I would wear Joanna Rytel's pro-abortion jewelry!

Via the often annoying Michelle Malkin, The Daily Bork provides a translation of a Swedish article about pro-abortion activist Joanna Rytel's new jewelry collection.

Many have told of the guilt they have felt after having an abortion. "I wondered about why this was and I believe that it is society that induces the guilt, particularly for girls. I want to do something about it."

Ms. Rytel is absolutely correct, the anti-abortion Christians have managed to convice nearly everyone that abortion is wrong and people should feel horribly guilty over it. The problem for the pro-abortion movement is that hardly anyone is taking a stand to reverse this societal brainwashing. Even by calling the movement "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion," it gives credence to the Christian loonies.

It is a little sad to have an abortion. But one does it for the child's sake. It would not have been good to have a child half-heartedly.

I couldn't agree more. In the United States we have welfare mothers and crack addicts having children who will never amount to anything given the environment they are being brought into. We would be much better off if mothers unable to give their children the upbringing they deserve were encouraged to abort their pregnancies.

So Ms. Rytel has designed a jewelry collection that takes a stand for abortion, which is a great idea. I would gladly wear her jewelry if they were available in the United States.

Comments

[chad]

And who makes the decision on whether an existence is a neutal affair or not? I think of myself as what you would call a Joe Sixpack. I just muddle thru life like most people, but generally I am pretty content. I have a job I basically like. I play on my computer some, read a couple books, drink a few beers, the usual. Normally my life is pretty boring, but in 1989 a freind and I walked out of a bar and came across two guys raping a girl in a parking lot. We broke it up and chased the guys away. Did we make a contribution? I used to drive an ambulance, we responded on all sorts of calls, I also stood duty as a provider in an emergency room treating people with everything from back strain to heart attacks. Was that a contribution to society? I'm a fairly minor example of what happens every day all over the world. Most of the cops and fire fighters at the WTC were "Joe Sixpacks". The point is you don't have to be an Einstein to make a positive contribution in life, just like you don't have to be stalin to make a negative one. The fact that you think the bad outnumber the good 2 to 1 is disturbing.

[dadahead]

Seems like for every Joe Sixpack like you who saves a girl from getting raped there's ... well, a Joe Sixpack trying to rape somebody.

[David]

"Doom, despair, and agony on meeee. Deep, dark depression, excessive misery. If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all. Dooom, despairrrr, and agony on meeeeeee." - Song sung on Hee Haw (and dada's philosophy on life)

[Dan Schneider]

Naaman:
Those studies of post-abortion women are a bunch of agitprop along with The Silent Scream and the term Partial Birth Abortion- which is neither partial nor occurs during birth- it's proper term is D&X- Dilation and Extraction. The Anti-Abs have a long sorry history of BS and Linda Lovelace wannabe liars. DAN

[Naaman]

Dan:
That's odd, because the blog to which I linked makes a point out of citing the sources of those "agitprop" studies. They sure look real to me.

"After controlling for several socio-demographic factors, women whose first pregnancies ended in abortion were 65% more likely to score in the 'high-risk’ range for clinical depression than women whose first pregnancies resulted in a birth."
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_9/no_4/3074.pdf

"Overall, women who had had an abortion had a significantly higher relative risk of psychiatric admission compared with women who had delivered for every time period examined."
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/10/1253

"RESULTS: Compared with women who gave birth, women who had had an induced abortion were significantly more likely to use marijuana (odds ratio, 10.29; 95% CI, 3.47-30.56), various illicit drugs (odds ratio, 5.60; 95% CI, 2.39-13.10), and alcohol (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.31-3.76) during their next pregnancy."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12501082&dopt=Abstract

"Our results do not support the hypothesis that depression after unintended pregnancies is independent of outcome. Among married women whose who previously carried an unintended first pregnancy to term were at less risk of subsequent depression than women who aborted. Rates of high risk depression scores were comparable among unmarried women, however. This may be due to the stress unmarried women may experience in raising a child without support or it may be related to this group's higher rate of concealing past abortions."
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7330/151

