People who don't like abortion (for whatever reason) should be all in favor of better contraception methods. What better way to avoid an abortion than to not become pregnant at all? Those who oppose contraceptives reveal themselves for who they really are: people with middle-ages thinking who think that a woman's job is to just bear babies.
I had an argument recently with someone who is anti-abortion and his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. Anything preventing implantation of an egg is essentially killing of a baby - hence IUD is not acceptable contraception method. Condom is though. Or anything else which prevents sperm from meeting an egg.
> I had an argument recently with someone who is anti-abortion and his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet. Anything preventing implantation of an egg is essentially killing of a baby
This is a pretty common opinion among anti-choice people. One of the many divides in views on abortion is between people who believe life begins at birth vs. before birth, with a significant number of the latter believing life begins at conception.
EDIT: Obviously views on abortion are complicated and vary widely. All I'm saying is that it's really not hard to find people who will tell you life begins at conception (and by that logic, believe that killing a fertilized egg is equivalent to killing a baby).
FWIW, from any of these debates I've read on reddit at least, I've encountered almost no pro-choice people who believe life begins at conception. The party line seems to be that it is a zygote until birth - well, of course they'd never state it in such clear terms as that, instead you get any variety of mental gymnastics to avoid the question, but one thing they are absolutely certain about is, it is not a life.
They are not, and using the exact same logic advocated by the the pro-choice camp, there should be no moral issues with not providing the necessary medical support for the baby to survive. Taken at their word, if it is not self-sufficient, it is not a life.
I'm more than willing to admit that if the baby is removed from the womb too early, it will not survive, so in that sense it is "not viable". What bothers me is most (if not all, in my experience) pro-choice advocates refuse to even acknowledge the fact that non-intervention will result in a human being successfully born in the vast majority of scenarios. To me it is intellectually dishonest.
I believe life _continues_ at conception but began about one billion years ago.
I am pro choice.
I know very well that abortion stops a beating heart.
I know very well the foetus cries out in pain, desperately struggles to survive.
But even so I am pro-choice because the alternative is far worse: women will have abortions.
That has been the case since the Dawn of Humanity.
UCSC Anthropologist Stuard Schlegel was told be a Tiruray woman - Mindanao rainforest village dwellers in the Philippines - that there was a certain herb that the Tiruray women use to induce miscarriage.
Dr. Schlegel of course wanted to know what that herb was as it would be of huge benefit to women in the industrialized world, but she refused to identify it was doing so could lead all the men to murder all the women.
That's known as a "Pessary". The Hippocratic Oath forbids the administration of Pessaries.
Interesting. Most of the people I hear supporting abortion won't acknowledge that it's a life that's being ended. Whether they don't know or just won't admit it varies by person.
early life isn't significant enough to protect at that stage of development
The usual condition as I understand it is that it must be a "viable human life" to merit protection. All sorts of things can go wrong, such as miscarriage, so it's not a viable human life until it's born.
Please refrain from using epithets to caricature opposing views. This includes calling another group 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', 'pro-coercion', or 'pro-death'.
>"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."[1]
> Please refrain from using epithets to caricature opposing views. This includes calling another group 'anti-choice', 'anti-life', 'pro-coercion', or 'pro-death'.
I don't really like the term 'anti-choice', but 'pro-life' is also an epithet that many pro-choice people dislike (because it implies that pro-choice people somehow oppose life). 'pro/anti-abortion' are problematic for similar reasons.
So while I'd like to use an uncontended term, I really don't know of one.
Your opponents are of a similar mind. Consider what happens when I switch the 'life' and 'choice' in your comment.
>I don't really like the term 'anti-life', but 'pro-choice' is also an epithet that many pro-life people dislike (because it implies that pro-life people somehow oppose choice).
Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it.
> Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it. It fails by parity of reasoning.
So what neutral term would you suggest we use instead that is acceptable to everyone being described?
> Your opponents are of a similar mind.
Please don't make assumptions about my views on abortion or who my "opponents" are, especially since I've very explicitly tried to refrain from opining on the matter.
>"So what neutral term would you suggest we use instead that is acceptable to everyone being described?"
