It's been a while since I've talked about abortions... so in honour of the month of strange...
Angie Jackson on tweeting her abortion:
I’m live tweeting my abortion on Twitter — not for some publicity stunt or for attention or to justify this to myself, I am at peace with my decision. I’m doing this to demystify abortion. I’m doing this so that other women know, ‘Hey, it’s not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.’ It’s just not that bad. This is nothing compared to childbirth, compared to labor, or, for me and my risks, late stage pregnancy.
I find the idea of tweeting an abortion alternately intriguing and mundanely boring. There's nothing all that exciting about an abortion. I mean... we don't live tweet other medical procedures, do we? I get the idea of demystifying, but wonder if the publicity appeal of it doesn't sensationalize the issue to the point of making her objective redundant? I mean... did her live tweets really make it any easier for another woman who is contemplating this decision to make the call for herself?
Speaking of which... the Harper government isn't adding contraception and abortion funding into the its maternal health initiative. I have to admit that I'm experiencing mixed thougths on this issue. I mean... does contraception/abortion really improve maternal health? In some ways you can argue for both sides and I think that both cases can be understood as being equally valid. But on the other hand, for lower income moms who need access to cheap, effective contraception, not funding contraception and abortions may be ghettoizing these women into an enforced cycle of poverty and motherhood (not that motherhood is a bad thing... just that maybe some women would choose to not become mothers again if they had the ability to do so). I know you can make several counter-arguments... please spare me the debate... I already said I have mixed emotions on the issue, I'm just trying to figure out which points I think outweigh the others. There's something about Harper's governments decision that smacks of Bushian anti-funding of non-abstinence education funding and/or an elitist system of access to services that marginalizes lower socio-economic groups.