that stage) who is defensless should be protected by the law (if not our conscience). It is too bad that our society can just pick and choose that which is not perfect or decidedly not wanted at the moment or whim .OUR CHOICE!. What about the baby. Are we not supposed to be good stuwards of our offspring? I find it disturbing that self centeredness has won out over morality, but I guess that this is the "Live for Me World" we are in now.SAD!! I would not want to be a OB/GYN and have to live with that.

10:45PM PST on Nov 10, 2010

Deanna, I find it very hard to believe that a 22-week fetus has a very good chance to survive outside the womb. Your source says:

"Week 22
Baby: Your baby measures about 7.6 inches and weighs about 12.3 ounces."

I seriously doubt that there have been very many such premature births that have survived. Any that did must have run up hospital costs in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars. I do not consider that "viable". I'll stick by my 3rd trimester (week 26, by your source) viability point. By that point, the fetus probably has an 80-90% chance of survival. And again, virtually ALL abortions done after this point are done because of problems with the fetus, NOT because the woman changed her mind on a whim. (I have a feeling that the vast majority of 22-26 week abortions are done because fetus problems, as well.)

To sum up: The overwhelming majority of abortions (99.99%), are performed BEFORE the average fetus becomes viable to live out the uterus: prior to the 3rd trimester. Virtually 100% of the 3rd trimester abortions are done because of problems in the fetus. Women do not decide to abort viable fetuses for frivolous reasons (brown eyes, not blue, etc.). Nobody's killings "babies" on a whim. So there's no reason to screw around with a woman's right to choose. TRUST WOMEN!

9:29PM PST on Nov 10, 2010

@Charles, yes, our debate was limited to fetuses/babies after viability, since that is when you said you believe they become human. Viability is now considered to be 22-23 weeks, which is in the 2nd trimester (13-27 weeks http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/health-baby-second-trimester). Your Fox News link says 9% of abortions are done in the 2nd semester. Let's say it's only 1%. According to Wikipedia, there were 820,151 legal induced abortions in the US in 2005. 1% of 820,151 abortions is 8,202 babies.

If anyone else is still reading this, you may be surprised by European abortion laws, which are more restrictive than in the US:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Take care

5:11PM PST on Nov 9, 2010

@Deanna: "Men actually do not have total autonomy over their bodies—they (and women) are prosecuted for using illegal drugs, for example."

As far as I know, the USE of illegal drugs is not illegal:

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/law_article3.shtml

"In most states, 'possession' of a controlled substance is illegal but 'use' of the substance is not."

So, you can put whatever you want to in your body, as long as you're not caught possessing it prior to doing so. If you're found passed out in the street, and are taken to the hospital where you're found to have taken heroin, you cannot be prosecuted just for having used heroin. So, again, you have complete autonomy over your own body, and you're incorrect in maintaining that you don't.

4:51PM PST on Nov 9, 2010

Deanna, if a fetus is removed from a uterus during the 1st or 2nd trimester, it will die of "natural causes". So, your argument doesn't hold for these. These make up 99.99% of all abortions:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

Out of 1.6 million abortions/year, only 100 are 3rd trimester. At one clinic, between 1998 and 2006, ALL of the 3rd terms were done because of severe malformations in the fetus that would lead to a high probability of perinatal death or *severe* handicap:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19177335

So, if your cleft palate abortion occurred, it was literally a 1-in-a-million incident, and it would be ludicrous to use it as justification for taking away a woman bodily rights.

I agree with you that fetuses who are viable to survive outside of the womb should not be killed. If a woman decides to abort the pregnancy after the point of viability, every attempt should be made to remove the fetus alive, that doesn't place the woman's life at overt risk. In other words, don't kill the woman to save the fetus, but save the fetus too, if possible. But remember, in 99.99% of abortions, the fetus is NOT viable yet.

BTW, your distinction between "donate" and "lend" is inconsequential, since the government doesn't force people to LEND property (i.e., organs) to others either. You have 100% autonomy over whom you want to lend your stuff to, as well.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

people are talking

Still, almond milk is a healthy ( protein) and tasty as well.

Rememebr that this is in the US, with its abusive and environmentally damaging system of locking cat…

All very confusing,so can someone tell me what I can add to my tea & coffee!

As you've commented Debra W. 'mainstream medicine' doctors in general have very little interest and …

Thanks for sharing!

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.