I would suggest that you refer to people by their preferred epithet, unless you can find a neutral one (which I cannot). This is common practice in most other ideological situations, (i.e. religions, political groups, and philosophical creeds,) and appears to be moderately effective at avoiding distraction from the discussion.
>"Please don't make assumptions about my views on abortion or who my "opponents" are, especially since I've very explicitly tried to refrain from opining on the matter."
I would be geniunely surprised if you self-described as 'anti-choice' (as I have never heard anyone describe themselves as anti-choice or anti-life outside of a joke,) so please correct me if I am wrong, but I stand by my assumption until it is proven false.
Speaking as someone who approves of the legal reality that abortion is a woman's right, I'm fine with pro-choice/pro-life. I don't think the aborted material constitutes a life, and the anti-abortionists' view that it does just makes me roll my eyes at their attempts to change that very common view with word games.
If you do nothing and let nature take it's course, in the majority of cases this material will proceed to be born as a human. If someone intervenes via abortion, that most likely outcome of a person being born will not happen. The willfully chosen action of an individual prevents a child from being born, whereas if they did nothing, the child would be born.
I can see how word games might make you roll your eyes, but does the above line of thinking also make you roll your eyes? I'm not suggesting we outlaw abortion, but I don't think it's that much to ask that people be honest about precisely what is happening. There are word games being played on both sides of this disagreement.
There's lots of man-made things that stop nature from "taking its course," like condoms or planning around a woman's menstrual cycle. An abortion is just another of those man-made things that stops nature from "taking its course". Aaand, it's been going on as long as people have been people.
We've been controlling pregnancy as a species for millennia. Abortion, in the medical, clinical sense, is just a safe, reliable, and legal way to do so, that also happily gives a woman body autonomy (a good place for us to get to, after so much of our history telling women their bodies aren't theirs).
Hey, maybe you don't like any of those, and sex should be purely procreative in its goals. Some people do feel that way, maybe you're one of them.
> 'pro-life' is also an epithet that many pro-choice people dislike (because it implies that pro-choice people somehow oppose life).
Many pro-life people dislike epithet "pro-choice" (because it implies that pro-life people somehow oppose choice).
Actually both implications are sort of correct. That whole debate is about what is more important: the right of fetus to live or freedom of choice of a pregnant woman.
While the AP Stylebook advises using "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights", it seems unrealistic to expect people to parse their statements that carefully, indeed journalists need a guide to achieve this aim professionally. Pro-life and pro-choice are common terms, and it seems uncharitable to leap to the assumption that someone flipping a prefix is purposefully using an epithet with the intent of caricature an opposing view.
I don't think that is the main divide. The divide would be life at contraception vs. life at some point in time during the pregnancy/fetus development. Where that line is seems to differ from country to country.
Agreed which is why the issue gets so complicated. Drawing moral lines is tricky. I can't think of anyone I have met who has argued that an abortion 24 hours before the birth would occur naturally is morally acceptable.
It will be interesting to see how the debate changes as technology advances. If x years from now doctors are able to move a 2nd or even 1st trimester fetus into an artificial womb instead of aborting it, should abortions still be legal? What if it is more expensive/uncomfortable for the woman? Should the fetus then have full human rights once separated from its mother? All deep and interesting questions.
> his opinion is that life starts when sperm and egg meet.
There is some evidence that a large percentage (30-75%) of all fertilized eggs do not implant. If every one of those was a human life, your friend might consider this an extremely large public health problem, and perhaps of greater significance than poverty, war, and plagues.
Not everyone goes against abortion because of the religion. There is more in to it, like cultural drop of values, increased risk of sexual transmitted viruses, drop in family values.
Oh please. Define "(family) values" and what would constitute a "drop" in them. Even if you are able to do so, you are mistaken
1. that people currently share your so-called values, and
2. that you have any business identifying or imposing desirable values.
Keep your "values" to yourself, please.
(I didn't even touch on "increased risk of sexual transmitted viruses [sic]"; by the time abortion comes into play, STIs are a done deal, so what in the world are you talking about?)
From what I've seen, almost all people talking about values are pretty religious. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone irreligious talk about cultural values at all. So I'd argue that even though an anti-abortion attitude may not be directly religious, it almost always seems to stem from religion.
