The Shotgun Blog
« The Fifty Percent Solution |
Main
| BC NDP candidate should not have been forced to step down because of photos »
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Is abortion a mental illness?
I believe most mothers no matter the circumstance want to love their children. And that it is highly unusual for a mom to bear a child and not love that child. This is in part why abortion is an affront to women...to their dignity and personhood, because it denies what is natural and normal–sex, leading to pregnancy, leading to children.
So when a baby is born, and the mom immediately kills that baby of her own volition, what am I to understand?
I have a couple of different responses swimming around in my head (along with the cold virus that hit yesterday):
She should be blamed and take responsibility.
She must be mentally ill to do such a thing.
Or she is following the abortion-friendly culture we have? Five minutes before birth in a sanctified legal clinic and this would not be in the news.
(Cross-posted to ProWomanProLife)
Posted by Andrea Mrozek on April 22, 2009 in Crime | Permalink
Comments
Since miscarriages were a regular occurrence before modern medicine, and tragically still happen, perhaps women have biologically adapted to bond with their children only after they have been born.
If this theory is correct, it would explain why we regard the murder of newborn children as a sign of mental illness, and why we do not think of abortion the same way.
Thanks for the post, Andrea.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 9:00:23 AM
That's a damned interesting theory.
Posted by: anonymous | 2009-04-22 9:19:58 AM
Troll post designed to score web hits.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-04-22 9:22:28 AM
From the linked National Post article:
---
Fear of losing the "man of her dreams" pushed a 27-year-old Kanata woman into denying her pregnancy and then, in an apparent state of "confusion," suffocating her newborn son and dumping his body into a garbage can, an Ottawa court heard yesterday.
---
I’m not a woman, so forgive this voice appropriation, but the man of my dreams would likely be the kind of person who would object to infanticide.
I’ll continue from my patriarchal perch, with my male subject position, and question your conclusion, Andrea, that protected sex, leading to no pregnancy, leading to no children violates the dignity of women. Why can’t a woman participate in this zesty enterprise, within the confines of a loving relationship, using contraception, while maintaining her dignity?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 9:23:24 AM
"...designed to score web hits."
Score web hits is sort of what we do around here, Epsi. :-)
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 9:34:11 AM
No Andrea, not mentally ill, just callous and selfish. It is a common social prejudice that when a man does something terrible, it's because he's simply a terrible person, but when a woman does something terrible, there must be something wrong, for no woman would ever willingly do a terrible thing.
As an example, Canadian law states that a "female person" who kills her own newborn is guilty only of infanticide and liable to a maximum of five years' imprisonment (and usually much less). If the father kills the same baby, it is either first- or second degree-murder, and liable to imprisonment for life.
Giving birth does play havoc with your hormones. That said, it's not an excuse for murder, or even manslaughter. Men have hormones as well, yet are expected to control themselves. There is no rationale for not imposing the same requirement on women.
On the other hand, if women cannot control their actions, and the law sees fit to diminish their culpability on this basis, then it should also see fit to diminish rights commensurately. There is no right without responsibility, and if women's responsibility is to be curtailed, their rights must follow. The same goes for children.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 9:50:38 AM
Troll post designed to score web hits. - And scored you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 9:50:51 AM
See the slaughter of the innocents, dismembered, and cut to pieces by abortion at:
http://www.AbortionNo.org
then ask yourself how can any supposed "civilized" society condone this atrocity? In Canada,we give "The Order of Canada" to an abortionist and people applaud at the ceremony!! And many of our politicians boast at election time they are in favor of "freedom of choice" to kill the child in the womb.Is something rotten in Looney Land?
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2009-04-22 10:59:26 AM
We support it, Stephen, because it is women doing it. If men were doing it that would be a completely different matter. Many of the doctors performing the procedure may be men, but at the direction of a woman. You see, it's okay for men to be killers, as long as it's on women's terms.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 11:13:38 AM
Matthew--I can see how my wording in the post is poor. Sex can of course be for fun for women without violating dignity! It's the abortion part that violates dignity. What I'm saying is that sometimes even protected sex leads to pregnancy and that shouldn't come as a shocker to anyone (birds and the bees, generally taught quite early on). The decision to deny that women and men have life creating potential through abortion is where the violation comes in. I might also theorize that women are by and large aware of the repercussions of sex more acutely than men precisely because we must bear the child for nine months.
