PDA

View Full Version : I agree with Jera (and more) *really long*



Pages : [1] 2

himom
02-06-2009, 09:23 AM
Just wanted to jump in here and say I back Jera 100% on everything she has said about abortion (see Pro-choice thread). I know there are lots of other pro-life Moms here, but most of us hate to get involved in the inevitable verbal assault. But I've kept my mouth shut for 6 years and never really expressed what I think, so here's my little essay so I can go back to not getting involved in the controversial threads.

Let's be nice, if possible, so we don't get shut down. Nobody's ever said this stuff quite this bluntly here before (that I can remember) so I'd like to know what everyone thinks. Here we go.....

I know people think it's a huge mistake to treat the issue as black and white, which I disagree with. As far as I'm concerned it IS black and white. Conception=child, abortion=murder. What makes a baby human 3 months or 6months or 9 months later? At what point does "terminating a pregnancy" turn into "infanticide"? I know the pro-choice mantra is that no one should be able to tell you what happens with your body, or to legislate what you can do with it -- I think the pro-life mantra should be that no one should be able to dictate when someone is human or not human, or to legislate when you can kill them.

For an example of why I really feel this is a slippery slope, see the following news story:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJYykrsdytHiypY5WXf0A7AAY5MAD965JKE00

It seems to me that once we place no value on the unborn we lose a piece of our own humanity. Was this a baby or a bunch of breathing medical waste? Who gets to decide? Me? You? The mom? The unlicensed clinic owner? The doctor?

As far as the circumstances under which girls and women have abortions...I also grew up in the real world and I've seen the horrific things that people go through when they find out they're pregnant. One of my best friends got the s**t beaten out of her when her parents found out she was having sex and she ended up getting an abortion a short time later to avoid another beating. I know about the horrible circumstances of abuse, incest, rape, etc. Some of it I've seen first hand, some of it I've only read or heard about. But none of it outweighs what, for me, is the taking of an innocent human life.

The following are extreme examples, obviously very, very, VERY extreme examples (think Jonathan Swift), but it kinda illustrates how I see it:

Give a newborn to his crackhead mother, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to grow up in a family that resents him, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to be born to a woman who conceived him during a brutal rape, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to be born to a terrified, miserably abused 14 year old, where he also will be terrorized and abused, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to cause his mother 10 months of discomfort, misery, and financial stress, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to ruin a young woman's chance at college and a bright future career, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to live in sqaulor, where she will undergo abuse and grow to be burden to society, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.

Yes, I know, I KNOW...these are obviously extremely extreme examples. But when it comes down to it this is what we are saying....The life of the child is trumped by the circumstances into which he or she was conceived.

I have close friends who are adamantly pro-choice, and they usually fall into two categories:

1. Those who agree that abortion is the taking of a life, but feel the act is justified by the circumstances. When we get into these discussions, and we talk about the "shooting in the back of the head" thing, some of them agree that the child is better off dead, or they say it's bad luck for the child, but the mother is better off with the child dead.

2. Those who do not agree that abortion is the taking of a life but is instead a common procedure for the prevention of babies. I personally think these people need to draw a line and say when they DO believe a life begins, just so they know if for themselves where the line is. Otherwise stuff like the article mentioned above happens.

Now...how do we save all these babies, girls, and women who are caught in these situations if they aren't allowed to terminate the child? This is the question so often put to pro-lifers -- if they can't abort, how else can they fix it? While the question has validity, the answer needs to be based on the premise that these difficult situations cannot and should not be "solved" with the "termination" of a life. The very idea is abhorrent, and in many situations the "solution" is nothing but a patch over the problem. Other, more long-term solutions must be found, and I wish we'd quit spending all our money on dumb stuff and start working on fixing these social situations as best we could. Fund social programs for more confident girls, for free preschools, for early childcare, for parenting classes, for more social workers to get women out of abusive situations, etc. For my part, I do what little I can for the small community I live in. I know it's not enough.

My other issue with this is in regards to the woman involved. It is my opinion that the legalization of abortion has been one of the biggest blows to women in the last century. This ability to get a quick "fix" is manipulated and abused by MEN more than by anyone else. I can't tell you how many of my male co-workers in high school would be grumbling about how much abortions were costing them. So many guys HATE condoms, which is why so many of my friends got pregnant. We all knew where to get them and how to use them, but very few girls did....the guy involved would bully/cajole the girl involved until the inevitable happened. I truly believe, from the depths of my being, that if some of those guys had realized that their choices were either a condom or 18 years of child support, they would have gotten a condom. But since they had option three....voila! pregnancy, and a $350 fix. (This was many years ago, when $350 was the going rate--I'm getting old.) Often, $350 became $700and more because more pregnancies occurred.