This, of course, could be related to where I live.
I do wonder though: what specific cultural values does abortion cause a drop in?
The main one I have heard is empathy, but also a drop in selflessness (as in valuing your own discomfort over the potential life inside of you), and commitment (I have heard it linked multiple times to be increase in divorce rates, aka commitments are not treated seriously.) I'm not saying I agree with any or all of these, just I've heard them.
> Those who oppose contraceptives reveal themselves for ...
It isn't that simple. I was hoping that the article would dive into the reason why contributors to these endeavors are so quite about it, given the title, but unfortunately it didn't. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the very touchy issue of eugenics, the attempts to use birth control to reduce the number of "unfit", and the fact that early eugenicists and birth control proponents where also wealthy white people. [0] The parallels are so easily drawn that it is much more simple to just keep a relatively low profile.
So some of those middle-ages minded people you mentioned might actually be more concerned about the long term impact of disproportionately servicing the historically vulnerable with birth control.
I'm guessing you probably don't work in Health Care. Or if you do, you don't work at the level of policy or population health.
The issue with implementing Eugenics in certain populations... is that suspicion of Health Care workers is abnormally high in those populations. I'm not talking about the mentally ill, or the deficient. But certain ethnic populations harbor DEEP suspicions of medical professionals and the medical industry in general. So, over time, it's become hard to get those populations to do even those things that really are objectively "good" for their health. Let alone implement a Eugenics effort.
The problem is social... not technological. We have had cheap, and effective technology to keep people from getting pregnant for decades. How do you get people to use it??? If you had ever worked in health care, you would realize this is not so simple a question to answer. You have to get people to trust you. That's what Buffet should have spent his money on. Getting certain populations to trust medical professionals.
All Liletta is... is yet another birth control device. We have those already. How do you get people to use them??? I mean forget Liletta. How do you get people to use ANY of them ???? The patch? Implants? The pill? ANYTHING?
If Eugenics was the goal, the money was wasted. Because what you need for Eugenics... is cooperation. And, right now, you just don't have that from certain populations.
Now... if you could FORCE them to use birth control... then you'd be on to something. But that's already been tried... with Norplant. And it turns out that forcing them doesn't really work either.
Yeah I don't think you'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a heath care worker, I'm a programmer and amateur logician. You may have noticed that my prior statement did not touch on the subject of actually addressing health concerns, it was about the sense of secrecy surrounding these programs. That wasn't an accident, I find the topic kind of boring because people generally take the approach of simply imagining their desired outcome, assembling a list of prerequisites for the realization of the outcome, and then advocating for the implementation of those prerequisites. Boring, because I think it is the wrong approach - one that often leads to such thinking as "the end justifies the means". You do make a very good point about existing and deeply rooted suspicions held by minorities, the cause of which is certainly worth reflection. I would like to point out cooperation and force are not necessary for the implementation of any objective, especially when you're operating on such a grand scale. Also, I don't think Buffett is secretly trying to kill off any races - but I do think that the sensitivity surround the topic is directly related to birth control's early history in eugenics.
"Almost all women—and therefore men—use a form of birth control at some point in their lives, yet contraception is so politically and legally radioactive that legislators and pharmaceutical companies avoid funding it. So it’s no coincidence that the money behind the Colorado initiative, the St. Louis study, and Liletta all came from an unnamed philanthropic source—they all were from the same discreet foundation. Very few people will discuss The Anonymous Donor on the record, but tax filings, medical journal disclosures, and an archived interview with a foundation official show the funds come from Warren Buffett, the chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, and his family."
I'm glad we don't have to rely on democracy for progress :)
For anyone wondering postpartum IUD implantation is one of the most effective forms of birth control known [1]. You catch women right after they have gone through giving birth and have a strong incentive not to have the experience again. They are also already at a location that can do the implant so the extra effort needed to get them to come back is not an obstacle.