Posted by: Andrea Mrozek | 2009-04-22 11:48:04 AM
Is religion a mental illness?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 11:53:12 AM
It's not a terribly interesting theory at all. Women killing their newborns has long been associated with post-partum depression.
Of course a woman who kills her own children to stay with a man is not of sound mind and judgement.
Trying to create a link between metal illness and abortion is downright ridiculous.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 12:02:03 PM
Depression is no excuse for killing, Mike. Childbirth is a natural function; it is not an illness. Either women are fully responsible and fully entitled to the rights that attend that responsibility or they are not. Equality is a full-course deal; it does not come on an á la carte basis.
And there is a difference between unsound mind and unsound judgment. The former is a bona fide illness and fortunately rare; the latter is all too common.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 12:15:36 PM
Is religion a mental illness? - Is obsession?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 12:16:09 PM
Either women are fully responsible and fully entitled to the rights that attend that responsibility or they are not. Equality is a full-course deal; it does not come on an á la carte basis.
Firstly, I was responding to the attempt to make a connection between mental illness and abortion.
Secondly, mental illness has always been a factor of determining guilt and/or mitigating liability; it's called mens rea or more expanded to: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act does not lead to guilt unless the mind has guilt).
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 12:40:06 PM
Good point regarding mens rea, Mike.
When Andrea writes "She should be blamed and take responsibility," it's not clear to me that she means this woman should go to jail, although she might mean that.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 12:53:11 PM
Mike, the comment by "anonymous" was in response to my comment -- and my comment attempts to break the link, not "create a link," between abortion and metal illness.
I presented a theory, without giving it much thought, that there is a significant difference between the bond between mother and children and the bond between mother and unborn child. I suggest that this difference may be a biologically adaptive trait due to the risks of miscarriage.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 1:03:28 PM
Totalitarian states have often labelled those activities they deem immoral or threatening mental illnesses. That way they can jail individuals indefinitely without trial.
Unless there is a biologically observable abnormality in the brain that causes the action -- and there is definitely not in the case of either abortion or infanticide -- the "mental illness" is merely moral disapproval.
Given the extreme powers granted under provincial mental illness laws, calling women who have abortions mentally ill is a totalitarian desire... but not unexpected from those who would support state coercion against women who control the use of their own internal organs in unacceptable ways.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-04-22 1:06:41 PM
Matthew,
I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Andrea.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 1:09:31 PM
Thanks for your comment, Robert.
The first feature news story I wrote for the Western Standard after taking over as publisher was called Political Madness and addressed exactly your point with coverage of the dangerous changes to Alberta's Mental Health Act.
Here's the opening paragraph:
Imagine a world in which, despite having committed no crime, the state can arrest and imprison you indefinitely without the benefit of legal council or a trial. In this nightmare world, agents of the state can even force you into psychological treatment and drug you against your will. Yet, this isn’t the plot outline for some dystopian novel like Brave New World where prenatal psychological conditioning and universal, state-sponsored psychotropic drug use are part of the scientifically engineered social order. It’s the real world power contained in Alberta’s Mental Health Act (MHA). And in the coming year, the MHA will become an even more powerful tool for the state and government healthcare workers.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 1:16:28 PM
Oh. Sorry, Mike. Perhaps I'm getting too defensive.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 1:18:21 PM
Robert,
You just scared the hell out of me. Seriously. Now I'm even more offended by the socons.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 1:29:52 PM
Mike, you asked the question: “Is religion a mental illness?”
And now you write that you’re "scared" and "offended" that social conservatives might politicize psychiatry and the mental health field?
The blame for the totalitarian practice of using mental health as a political weapon, taken to the extreme until Stalin, is not something you can place on social conservatives.