"A study published in the most recent issue the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry reveals that both the early and delayed psychiatric episodes experienced by Jane are significant risks associated with abortion. ... Women were 63 percent more likely to receive mental care within 90 days of an abortion compared to delivery. In addition, significantly higher rates of subsequent mental health treatment persisted over the entire four years of data examined. Abortion was most strongly associated with subsequent treatments for neurotic depression, bipolar disorder, adjustment reactions, and schizophrenic disorders."
http://www.afterabortion.info/news/outpatient1.html

More studies and data...

---

By the way, the term "partial-birth abortion" refers to an abortion that happens partway (that's the "partial" part) through an induced delivery (that's the "birth" part). If you actually read the text of last year's partial-birth abortion ban, you'll see that the terms were very well defined:
...a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant...

[Butterfly]

Wow, "welfare mothers and crack addicts having children." This is sounding just like Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's founder and the beginnings of her "Negro Project." I think it's time to do a little research... this is what growing up is about... hopefully getting wiser. I challenge you to study up on Margaret Sanger, eugenics, and the abortion connection... if you're anything like me, a once (now ex, after learning of this connection) strong Planned Parenthood supporter, and client, you'll be chilled to the bone when you learn more. Here's just one link... there are more... get out there and get the facts.

http://www.scholarscorner.com/ethics/Anti-Semitism.html

[Ken]

To argue that abortion improves things for the fetus is no argument at all. For it cannot be tested.

And why argue that mass abortion might improve the world by reducing population? The same logic will support killing the old, or the poorest, genocide (it would be nice if peoples you dislike weren't).

Fortunately, science will greatly reduce the furor. Women will use one-dose medication which prevents pregnancy for years. And men will have similar options. Unwanted children will be nearly unknown.

[butterfly]

BTW, I'm one of those "unknown nobodies" who's deeply loved by my husband, family, friends, even my two mutts... BTW, I love deeply too... my husband, family, friends, strangers even... My worth isn't in my contribution to society (Gawd, how awful!). So I'm assuming that you got to be kidding when you argue this.

[butterfly]

P.S. Do a little more research to expose the overpopulation lie... for example, Western Europe isn't even at replacement levels right now... nor is Russia. But this is *besides* the point... a human being is being killed by abortion. All the rest is bells and whistles and smoke. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time... abortion kills a human being. Peace in the womb!

[Jacqueline]

""Hear, hear. I'm not pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion -- I think the world would be a better place if more people had them."

Well, that is a very interesting statement. Would the world have been a better place if your mom had had one?"

I was a planned pregnancy. My parents had both the desire and resources to have a child when I was born. Thus, my mother had no reason to have an abortion.

”The best course of action of an unwanted pregnancy is adoption to a loving family. Abortion is a lousy alternative.”

Besides a severe shortage of loving families for all the unwanted or orphaned children in the world, your statement assumes that pregnancy itself has no or minimal costs on the mother or society. Even if a woman gives up an unwanted child for adoption at birth, an unplanned pregnancy can still ruin a young woman’s life and take away many opportunities for her to live up to her potential. Plus there’s the risk of death or permanent disability from pregnancy and childbirth.

”There are plenty of families that want babies”

Then why don’t they adopt the millions of unwanted orphan and foster children in the world?

Oh yeah, they only want healthy white babies.

"Why should abortion be encouraged as an answer to unwanted or unplanned pregnancies? What social good does that serve? Yes, it is a relatively easy way out (as opposed to taking a baby to term and having to either raise the child or put it up for adoption), but that only benefits the woman, not society. "

See Steven Levitt's research on the drop in the crime rate that begin approximately 18 years after Roe v. Wade. Unplanned children are much more likely to grow up to be criminals, or social welfare recipients, than planned children born to parents who have both the desire and resources to raise them. Poor, young women generally make bad mothers and raise bad children.