As a PP mentioned, this is really a self-confidence issue...stronger women would not have succumbed. Strong women insist on condoms. (There's a slogan for a campaign!!!) But not all women are strong!! And girls are having sex so early now that they so often don't have the confidence or courage to demand their partners protect them. Again, they know about condoms, but they just don't use them. This is a really big issue that I'd love to get involved in someday, but it's a long, uphill road. How do you teach girls to be confident? As Moms we can try with our own kids, but so many of these other kids just don't have any support at all, so an "I love you" and a few kind words can turn an innocent teenager into a pregnant woman in very short order. And a pushy, angry boyfriend can turn that pregnant woman into a post-abortion puddle of unhappiness just as quickly. It's come to the point in the United States where for some women, abortion isn't just an option, it's the one thing you HAVE to do to keep from ruining your life. Sadly, the "choice" part of it is long gone for a lot of girls. Not all, I know, but for many.

Some have said the answer to this is another form of birth control, but to me this is playing with fire. STDs are no joke. AIDS is still killing people, and Gardasil doesn't cure all ills. Condoms, even though they are only 97% effective, are really the best form of birthd control for uncommitted relationships. (Sorry, quick soapbox aside!)

With regard to parental consent...to me it's ridiculous that a child can get this done without some kind of a guardian being aware of it. If it's so awful for the parents to find out (and, as above, I do know it happens), then why can't the clinics have a social worker assigned to them? Either states can mandate hearings and provide said girls with advocates or they can just provide the advocates. The point is, it's incredibly irresponsible to send a child home after a medical procedure and have no one looking after her. Abortions are medical procedures, and complications, some of which can be deadly, do occur. Here's another question: A girl goes in for an abortion without informing her parents because she will be beaten if her parents find out, or because her father raped her and she can't tell her mother, or any one of the other awful things that happen to girls that keep them from being able to go to their parents. If that child goes home and has complications -- infections, excessive bleeding, blood clots, etc--are they going to tell their parents then? The clinic might keep secrets but a the ER won't. A hospital stay is hard to hide. Will the girl get emergency help or will her fear of being found out keep her from getting the help she needs? Her home situation will not have changed, and in fact, it will be worse if she has to tell a parent she is bleeding so much because she had an abortion, right? Who will be taking care of her then and protecting her from her parents then?

According to Mayo, very serious complications occur only 1 in 100 times. But that 100th girl needs someone to take care of her. Some adult has to know what's going on and be looking out for her health.

Also, a few probing questions from a social worker or a judge before a girl can get an abortion is not going to kill her -- she may be scared and uncomfortable, but abortions are scary and uncomfortable too. And those questions may uncover abuse, rape, or many other ills, as well as making sure the girl involved is properly cared for if she does have the abortion.

Finally, I want to say that federal funding for abortions, here or abroad, is a huge violation of my rights. You may disagree with me, but to me abortion is murder, so taking my money and giving it to someone to get an abortion is just loathsome. I realize others feel that the Gulf wars, capital punishment, etc fall into the same category, and I agree. We shouldn't have to pay for it if we are morally against it. Which is why I vote the way I vote.

Sorry this is so long, and I'm sure many of you will never agree with me on this. We are all entitled to our opinions and can only vote our own conscience, which is what I plan to do. But I did think since almost all we've heard here was pro-choice, that it would be a good thing to see the other perspective.

Excuse me while I go get out my suit of armor.....

SnuggleBuggles
02-06-2009, 09:36 AM
I can't say that I agree with your conclusions. I think they were drawn from your own limited experience and can not speak for the larger population. Condom vs child support...how many women do you think qualify for child support and never get it? It isn't nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. I felt that way about pretty much everything you wrote and I bet if anyone pro-choice chooses to participate in this discussion and replies to this thread they will express my feelings better than I could.

Beth

himom
02-06-2009, 09:45 AM
I can't say that I agree with your conclusions. I think they were drawn from your own limited experience and can not speak for the larger population. Condom vs child support...how many women do you think qualify for child support and never get it? It isn't nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. I felt that way about pretty much everything you wrote and I bet if anyone pro-choice chooses to participate in this discussion and replies to this thread they will express my feelings better than I could.

Beth

You're right, but any person posting here is going to draw from their own limited experience and can not speak for the population.