As I note in my news story:
Darrel Regier, former director of research at the American Psychiatric Association, said he supports the study of the idea that a bias like homophobia is a pathological disorder. If psychiatrists determined that homophobia is pathological, it would end any debate on issues like same-sex marriage and would more than marginalize conservative critics of the homosexual lifestyle. While views differ radically on moral issues, treating “bias” as mental illness could expose any social activist to the same treatment as today’s violent psychotics.
It is not likely that Regier is acting on a socially conservative impulse here.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 2:12:37 PM
Matthew,
I don't think religion is a psychological disorder. Give me a break.
It's called juxtaposing. The title of this post asks a question: are women that seek abortions mentally ill?
It's obvious to me, that this question is emanating from an ultimately religious narrative when one examines the background of the author.
The problem, of course, is that religion has this special place in intellectual discourse, where the presumptions and assertions of religion itself become excused from scrutiny of the debate. The reason for this, is a form of identity politics; people interpret an attack on their religion as an attack on them.
Of course, religious people reserve this protection-from-scrutiny for their own beliefs. They do not extend it to homosexuals, women who have abortions, etc. No, every moral and intellectual idea that falls outside the auspices of religion are "fair game", but religion is not. And you know what? I say "fuck you" to that game. I won't play it.
Every time that somebody puts an intellectual or moral idea on the table, I am going to attack it's root: religion. And I mean all of the offence that comes with it, in the most serious of ways.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 2:23:13 PM
The act does not lead to guilt unless the mind has guilt.
Knowledge of guilt, or feeling of guilt? Those are two very distinct things. In fact, the absence of guilt feelings (remorse) are often cited during sentencing as justification for harsher punishment. Postpartum depression would have to be profound indeed for the woman to be unaware of what she was doing. We may be sure the baby is quite aware.
Secondly, mental illness has always been a factor of determining guilt and/or mitigating liability.
Then it should mitigate equally for men and women. The law makes a specific exemption for the "female person" and, in common with much legislation seeking to reduce the culpability of women, exhibits highly subjective criteria.
In any case, it is questionable, and highly pertinent to justice, whether someone should have to pay with his life for someone else's defective brain.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 2:32:42 PM
Given the extreme powers granted under provincial mental illness laws, calling women who have abortions mentally ill is a totalitarian desire. - And so I do not called it mental illness. I call it evil.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 2:34:30 PM
Hey, religion is fair game, Mike.
My point was that social conservatives are not uniquely to blame for the grotesque practice raised by Robert Seymour.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 2:36:01 PM
Every time that somebody puts an intellectual or moral idea on the table, I am going to attack it's root: religion. And I mean all of the offence that comes with it, in the most serious of ways.
Are you saying that religion is the root of all intellectual or moral ideas? You didn't think that statement through very carefully, did you, Bitterman?
Looks like your hate got the best of your wits yet again. Honestly, this is like shooting a barn at five yards.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 2:41:35 PM
Shane,
That's what I'm saying, yes: religion is the source of all intellectual and moral ideas.
Religion invented everything that's good.
That gay homo, atheist, Alan Turing, the father of computer science... what good did he bring the world?
I totally agree.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 2:51:45 PM
I should add that the title of this post is mine.
Is it too provocative?
The post seems to make the case that there is little distinction between infanticide and late trimester abortions, and that if infanticide can be blamed on mental illness or described as psychotic behaviour, then so can abortion.
Hence the question: Is abortion a mental illness?
The original title, written by Andrea, was: “What defines mental illness?”
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 3:34:40 PM
The title is perfect. It's the argument that's crazy.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-04-22 4:45:58 PM
Abortion is not a mental illness. Unrestricted abortion is just one more sign that Canadian culture is in decline.
I can understand abortion in limited cases (life of mother, rape, or incest). However, I cannot support abortion when it is used simply as either a method of birth control or for supposed socio-economic reasons.
A man should be wary of a woman who would so carelessly discard their child in such an instance. Just remember, if you marry her and pregnancy follows, then she might just as casually abort your child (your bloodline).
