Can We Have Some Empathy Too?

A Christian conservative woman/media personality openly talks about how her pregnancy had some complications. Her doctor tells her that there is some complication. The fetus will not make it.

He recommends (from what I can tell without doing a deep dive and since we only have her account anyway) an abortion procedure to complete things since it would be unhealthy for her not to do so. She is upset but does it, talking about it as part of her overall video logs (vlogs, podcasts, or whatever) about the status of her pregnancy.

Various people are all "A DUGGAR HAD AN ABORTION!!!!!" The general idea is she is a big fat hypocrite. Or, perhaps, it is that only people like her will get "therapeutic" abortions under current laws. I saw people annoyed she did "really" talk about the situation. One person said she called it a "miscarriage" instead of an abortion.

[I recently read about ANOTHER Duggar -- admittedly there are lots -- who has a new book talking about how she chose a somewhat less conservative view of Christianity.] 

The whole thing is depressing. First, it is okay to have some empathy about someone losing a fetus (or whatever she would call it), even if you are upset that their principles are harmful, including helping to further a system that people like her will not be burdened with as much as others. Someone compared her to a Russian soldier as if she is personally invading reproductive clinics.

We know about this because she talked about it. It is asinine to harp on her language. People used similar language in the past, especially depending on the reasons involved. The words here are not merely factual. Will we complain people in abusive religions talk about the abuse but aren't blunt enough?  

It is a form of "miscarriage" from what I can tell. The fetus would not survive. Having an abortion, e.g., because of rape or economic reasons would be a different type of situation. ETA: A few people (not just the "pro-life" brigade) seem to be like me "eh ... you know ... it is not always an abortion, so let's not just assume ..."  Sometimes, we do not know for sure.  Be less cocksure, maybe.

Second, even relatively well-off people are burdened by these policies. Third, it isn't all/nothing. The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a six-week ban (at least for now). These laws will be applied in a haphazard way. 

And, "the cruelty is [not] the entire point." Again, this is an asinine way of looking at how bad things happen. As if it is a matter of pure evil. Are some of that mixed in? Yes.

Finally, yes, I'm glad she decided to talk about it. It shows what she experiences and can help others. And, it helps show how people need reproductive care. We can have discussions about how proper health care involves personal choice. And so on. 

She personally will not frame her story this way. Not listening to her whole story, she is likely (who is?) fully aware of the situation. While she deals with losing a fetus she hoped to become a baby and raise her other kids. But, the truth comes out in stages.

(I bluntly said this is a reply to a sort of "I don't give a shit about her" comment.  Sometimes, it might work to at least try to turn things around and use a person's tone against them. Then again, if the person is fixed in a frame, it won't magically get a light bulb over their head either. As of the latest update, I also got four downvotes -- downvotes are rare, so notable.)  

I think we can have empathy when dealing with people. Finally, of course, some will provide stereotypical accounts about "Christians" (like President Biden?) and where that leads. The Duggars are not exactly run-of-the-mill there either.

I recently wrote a blog on "civic duties v. responsibilities." It is one of my most personal concerns.  One responsibility is caring for others. Another is being informed.  And, part of being informed is to think things through. It is hard to do that.  I don't want to be too patronizing, condescending, or simply full of myself.  It applies to me too at times.    

But, I'm seeing some of that here.  I know online comments are often not quite thought thru at times and all that.  Still, some subjects just are so depressing.  It is a bit soul-crushing to be yelled at for empathy.  

ETA: I have moments like this on various subjects. I think as a general matter that some take is wrong, even granting certain things. We see ever more things with stuff tossed at us online. 

How often do people not know the details?  For instance, the Department of Energy investigated a possible COVID leak in China and people did not know what it specifically did so. It took a few minutes to search for the answer. But, people don't do that.  

Anyway, this is one take that notes that the fetus was dead, and the procedure used for removal, in that case, is not properly called an "abortion."  It is not really hypocritical for even the most extremist anti-abortion person to believe that the removal of a dead fetus is not an abortion!  It is when she denies people in the same situation the right.