As for the child support issue -- yes, you're right, women apply and don't get it. Child support vs. condom use is not black and white.

But I think abortion is.

AngelaS
02-06-2009, 09:51 AM
I'm prolife too. But my suit of armor is at the cleaners today, so I'll pray yours holds up well today. ;)

o_mom
02-06-2009, 10:17 AM
Two questions....

1. What is your position when the life of the mother is in danger?

2. If abortion is made illegal, what should the punishment be for women who have them?


I completely support your right to speak your mind, even if I don't agree with it. :)

himom
02-06-2009, 10:22 AM
Two questions....

1. What is your position when the life of the mother is in danger?

2. If abortion is made illegal, what should the punishment be for women who have them?


I completely support your right to speak your mind, even if I don't agree with it. :)

1. Up to the mother. If she wants intervention, do what absolutely needs to be done to save her then try as much as possible to save baby too.

2. I wouldn't prosecute the women, I'd go after the people doing the abortions. Loss of license?? Jail?? I don't know.

But I should add that I don't foresee a future where abortion is illegal. I'd like to see one where the other alternatives are so much better no one will even consider it anymore.

And thanks, right back at ya!

SnuggleBuggles
02-06-2009, 10:24 AM
Can I add 1 more question?

If abortion were made illegal women would still seek them out (they have all through history). Would you rather women go to unlicensed providers and engage in potentially more dangerous, harmful practices to get to their desired end result? That would be a big fear of mine. Simply making it illegal isn't going to stop the practice- it will just make it less safe, imo.

Beth

himom
02-06-2009, 10:28 AM
Can I add 1 more question?

If abortion were made illegal women would still seek them out (they have all through history). Would you rather women go to unlicensed providers and engage in potentially more dangerous, harmful practices to get to their desired end result? That would be a big fear of mine. Simply making it illegal isn't going to stop the practice- it will just make it less safe, imo.

Beth

No, I wouldn't. But if they choose to put themselves in that situation that would be their choice. The fact that some people will seek them out anyway doesn't make me feel the practice is any less abhorrent.

What I'm mostly against is the fact that society endorses, encourages, and funds abortions.

o_mom
02-06-2009, 10:35 AM
1. Up to the mother. If she wants intervention, do what absolutely needs to be done to save her then try as much as possible to save baby too.

2. I wouldn't prosecute the women, I'd go after the people doing the abortions. Loss of license?? Jail?? I don't know.

I asked because these are the areas where I just can't get on board with the pro-life side regarding how to legislate what is an acceptable risk and what prosecution of the providers would lead to.



But I should add that I don't foresee a future where abortion is illegal. I'd like to see one where the other alternatives are so much better no one will even consider it anymore.

And thanks, right back at ya!

I honestly think that this is how almost everyone feels - I have never met a pro-choice person that didn't feel this way.

egoldber
02-06-2009, 10:38 AM
I'd like to see one where the other alternatives are so much better no one will even consider it anymore.

I would love to see that too.

fivi2
02-06-2009, 10:43 AM
I pretty much disagree with every single thing you wrote. I am adamantly pro-choice. I will not take the time to respond to every single one of your points, because I do not see the point. If you truly want to know, there are plenty of books, articles, and even other threads to enlighten you.

I will say this, which another poster put in the other thread (and they said it much better). Your belief as to when life begins, etc, is YOUR belief (I assume affected by your religion, but that is only an assumption, possible incorrect). I do not share your beliefs. So why should your beliefs preside over my body? If you don't want an abortion or do not believe they are right, it is simple. You do not have to get one.

But I do not see why your beliefs have any hold over me and my body.

I do not believe life as we view it begins at conception. period.

Ceepa
02-06-2009, 10:46 AM
I pretty much disagree with every single thing you wrote. I am adamantly pro-choice. I will not take the time to respond to every single one of your points, because I do not see the point. If you truly want to know, there are plenty of books, articles, and even other threads to enlighten you.

I will say this, which another poster put in the other thread (and they said it much better). Your belief as to when life begins, etc, is YOUR belief (I assume affected by your religion, but that is only an assumption, possible incorrect). I do not share your beliefs. So why should your beliefs preside over my body? If you don't want an abortion or do not believe they are right, it is simple. You do not have to get one.

But I do not see why your beliefs have any hold over me and my body.

I do not believe life as we view it begins at conception. period.