For unplanned pregnancies, I think abortion is the best option, and that the world would be a better place if all unplanned pregnancies were aborted. Creating a child is a tremendous responsibility and should not be done accidentally.

"There is really no value in increasing the number of human beings currently in existence. We have plenty o' humans. There's no sense in creating more. What's the point?"

I’m generally in agreement with dadahead on this subject except for this part. I with Julian Simon that people are the ultimate resource. I think this is especially true in developed economies, like ours, with institutions that encourage investment and innovation.

However, not everyone has equal value as a resource. An unplanned child is far less likely to grow up to make a positive contribution to the world (and far more likely to be destructive or a burden) than a planned child.

"All of you "rah-rah abortion!" cheerleaders need to check out the post-abortion movement. Many, many women who have abortions face serious psychological problems down the road."

Selection bias. Many women who are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term die, are permanently disabled, or have their lives otherwise ruined by it. They face serious psychology, physical, and financial problems down the road.

You need to check out the "I'm Not Sorry" movement. Some women who have abortions are sad about it, but other women who have abortions are happy about it. Like with any other life decision, some people will regret what might have been, and others will continue to believe they made the best choice. I wonder how much post-abortion regret is inherent and how much is induced by the anti-abortion movement? It would be interesting to do a cross-cultural comparison between the US and countries where abortion is not demonized as it often is here.

” That's odd, because the blog to which I linked makes a point out of citing the sources of those "agitprop" studies. They sure look real to me.”

Correlation does not mean causation. You’re suggesting that abortion leads to psychological and other problems, when it could be that psychological and other problems lead to unplanned pregnancies that women choose to abort. Without a study that randomly requires women to have abortions you can’t know which it is.

”But this is *besides* the point... a human being is being killed by abortion.”

There is legitimate debate about whether or not a fetus is fully human and thus entitled to human rights – but *that* is besides the point. There are moral justifications for killing humans, and self defense is one of them. If you consider the life-threatening physical damage caused to a woman’s body by pregnancy and childbirth, and how it is much worse than the damage caused by most rapists, unless you deny the moral right to use deadly force in self defense against rape and life-threatening assault how can you deny the moral right to use abortion as self defense against this assault by the fetus?

"Jackie is absolutely right (even though she keeps deleting my comments from her blog for no reason whatsoever)."

It's nothing personal and I would love to leave your comments up, dadahead, if you were to post them under your real name, but I have a no anonymous or pseudonymous comments policy. I was reluctant to begin censoring my blog's comments section, but a while ago some people were using the cover of anonymity to post some very inappropriate and abusive statements that they were too ashamed to post under their real identities. I'm posting under my full real name, for the world to see, and I don't feel obligated to host criticism (or abuse) on my site from people who are not willing to sign their names to it. I don't want to censor on the basis of content so I try to apply my no anonymous or pseudonymous comments policy to all, whether I like the comments or not.

[dadahead]

I would love to leave your comments up, dadahead, if you were to post them under your real name, but I have a no anonymous or pseudonymous comments policy.

THIS IS MY REAL NAME

[dadahead]

”But this is *besides* the point... a human being is being killed by abortion.”

There is legitimate debate about whether or not a fetus is fully human and thus entitled to human rights – but *that* is besides the point. There are moral justifications for killing humans, and self defense is one of them.

This is exactly right. Judith Jarvis Thomson's article "A Defense of Abortion" does a particularly nice job of driving this point home.

[Scott Scheule]

An assertion with no support. See anything by Julian Simon for an opposing view.

Well, I can't very well support every single thing I say, now can I? Otherwise my posts would be extraordinarily long, and each one would end up with my citing the law of the excluded middle or something.

Of course not, but at the same time, you can't fault me for pointing out particularly glaring lacks.

As for Julian Simon, I admit that my knowledge with respect to his work is scant at best. But if I am not incorrect (and I may be), he was arguing against the inevitability of a "Malthusian catastrophe" if the population kept increasing. I didn't mean to imply any endorsement for such a view (i.e., the Malthusian view).