> This March, a state legislator in Arkansas proposed a bill that would pay unwed, low-income mothers on Medicaid $2,500 to get an IUD. That echoes a not-so-distant controversy over the Norplant hormonal implant. After it hit the market in 1991, legislators in more than a dozen states introduced bills that would have pushed women into getting the implant as a condition of welfare, in lieu of jail time, or in exchange for cash... If more policymakers try to contort the effectiveness of IUDs into a tool for social engineering or make its use a condition for state support, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation may find itself needing to fund yet another battle—to ensure that a woman not only has access to an IUD, but that it is her choice to get one.
No doubt the Norplant case is terrible but I am unable to see the problem with offering low-income women a monetary incentive to get an IUD. It is reversible with no permanent side-effects. They can use the funds to get out of debt or get education. Even if they waste it on luxury goods, isn't it better than more impoverished children? Demographically, I can see how it will disincentivize a higher portion of minorities from having children but it might end up having a much better effect on their lives in the long-term if instead of remaining childless, more women just have children when they are older and better capable of providing for them.
The problem arises, as explained to me by a woman when I made the same point, is woman could be coerced to get an implant in order to get cash for her partner or parents etc.
a woman could be coerced to get an implant in order to get cash for her partner or parents etc
While I recognize the concern, I think it's rather infantilizing to take a choice away from women because of a concern that they will be subject to coercion and unwilling to avail themselves of the protections afforded by the criminal justice system.
Consider an analogous situation with men instead of women: Men are coerced into enlisting in the US military in order to gain cash for their partners and parents. Should the answer be to transform the US military into an unpaid volunteer force?
there are already people who complain bitterly about the military incentives (after they have taken and spent the money or gotten the education they wanted)... but no political groups are going to be taking up thier cause.
So, why don't they just subsidize the cost of the IUD - and fund marketing for the program - instead of a large cash payment? That would take care of the accessibility issue without being such blatant population control.
Most people don't pay for it out of their pocket, as far as I'm aware, either they have health insurance coverage or they use public clinics like the one described in the article.
Most people pay for it (and most healthcare expenses) through insurance, and insurance companies can negotiate their own price. This means that there is little incentive or care about the sticker price of treatments.
Many people near the Canadian border do exactly this. I think it's more common with dental procedures than most medical issues, but I've heard of people getting non-emergency surgery done.
Even if you pay completely out of pocket, Canadian medicine is much cheaper than US. I had an emergency appendectomy while on vacation in Quebec, and the total bill, with surgery, anesthesia, an overnight stay in the hospital, and the 100+ mile ambulance ride to get me out to a real hospital, was around $2500. That's the deductible on my US health insurance... A comparable procedure in a US hospital would be billed at nearly an order of magnitude higher (source, several in-patient orthopedic surgeries I've had)
> A comparable procedure in a US hospital would be billed at nearly an order of magnitude higher
This is the problem most people overlook when talking healthcare reform in the US - if you just make it single payer (the government), you're still screwed if the prices are 10x what it should be.
The reason it's much cheaper in Canada is collective bargaining through the single payer. The hospitals can't charge exorbitant markups for those procedures and take the profit because the single payer knows how much it actually costs and will make it just worth their while.
Actually, I don't live in the U.S., and the awful healthcare (unless you're wealthy) is one of the reasons that would make me hesitant to live there (in particular the cost of having children scares me).
While I'm thankful that wealthy men try to do things in the world they think will benefit themselves or other people, it bothers me that democracy is not able to compete with the influence of big money - even for things as simple as birth control.
While I'm thankful that wealthy men try to do things in the world they think will benefit themselves or other people, it bothers me that democracy is not able to compete with the influence of big money - even for things as simple as birth control.
As always, talk to your doctor about the risks. For example, if there is a complication with removing the IUD (ex: the uterus is too tight and pushes the IUD too far up) they may have to schedule an appointment with the OR at a hospital to have it removed, instead of the OBGYN. Anecdotal (not me, I have no uterus), but still no fun.
You may have idiosyncratic views on abortion ("I don't believe in a woman's right to her own medical choices, so I went and bought a stuffed animal"), but it seems totally implausible that your bringing a stuffed animal into the clinic would make "all the women at the clinic [be] overcome with grief."
69 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadPeople who don't like abortion (for whatever reason) should be all in favor of better contraception methods. What better way to avoid an abortion than to not become pregnant at all? Those who oppose contraceptives reveal themselves for who they really are: people with middle-ages thinking who think that a woman's job is to just bear babies.