Posted by: Jackson | 2009-04-22 7:06:07 PM
Thanks for your comment, Jackson.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 7:21:16 PM
"post-partum depression"
There is a thing called post-partum psychosis, which afflicts a small percentage of women. It's like post-partum depression on steroids. It doesn't usually happen for 48 hours - and if it does occur it does not start after 6 months.
Women who experience it once are prone to experiencing it in every subsequent birth -- professionals in obstetricts watch for it -- and provide support for mothers who are facing it... although generally the person experiencing it is so far gone that they won't recognize that they need help. That is what TRUE mental illness is... If you knew you were sick, you wouldn't be sick.
That being said -- delusions particular to Post Partum Psychosis center around the mother commonly believing that their child is some kind of special entity... OR they may have a dark delusion that their child is demonic. They also might (like Andrea Yates) believe that by killing their child, they are protecting him/her.
I read nothing in this woman's comments or description of her mental state to suggest that she was suffering from Post Partum Psychosis. In that sense - her motivation for killing the baby was to save her relationship with her husband. Many mothers who have killed their children have done the same.. and they did not (nor should they have) recieved leniancy or sympathy.
All she had to do was walk to the nearest firehall or police station and leave the child if she felt she needed to hide the pregnancy. Police stations and firehalls are set up to offer safe abandonment sites for mothers in distress.
That this woman could not do that much for her infant is disgusting. In cases like this - it seems like it's a shame that there is no death penalty
Posted by: MW | 2009-04-22 7:23:08 PM
That is what you did say, Mike. Don't blame me if, in your accustomed haste, you tripped over your own tongue and blurted out something that wasn't what you meant to say.
Oh, and religion has brought a lot of good to the world, too. Most of the violence associated with religion was actually secular in nature, dressed up with religion to provide a veneer of moral righteousness. Kind of like how the secular humanists behave today.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-22 7:24:47 PM
Very interesting comment, MW.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-22 7:34:00 PM
MW - One sure way to recognize true psychosis is by whether the woman tries to cover up the crime. A truly insane woman would feel no guilt, so she'd likely commit the crime in plain view. Any attempt to hide the body would be a good indication that it's plain old murder.
I'm not sure how abortion could be studied for psychosis, since it's become so well accepted in Canada. I'd say, a pregnant woman throwing herself off a bridge might be a telltale sign, while walking into a clinic could be a sign of a well planned act.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-22 8:06:15 PM
You are absolutely right dp.
There are ways to tell whether a psychois is real or somebody is just faking it.
If somebody has spent any time with a person who has suffered a psychotic break - you can pick up on things... racing thoughts, non-sequitors, lability and so on.
The other thing is that the delusions that people suffer from when they experience a psychotic break are oddly enough almost always text-book....
Just look up "Common Delusions" -There's about a dozen that Psychiatrists and Psych Nurses hear the same thing over and over again.
to the layman it often comes across as if somebody's whole personality has changed over a very short period of time. It's one thing to consider (especially if one is older) because psychosis can often resemble onset of dementia and other mental illnesses associated with age.
A severe change in personality is a very clinically signifigant symptom of any number of both organic or psychological illness.
Posted by: MW | 2009-04-22 8:37:50 PM
"This is in part why abortion is an affront to women...to their dignity and personhood, because it denies what is natural and normal–sex, leading to pregnancy, leading to children."
How dare you suggest that forced pregnancy is somehow giving a woman back her dignity and personhood? Keep your moral judgements where they belong and leave the sociological judgements for people who know what they're talking about. Abortion isn't an affront to anything, and it doesn't take anything away from a woman. Attitudes like yours are the reason that so many young women are so poorly educated about sexual choices and are also the reason that so many teenage girls are terrified to discuss their options with adults.
Penicillin denies what is normal and natural too, but I highly doubt I'll be seeing a blog post from you soon about the evils of antibiotics. The 'unnatural' argument from pro-lifers has been debunked and debunked a million times - educate yourself before you start making these worthless and offensive blanket statements.
Posted by: AT | 2009-04-22 9:15:06 PM
"Abortion isn't an affront to anything, and it doesn't take anything away from a woman."