I believe he did some work in that area, but his greatest work, I believe, was the Greatest Natural Resource, or something of the sort, which argued our greatest natural resource is human beings. David Friedman also did such a study, trying to determine whether more people were on net a positive or negative--his conclusion, I believe, was that it was about neutral when all was said and done.

At any rate, my guess is that human beings come with a positive externality, and hence underproduced. That's debatable, but it's certainly not a nonsensical opinion, nor an isolated one, as you seem to be implying.

[Jacqueline]

Sorry, dadahead, but I just don't believe that a wooden head is leaving comments on my blog.

[Jacqueline]

"I believe he did some work in that area, but his greatest work, I believe, was the Greatest Natural Resource, or something of the sort, which argued our greatest natural resource is human beings."

The Ultimate Resource

[Naaman]

Libertarians for Life has an interesting smackdown on Thomson's violinist analogy. It's worth a read. Here's the most-relevant part:
In Thomson's analogy the sequence is: The violinist develops a fatal kidney problem, his friends go to his aid; they capture an innocent stranger and plug the violinist into him; the stranger unplugs himself, which lets the violinist die.

But what if the violinist is in the life-threatening condition because the stranger is not innocent? What if the stranger had hit the violinist with his car? This would make the situation closer to what's at issue in the abortion debate. The violinist has the right to defense, so why wouldn't he have the right to compel the stranger to keep him alive, especially since the stranger is able to prevent his death?

If we put someone at death's door and then take another step that brings about the death, that's not letting him die; that's killing him. And that kills Thomson's defense, too.

The violinist analogy only has any weight when used in cases of rape. These are a tiny number of abortions performed, and many pro-lifers will concede them to you. I won't concede those cases because I don't support the death penalty for rapists (long jail terms, sure!), so I certainly can't support it for rapists' children.

One other point that the Libertarians for Life rebuttal seems to miss is the relative difference between the dangers of abortion and the dangers of pregnancy. Thomson uses a lot of scary language about pregnancy, talks about nine months' bed rest, and emphasizes the possibility of maternal death. In a developed nation with decent medical care, pregnancy is extremely safe. In fact, throughout all of history, with or without modern medicine, pregnancy has been safe enough for our species to prosper and thrive. On the other hand, abortion is nearly 100% fatal for the child, and it is often a source of trouble for the woman. There is no reasonable comparison between the two.

[legallynn61]

I'm still shaking my head. "It is a little sad to have an abortion. But one does it for the child's sake." A little sad????? Has this woman never heard of adoption? If you truly worried about the sake of the "child" (which by the way, was her term, implying that it is a living human being, therefore, follow my thinking here... you are terminating the life of a living human being) you would look into blessing the life of a couple who can't have children of their own. This is truly doing something for the sake of the child and the most loving thing a parent could do. You don't have to be a Christian (oh no!!) to realize that life begins at inception. In the spring, we see bulbs we planted come to life, but do we say, "this is a blob of plant tissue that someday given the right environment, could possibly become a tulip with the assumption it doesn't die an untimely death at the hands of a hungry rabbit?" No... we say, look at the tulips coming up!! I'm not so unintelligent as to assume a child is the same as a tulip, but the arguement can be comparative. When does a "blob of tissue" officially become a child? When it hits gestation, is born and breathes, or when it is doing that life thing and GROWING inside a woman's womb?? If life isn't a matter of GROWING, then what is it??? Do non-living things GROW?? I've always felt that it is a pretty easy determination when life begins but pro-choice people have different agendas and like to spin things. I realize that in cases of rape, incest, etc., the mother has difficult issues, but that still doesn't rule out adoption. It means seeking out support both financial and emotional and making some hard choices. I lobby at my state capitol on behalf of low-income families, child education and health, and I know that low-income and poverty-level individuals are given very good services that can assist them during their pregancy. There are so many agencies today that are ready and willing to help any woman who finds herself in these situations that I still have yet to hear of any ligitimate reason for abortion. It is pretty easy for me to cut through the bull and say it like it is... abortion is for the ease and convenience of the mother. I always tell my sons, "choices you make will always have consequences." If these women are willing participants in the sex act, they chose the action, they choose to have consequences. Many couples are happy to welcome that CHILD into their home through the adoptive process. If the child is a product of rape or incest I pray for that mother, and I hope she will seek out the support she needs to make the right decision; help is out there. I don't typically post to these types of discussions, and I don't know that I ever would again, but being a single mother of two sons and knowing the challenges of raising them, I still cannot remember hearing a legitimate reason for ending another human's life. The thought of trivializing a life and creating jewelry to celebrate the end of that life shivers me to my core.

