Let's punish women for suffering!

[noracharles]

Siumut member Malik Berthelsen suggests making women pay for abortions.

I am completely shocked that a member of Siumut, a supposedly socialist party, could suggest something so horrible.

If half of pregnancies in Greenland are terminated voluntarily, then there are serious social problems to be dealt with. But we already knew that. So why not try to do something about the rampant mental health problems, substance abuse problems and unemployment problems, rather than punish these women for suffering?

What exactly does Berthelsen think these women would do? What if they don't have DKK 2000 (approximately USD 400)? That's a lot of money for anyone, but especially for someone on public benefits and/or with a substance abuse problem. Are they supposed to give birth, and then neglect the baby? No one chooses to have an abortion for fun! These women have damn good reasons for preferring to go through that traumatic procedure rather than having the baby.

Berthelsen says that the threat of an expensive abortion would encourage people to use birth control. I say that he has a completely messed up view of what women are, and what kind of bodily integrity a woman is entitled to, if he thinks that the threat of going through an abortion is not a huge big deal in itself.

There are reasons for unwanted pregnancies, and those reasons are not typically a careful cost-benefit analysis of the inconvenience of stopping for a few minutes to get a condom versus the inconvenience of getting pregnant or getting an STD.

Comments

[twistedchick]

And I suppose he doesn't say a thing about having men wear condoms, get vasectomies, or pay for abortions they have caused?

Certainly it makes far more sense to improve general living conditions, health care and mental health than to levy what is essentially a tax on women.

[noracharles]

The articles I read were very short, but since he didn't say anything about whether or not men should pay part of the cost of the abortion for their partner, I think he probably didn't.

"A tax on women", yes, I like that.

[treesahquiche]

It seems as if Berthelsen is really more concerned with forcing women to want their pregnancies than actually preventing unwanted pregnancies. :/

Even socialists can be unenlightened and entitled, especially where reproductive issues are concerned. It's rarer, but being socialist doesn't automatically make one aware of fundamental problems in the system and the trap of the espousing hard-line, politically-pleasing, "life supporting" duckspeak.

[noracharles]

You are absolutely right.

This dude is certainly unenlightened and entitled. I don't think any politician in Greenland is unaware of the grave social issues they have, but he does seem to be blaming the victims and to expect them to take charge of their own futures, in a way which is not possible for someone without resources.

[elf]

Of course he's blaming the victims! They are poor! And not well-educated! And having fun! (Sex is fun, right?) Poor people don't deserve fun without extreme personal costs! Poor women, especially, don't deserve to enjoy life--they need to know that their pleasure is expensive, and they need to be forced to pay those expenses!

And of course we don't need to educate them, or the men (mygods, why would you think men should understand the costs of women's pleasure?) or make available more resources to avoid unwanted pregnancies... no, they need to learn to stop having fun. They need their fun surrounded by stress and worry and unexpected costs, so they can be *proper* women.

[noracharles]

I believe you've hit the nail on the head ;_;