When do you believe life "as we view it" begins? Not trying to be combative. If you don't want to answer, I resepct that, just curious what others believe.

himom
02-06-2009, 10:47 AM
I do not believe life as we view it begins at conception. period.

When, exactly, do you believe it begins?

mommy111
02-06-2009, 10:48 AM
Just wanted to jump in here and say I back Jera 100% on everything she has said about abortion (see Pro-choice thread). I know there are lots of other pro-life Moms here, but most of us hate to get involved in the inevitable verbal assault. But I've kept my mouth shut for 6 years and never really expressed what I think, so here's my little essay so I can go back to not getting involved in the controversial threads.

Let's be nice, if possible, so we don't get shut down. Nobody's ever said this stuff quite this bluntly here before (that I can remember) so I'd like to know what everyone thinks. Here we go.....

I know people think it's a huge mistake to treat the issue as black and white, which I disagree with. As far as I'm concerned it IS black and white. Conception=child, abortion=murder. What makes a baby human 3 months or 6months or 9 months later? At what point does "terminating a pregnancy" turn into "infanticide"? I know the pro-choice mantra is that no one should be able to tell you what happens with your body, or to legislate what you can do with it -- I think the pro-life mantra should be that no one should be able to dictate when someone is human or not human, or to legislate when you can kill them.

For an example of why I really feel this is a slippery slope, see the following news story:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJYykrsdytHiypY5WXf0A7AAY5MAD965JKE00

It seems to me that once we place no value on the unborn we lose a piece of our own humanity. Was this a baby or a bunch of breathing medical waste? Who gets to decide? Me? You? The mom? The unlicensed clinic owner? The doctor?

As far as the circumstances under which girls and women have abortions...I also grew up in the real world and I've seen the horrific things that people go through when they find out they're pregnant. One of my best friends got the s**t beaten out of her when her parents found out she was having sex and she ended up getting an abortion a short time later to avoid another beating. I know about the horrible circumstances of abuse, incest, rape, etc. Some of it I've seen first hand, some of it I've only read or heard about. But none of it outweighs what, for me, is the taking of an innocent human life.

The following are extreme examples, obviously very, very, VERY extreme examples (think Jonathan Swift), but it kinda illustrates how I see it:

Give a newborn to his crackhead mother, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to grow up in a family that resents him, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to be born to a woman who conceived him during a brutal rape, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to be born to a terrified, miserably abused 14 year old, where he also will be terrorized and abused, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to cause his mother 10 months of discomfort, misery, and financial stress, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to ruin a young woman's chance at college and a bright future career, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
Allow the newborn to live in sqaulor, where she will undergo abuse and grow to be burden to society, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.

Yes, I know, I KNOW...these are obviously extremely extreme examples. But when it comes down to it this is what we are saying....The life of the child is trumped by the circumstances into which he or she was conceived.

I have close friends who are adamantly pro-choice, and they usually fall into two categories:

1. Those who agree that abortion is the taking of a life, but feel the act is justified by the circumstances. When we get into these discussions, and we talk about the "shooting in the back of the head" thing, some of them agree that the child is better off dead, or they say it's bad luck for the child, but the mother is better off with the child dead.

2. Those who do not agree that abortion is the taking of a life but is instead a common procedure for the prevention of babies. I personally think these people need to draw a line and say when they DO believe a life begins, just so they know if for themselves where the line is. Otherwise stuff like the article mentioned above happens.

Now...how do we save all these babies, girls, and women who are caught in these situations if they aren't allowed to terminate the child? This is the question so often put to pro-lifers -- if they can't abort, how else can they fix it? While the question has validity, the answer needs to be based on the premise that these difficult situations cannot and should not be "solved" with the "termination" of a life. The very idea is abhorrent, and in many situations the "solution" is nothing but a patch over the problem. Other, more long-term solutions must be found, and I wish we'd quit spending all our money on dumb stuff and start working on fixing these social situations as best we could. Fund social programs for more confident girls, for free preschools, for early childcare, for parenting classes, for more social workers to get women out of abusive situations, etc. For my part, I do what little I can for the small community I live in. I know it's not enough.

My other issue with this is in regards to the woman involved. It is my opinion that the legalization of abortion has been one of the biggest blows to women in the last century. This ability to get a quick "fix" is manipulated and abused by MEN more than by anyone else. I can't tell you how many of my male co-workers in high school would be grumbling about how much abortions were costing them. So many guys HATE condoms, which is why so many of my friends got pregnant. We all knew where to get them and how to use them, but very few girls did....the guy involved would bully/cajole the girl involved until the inevitable happened. I truly believe, from the depths of my being, that if some of those guys had realized that their choices were either a condom or 18 years of child support, they would have gotten a condom. But since they had option three....voila! pregnancy, and a $350 fix. (This was many years ago, when $350 was the going rate--I'm getting old.) Often, $350 became $700and more because more pregnancies occurred.