This is a pretty common opinion among anti-choice people. One of the many divides in views on abortion is between people who believe life begins at birth vs. before birth, with a significant number of the latter believing life begins at conception.
EDIT: Obviously views on abortion are complicated and vary widely. All I'm saying is that it's really not hard to find people who will tell you life begins at conception (and by that logic, believe that killing a fertilized egg is equivalent to killing a baby).
The split in viewpoints, as I understand it, is that early life isn't significant enough to protect at that stage of development.
I am pro choice.
I know very well that abortion stops a beating heart.
I know very well the foetus cries out in pain, desperately struggles to survive.
But even so I am pro-choice because the alternative is far worse: women will have abortions.
That has been the case since the Dawn of Humanity.
UCSC Anthropologist Stuard Schlegel was told be a Tiruray woman - Mindanao rainforest village dwellers in the Philippines - that there was a certain herb that the Tiruray women use to induce miscarriage.
Dr. Schlegel of course wanted to know what that herb was as it would be of huge benefit to women in the industrialized world, but she refused to identify it was doing so could lead all the men to murder all the women.
That's known as a "Pessary". The Hippocratic Oath forbids the administration of Pessaries.
Hippocrates was an Ancient Greek.
>"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't really like the term 'anti-choice', but 'pro-life' is also an epithet that many pro-choice people dislike (because it implies that pro-choice people somehow oppose life). 'pro/anti-abortion' are problematic for similar reasons.
So while I'd like to use an uncontended term, I really don't know of one.
>I don't really like the term 'anti-life', but 'pro-choice' is also an epithet that many pro-life people dislike (because it implies that pro-life people somehow oppose choice).
Your reasoning is just as strong when used against you, as when you employ it.
So what neutral term would you suggest we use instead that is acceptable to everyone being described?
> Your opponents are of a similar mind.
Please don't make assumptions about my views on abortion or who my "opponents" are, especially since I've very explicitly tried to refrain from opining on the matter.
I would suggest that you refer to people by their preferred epithet, unless you can find a neutral one (which I cannot). This is common practice in most other ideological situations, (i.e. religions, political groups, and philosophical creeds,) and appears to be moderately effective at avoiding distraction from the discussion.
>"Please don't make assumptions about my views on abortion or who my "opponents" are, especially since I've very explicitly tried to refrain from opining on the matter."
I would be geniunely surprised if you self-described as 'anti-choice' (as I have never heard anyone describe themselves as anti-choice or anti-life outside of a joke,) so please correct me if I am wrong, but I stand by my assumption until it is proven false.
I can see how word games might make you roll your eyes, but does the above line of thinking also make you roll your eyes? I'm not suggesting we outlaw abortion, but I don't think it's that much to ask that people be honest about precisely what is happening. There are word games being played on both sides of this disagreement.
We've been controlling pregnancy as a species for millennia. Abortion, in the medical, clinical sense, is just a safe, reliable, and legal way to do so, that also happily gives a woman body autonomy (a good place for us to get to, after so much of our history telling women their bodies aren't theirs).
Hey, maybe you don't like any of those, and sex should be purely procreative in its goals. Some people do feel that way, maybe you're one of them.
Many pro-life people dislike epithet "pro-choice" (because it implies that pro-life people somehow oppose choice).
Actually both implications are sort of correct. That whole debate is about what is more important: the right of fetus to live or freedom of choice of a pregnant woman.
Full stop.
Unless you want to be called "anti-life" it's better to use traditional names for such groups: "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
There is some evidence that a large percentage (30-75%) of all fertilized eggs do not implant. If every one of those was a human life, your friend might consider this an extremely large public health problem, and perhaps of greater significance than poverty, war, and plagues.
1. that people currently share your so-called values, and
2. that you have any business identifying or imposing desirable values.
Keep your "values" to yourself, please.
(I didn't even touch on "increased risk of sexual transmitted viruses [sic]"; by the time abortion comes into play, STIs are a done deal, so what in the world are you talking about?)
Please don't be personally abrasive in HN comments. It degrades the discourse, whether your argument is right or not.