"Everyone" -- to cite that second link -- who has an abortion is not in the same position. A person who aborts a fetus with some anomaly or as a result of rape or because of their economic situation should have a legal right to do so.  But, it is not the same situation.  As cited at the link, is it really that hard to understand?  

I understand that she pushed back, including one thing I saw with anti-abortion sentiments about other situations.  She is being called some hypocrite.  Do people think she will have a Paul at Damascus moment? She is not saying everyone but her in these situations is wrong. I do hope she is more sympathetic in various cases where abortion is very necessary.  

I understand the ideological leanings of publications have colored their positions on this subject.  But, it is unfortunate the nuances are not handled better.  We are talking past each other.  If "abortion" is literally referenced as the removal of the fetus, it can be applied.  OTOH, that is often not how people use it. A miscarriage is a "natural abortion" (it naturally expels things out), but again, people do not often see it that way.

This article is a jumble -- doctors "don't use" a word but there is no "debate" over its usage.  She "might not think of it as" (honestly) but she is tarred as at best clueless or at worst a hypocrite.  Others in her position are denied care but with such hazy talk, just what does "similar" mean?  

For instance, it is obvious if an abortion is necessary to prevent an immediate threat to health, it should be allowed. But, that is STILL not the same situation as hers, if the embryo or fetus is still alive (if that word is allowed).  Some very well might be denied care in her condition, including even those with a dead fetus inside.  (She might push back if the doctor cannot say there is some immediate threat to the woman's health.)  

She "claims" since she is using the term as it often is used. It is not a matter of "intent."  The whole this is depressing and again it is common. People talk past each other and cannot even clarify just what the debate at hand is. I think, however, that is fundamental.  We will greatly debate things but we should be able to limit the ground of debate to some degree.  This includes realizing each side has some strong disagreements without simply being hypocrites.  This is so even if they are uninformed.

Are we not all uninformed about many things?  Let's again have some empathy.  Let's have some humility.  

Another Update: I re-reading the joint dissent in the Dobbs case and just this issue arose among the discussion of the many questions the majority leaves open.  

The dissent notes that miscarriage and abortion are often not clearly independent categories. It quotes an article (link from the SCOTUS permanent link page; I had trouble with the one in the opinion) [issue brief] from a health policy group.  It highlights that Duggar is not a hypocrite. 

The article states that "miscarriages and stillbirths refer to the spontaneous death of an embryo or fetus, but not to the elective termination of pregnancy."  A miscarriage includes an embryo or fetus that is not expelled from the womb.  

The term "pregnancy loss" is used here.  The use of drugs or surgery to remove a dead embryo or fetus is not labeled an "abortion."  The brief notes how "surgical methods" used for abortion are also used for "pregnancy loss."  It gets confusing:

However, pregnancy loss is often poorly understood and conflated with induced abortions; for example, terms like “induced miscarriage” have been used to imply intent to end pregnancy, while “spontaneous abortion” is a medical term for a miscarriage. This brief clarifies how pregnancy loss is distinct from abortion, while highlighting the similarities in their management. It also focuses on how abortion policies may impact miscarriage care.

It seems to me, again, that there is talking past each other.  The term "abortion" very well might be used to talk about the removal of an embryo.  Nonetheless, there is a clear difference between the choice of ending the life of an embryo and fetus [which again often is compelled by the circumstances above and beyond the right to abortion generally], and removing (even if literally the fetus is being expelled, aborted) a dead one.

This is a case where terms cannot simply be used as if we are applying objective words like "gold" to apply to an element in nature or "walking" as a verb implying using your feet to move.  It is more akin to something like "killing" to mean the destruction of "life" or "war" to mean a certain type of conflict. Clearly, "abortion" has a mixed meaning here.

So, again, maybe have some empathy, and practice special care when talking about this whole matter.