As a PP mentioned, this is really a self-confidence issue...stronger women would not have succumbed. Strong women insist on condoms. (There's a slogan for a campaign!!!) But not all women are strong!! And girls are having sex so early now that they so often don't have the confidence or courage to demand their partners protect them. Again, they know about condoms, but they just don't use them. This is a really big issue that I'd love to get involved in someday, but it's a long, uphill road. How do you teach girls to be confident? As Moms we can try with our own kids, but so many of these other kids just don't have any support at all, so an "I love you" and a few kind words can turn an innocent teenager into a pregnant woman in very short order. And a pushy, angry boyfriend can turn that pregnant woman into a post-abortion puddle of unhappiness just as quickly. It's come to the point in the United States where for some women, abortion isn't just an option, it's the one thing you HAVE to do to keep from ruining your life. Sadly, the "choice" part of it is long gone for a lot of girls. Not all, I know, but for many.

Some have said the answer to this is another form of birth control, but to me this is playing with fire. STDs are no joke. AIDS is still killing people, and Gardasil doesn't cure all ills. Condoms, even though they are only 97% effective, are really the best form of birthd control for uncommitted relationships. (Sorry, quick soapbox aside!)

With regard to parental consent...to me it's ridiculous that a child can get this done without some kind of a guardian being aware of it. If it's so awful for the parents to find out (and, as above, I do know it happens), then why can't the clinics have a social worker assigned to them? Either states can mandate hearings and provide said girls with advocates or they can just provide the advocates. The point is, it's incredibly irresponsible to send a child home after a medical procedure and have no one looking after her. Abortions are medical procedures, and complications, some of which can be deadly, do occur. Here's another question: A girl goes in for an abortion without informing her parents because she will be beaten if her parents find out, or because her father raped her and she can't tell her mother, or any one of the other awful things that happen to girls that keep them from being able to go to their parents. If that child goes home and has complications -- infections, excessive bleeding, blood clots, etc--are they going to tell their parents then? The clinic might keep secrets but a the ER won't. A hospital stay is hard to hide. Will the girl get emergency help or will her fear of being found out keep her from getting the help she needs? Her home situation will not have changed, and in fact, it will be worse if she has to tell a parent she is bleeding so much because she had an abortion, right? Who will be taking care of her then and protecting her from her parents then?

According to Mayo, very serious complications occur only 1 in 100 times. But that 100th girl needs someone to take care of her. Some adult has to know what's going on and be looking out for her health.

Also, a few probing questions from a social worker or a judge before a girl can get an abortion is not going to kill her -- she may be scared and uncomfortable, but abortions are scary and uncomfortable too. And those questions may uncover abuse, rape, or many other ills, as well as making sure the girl involved is properly cared for if she does have the abortion.

Finally, I want to say that federal funding for abortions, here or abroad, is a huge violation of my rights. You may disagree with me, but to me abortion is murder, so taking my money and giving it to someone to get an abortion is just loathsome. I realize others feel that the Gulf wars, capital punishment, etc fall into the same category, and I agree. We shouldn't have to pay for it if we are morally against it. Which is why I vote the way I vote.

Sorry this is so long, and I'm sure many of you will never agree with me on this. We are all entitled to our opinions and can only vote our own conscience, which is what I plan to do. But I did think since almost all we've heard here was pro-choice, that it would be a good thing to see the other perspective.

Excuse me while I go get out my suit of armor.....

Pro choicer here and you won't need to get that suit of armour. I agree with the substance of most of what you've said but also recognize that this is based on my beliefs and my point of view. And I do not believe in forcing others subscribe to my point of view. That is why I'm pro-choice.
Most people who are pro-choice are not 'anti-life.' :)

himom
02-06-2009, 10:50 AM
But I do not see why your beliefs have any hold over me and my body.




Generally, I believe people can do what they want with their bodies as long as they aren't harming any other bodies.

himom
02-06-2009, 10:54 AM
Um, I got a little carried away so it's almost 5 am here and the kids will have me up at 7. So I'm off to bed and hopefully everything will stay civil so I still get a chance to chat more tomorrow!