That has to be the most thoughtless, reptilian, cold hearted comment I've ever read. Any woman who could make a decision of that magnitude without feeling something deserves a lot worse than anything I've read on this site.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-22 10:05:29 PM
That has to be the most thoughtless, reptilian, cold hearted comment I've ever read.
dp,
That's the problem I have with so many people. They assert an objective morality based on their metaphysical assumptions.
Maybe a 5-week old fetus doesn't illicit an emotional response from some people. A scientifically-minded person would note that said fetus possesses no higher brain functions, and therefore no knowledge of it's own existence. It is an incomplete organism relying completely on the umbilical support system of the mother.
I'll admit right now: 5-week old fetus -- no emotional impact on me.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 10:14:31 PM
Mike B - Your obituary, no emotional impact on me.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-22 10:23:25 PM
dp,
So a grown adult human carries the same life value to you as a 5-week old fetus?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-22 11:13:16 PM
Only yours.
Posted by: dp | 2009-04-22 11:16:52 PM
Mike, did you go to doctors office and hear your baby's heartbeat on the "swish swish" thingy?
How did you feel the first time you heard that?
Posted by: MW | 2009-04-24 2:09:49 AM
A scientifically-minded person would note that said fetus possesses no higher brain functions, and therefore no knowledge of it's own existence.
A scientifically minded person would also note the same in a coma patient. Also, the term "higher brain functions" is highly subjective, which is probably why you picked it. A 5-week old fetus has heartbeat, brainwaves, fingerprints, and feels pain.
I'll admit right now: 5-week old fetus -- no emotional impact on me.
Your head on stick—no emotional impact on me. Except perhaps joy.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-24 8:37:28 AM
Shane,
And of course, people like myself do not believe in keeping brain-dead individuals alive (ie. Terry Schiavo).
The fact of the matter is, it's not subjective. A functional nervous system in a 5-week old fetus does not mean the baby is even aware of it's own existence/environment. The nervous system is functional, because it needs to regulate bodily functions. The higher-brain functions, responsible for consciousness, are the last part of the brain to develop (the cerebral cortex) -- and is quite simply, not developed at 5 weeks.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-04-24 11:26:45 AM
Maybe it's different when the swish swish swish sound you hear - is coming from inside you... I always got very emotional hearing the heartbeats of my babes for the first time... and even seeing them as teeny little specks on the ultrasound the size of a bean.. always filled me with awe.
It's especially weird having lived through that -- the first sounds of your baby's heartbeat - and then one day you go to hug that baby, and he's 2 inches taller than you.... It's harder when you see a POTENTIAL life ACTUALLY become a baby, child, teen... then adult...
Posted by: MW | 2009-04-24 8:21:15 PM
Terry Schiavo wasn't brain-dead, Mike; she was breathing on her own. Moreover, even in cases of major brain damage, coma seldom lasts more than 3 or 4 weeks; the patient then either regains consciousness or passes to another unresponsive state known as the persistent vegetative state (which is what Terry Schiavo was in).
As usual, you trip over your own argument. In once sentence you say that this is not a subjective matter; in the next, you say that a functional nervous system does not necessarily equal awareness--but it doesn't necessarily not equal it, either. Moreover, the ability to feel pain is controlled by one of the most primitive areas of the brain, not the part that dictates whether you'll have an affinity for Mozart.
Stop coming up with manufactured excuses so you can pretend it isn't alive. You know full well that it is. It may have "no emotional impact on you," but you are not the world, no matter how much of your feelings you share. The fundamental rightness or wrongness of a law does not turn upon whether it tickles the cockles of Mike Brock's heart. Yet you've convinced yourself that it does. No wonder you're so bitter.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-25 12:18:52 AM
Ehhh? Who the fuck is this cunt? Andrea Mrozek needs to understand the whole picture on the issue, not some 1 minded narrow sighted view on such a highly controversial topic. How the hell are shit articles like this one passing off as material on a web site like this? I have to wonder about the proprietors of this website. Jezus...
Posted by: NDN | 2009-04-25 2:02:26 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