This, of course, could be related to where I live.
I do wonder though: what specific cultural values does abortion cause a drop in?
It isn't that simple. I was hoping that the article would dive into the reason why contributors to these endeavors are so quite about it, given the title, but unfortunately it didn't. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the very touchy issue of eugenics, the attempts to use birth control to reduce the number of "unfit", and the fact that early eugenicists and birth control proponents where also wealthy white people. [0] The parallels are so easily drawn that it is much more simple to just keep a relatively low profile.
So some of those middle-ages minded people you mentioned might actually be more concerned about the long term impact of disproportionately servicing the historically vulnerable with birth control.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics
The issue with implementing Eugenics in certain populations... is that suspicion of Health Care workers is abnormally high in those populations. I'm not talking about the mentally ill, or the deficient. But certain ethnic populations harbor DEEP suspicions of medical professionals and the medical industry in general. So, over time, it's become hard to get those populations to do even those things that really are objectively "good" for their health. Let alone implement a Eugenics effort.
The problem is social... not technological. We have had cheap, and effective technology to keep people from getting pregnant for decades. How do you get people to use it??? If you had ever worked in health care, you would realize this is not so simple a question to answer. You have to get people to trust you. That's what Buffet should have spent his money on. Getting certain populations to trust medical professionals.
All Liletta is... is yet another birth control device. We have those already. How do you get people to use them??? I mean forget Liletta. How do you get people to use ANY of them ???? The patch? Implants? The pill? ANYTHING?
If Eugenics was the goal, the money was wasted. Because what you need for Eugenics... is cooperation. And, right now, you just don't have that from certain populations.
Now... if you could FORCE them to use birth control... then you'd be on to something. But that's already been tried... with Norplant. And it turns out that forcing them doesn't really work either.
I'm glad we don't have to rely on democracy for progress :)
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25439838
https://books.google.com/books?id=LhMGSDiQghEC&pg=PA137&lpg=...
No doubt the Norplant case is terrible but I am unable to see the problem with offering low-income women a monetary incentive to get an IUD. It is reversible with no permanent side-effects. They can use the funds to get out of debt or get education. Even if they waste it on luxury goods, isn't it better than more impoverished children? Demographically, I can see how it will disincentivize a higher portion of minorities from having children but it might end up having a much better effect on their lives in the long-term if instead of remaining childless, more women just have children when they are older and better capable of providing for them.
While I recognize the concern, I think it's rather infantilizing to take a choice away from women because of a concern that they will be subject to coercion and unwilling to avail themselves of the protections afforded by the criminal justice system.
Consider an analogous situation with men instead of women: Men are coerced into enlisting in the US military in order to gain cash for their partners and parents. Should the answer be to transform the US military into an unpaid volunteer force?
there are already people who complain bitterly about the military incentives (after they have taken and spent the money or gotten the education they wanted)... but no political groups are going to be taking up thier cause.
Even if you pay completely out of pocket, Canadian medicine is much cheaper than US. I had an emergency appendectomy while on vacation in Quebec, and the total bill, with surgery, anesthesia, an overnight stay in the hospital, and the 100+ mile ambulance ride to get me out to a real hospital, was around $2500. That's the deductible on my US health insurance... A comparable procedure in a US hospital would be billed at nearly an order of magnitude higher (source, several in-patient orthopedic surgeries I've had)
This is the problem most people overlook when talking healthcare reform in the US - if you just make it single payer (the government), you're still screwed if the prices are 10x what it should be.
For major surgeries, people do fly to Europe for the procedure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/us/the-growing-popularity-...
She and I prepared for the experience for a couple weeks. I spent quite a lot of time talking it over with some of my coworkers.
At the very last instant I realize I screwed up; while she was in with the doctor I raced out, purchased a miniature teddy bear then raced back.
That made all the difference to her but even so she was completely overcome with grief.
All the women at the clinic were overcome with grief.
I was the only male in the place other than the staff.
You may have idiosyncratic views on abortion ("I don't believe in a woman's right to her own medical choices, so I went and bought a stuffed animal"), but it seems totally implausible that your bringing a stuffed animal into the clinic would make "all the women at the clinic [be] overcome with grief."