[Naaman]

Many women who are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term die, are permanently disabled, or have their lives otherwise ruined by it. They face serious psychology, physical, and financial problems down the road.

And you have studies to prove this point, right? C'mon, I showed you my studies.

You need to check out the "I'm Not Sorry" movement.

Yeah, I knew about that website a year ago. It's hardly a "movement". They have, what, a few hundred stories? Norma McCorvey filed her "Rule 60" motion to reconsider Roe v. Wade with over 1,000 supporting affidavits from post-abortive women who regret their abortions.

Still, anecdotal evidence does not constitute real proof, right? From a scientific point of view, the few hundred cases on ImNotSorry.net and the 1,000+ affidavits are worth the same: zero. However, anecdotal evidence does prove the existence of something. If you insist that post-abortion syndrome is pure agitprop, then all I need to do is show you one valid case. In that context, those 1,000+ affidavits make a big difference.

Correlation does not mean causation. You’re suggesting that abortion leads to psychological and other problems, when it could be that psychological and other problems lead to unplanned pregnancies that women choose to abort. Without a study that randomly requires women to have abortions you can’t know which it is.

While this argument is certainly true in the pure sense of it, here in reality we have recognized that correlation can certainly imply causation. The implication is especially strong when there are mutliple studies, using multiple research populations, in multiple environments that (miraculously!) all show the same correlation.

[Jacqueline]

You don't have to be a Christian (oh no!!) to realize that life begins at inception.

So is it correct then to assume that you also wish to prohibit IUDs and all methods of hormonal birth control?

[David]

"Then why don’t they adopt the millions of unwanted orphan and foster children in the world?

Oh yeah, they only want healthy white babies."

What total nonsense. Are you not aware that American families are adopting, or trying to adopt, thousands of children from nations all over the world. And from all races. Yes, most families want babies and not older children, but what has that got to do with the fact that having a baby and putting it up for adoption is a better alternative than abortion - at least for the baby.

My best friend has adopted two children - one white and one black and they are looking for another. So sell crazy somewhere else - we are all full up here.

[dadahead]

Here's what I don't get about the "no pseudonymous comments" policy anyway.

Anyone could just make up a real-sounding name and post under that.

Like, if I put as my name, "Charles T. Jefferson", you wouldn't delete it. But it would still be a pseudonym.

[Libertarian Girl]

dadahead is right, just because someone uses a real sounding name doesn't mean it's a real name.

And shame on those who wrote long religious sermons in response to a post about jewelry.

[legallynn61]

Reading the responses, I remember why I don't post to these types of conversations. I remember now how insensitive people can be toward one another. I refuse to enter the realm of demeaning, debasing behavior. I will respect all of your opinions, I don't have to agree with them, but I won't engage in childish name calling. I hope you all have a good weekend, stay safe, try to be kind and don't forget to count your blessings.

[Joanne]

Baby in a trashcan, fetus in a medical disposal bin. It is all the same.

Abortion is disgusting. Whether you believe it should be available or not, it is nothing to be celebrated.

I wonder why it is always white people who champion these things. Always white people pushing the envelope, whites could care less if something is right or wrong, they no longer even care if there is a God or not.
White attitudes are no longer 'god doubting' but 'God hating'!
Whites have a 'god complex'. Whites are demonic.