Tnstrainor
02-06-2009, 11:07 AM
What happens the baby is severely malformed (no legs and no stomach) and will not survive outside of the womb. Let's say this found out at 12 weeks along. Should the mother continue the pregnancy until she delivers.

JBaxter
02-06-2009, 11:12 AM
My PERSONAL feelings are yes I would continue the pregnacy.
Why? Because it would be my ONLY chance to say goodbye to that baby would be its birth. Hard as it would be "I" would need that for closure.

JenaW
02-06-2009, 11:29 AM
For an example of why I really feel this is a slippery slope, see the following news story:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJYykrsdytHiypY5WXf0A7AAY5MAD965JKE00

This is absolutely horrendous. I have no clue how ANY one can try to justify this and not call it for what it is - murder! I'd like to hope that incidents like these are in the minority, but I am not sure if that is the case. Why else would Obama feel the need to sign the FOCA into law which removes any and all barriers to abortion during the entire 9 months of pregnancy?




It is my opinion that the legalization of abortion has been one of the biggest blows to women in the last century. This ability to get a quick "fix" is manipulated and abused by MEN more than by anyone else.

YES!!! And these men need to accept responsibility for their actions. It takes two to tango, so to speak. Barring assisted reproductive techniques, a woman can not get pregnant by herself. I was surprised at the number of responders in my other post who felt that the man should have no say in the matter of abortion, yet he is at least half responsible for the life that has been created. Having an abortion without his knowledge is giving him an easy out. (Again the argument that it is the woman's body and she should have control over it). If abortion were not such a "quick and easy" (recognizing that it may not truly be easy for all who chose this option) alternative, maybe young, unwed people would not be so quick to jump into bed together. Again, if you can not accept the consequences you should not be having sex in the first place. Perhaps this is where we need to focus our education.




With regard to parental consent...to me it's ridiculous that a child can get this done without some kind of a guardian being aware of it. If it's so awful for the parents to find out (and, as above, I do know it happens), then why can't the clinics have a social worker assigned to them? Either states can mandate hearings and provide said girls with advocates or they can just provide the advocates. The point is, it's incredibly irresponsible to send a child home after a medical procedure and have no one looking after her. Abortions are medical procedures, and complications, some of which can be deadly, do occur.

I was SO SHOCKED that nearly every single pro-choice mom responded that they did not think parental notification/consent is necessary. Yes, we all hope that our own children will be able to come to us if the situation were ever to occur in our own homes. But honestly, will they? I have always had an incredibly open line of communication with both of my parents. Yes, I went through the typical teen-age stage of being embarrassed by them, but my mom has always been (and still is) one of my closest friends. That said, if I had been having sex in high school and found myself pregnant, I can not say with 100% certainty that I would not have sought an abortion. My religious beliefs were not nearly as strong then as they are today. And while I knew without ANY doubt that my parents never would have condoned an abortion, I also know that they would have been extremely disappointed in me for getting pregnant. That fear alone may have caused me to do something without their knowledge, despite the fact that I am also certain they would have supported me, they would have probably helped raised my child so I could continue with my education, and they most definitely would NOT have beaten me or kicked me out of the house. YET I still may have chosen an abortion because society paints it as the easy way out. If I could have walked into a clinic and walked out a few hours later not pregnant, it may have seemed like the ideal option for me, and I might not have had the maturity or foresight to realize how it would affect me afterwards. This is one of the major reasons I think SOME adult needs to give consent. Perhaps not always a parent, but a social worker or teacher or some other adult...




According to Mayo, very serious complications occur only 1 in 100 times. But that 100th girl needs someone to take care of her. Some adult has to know what's going on and be looking out for her health.


A quick google search revealed that there are about 1 million abortions in the US annually, and about 46 million worldwide!! (I did not take the time to stop and verify sources, so I have no clue as to the accuracy of these numbers, I am just giving an example). If 1 in 100 have serious complications, that is an awful high number of "serious complications." I am not sure I would want to assume that risk for my minor-aged daughter.



This is the question so often put to pro-lifers -- if they can't abort, how else can they fix it? While the question has validity, the answer needs to be based on the premise that these difficult situations cannot and should not be "solved" with the "termination" of a life. The very idea is abhorrent, and in many situations the "solution" is nothing but a patch over the problem. Other, more long-term solutions must be found, and I wish we'd quit spending all our money on dumb stuff and start working on fixing these social situations as best we could. Fund social programs for more confident girls, for free preschools, for early childcare, for parenting classes, for more social workers to get women out of abusive situations, etc. For my part, I do what little I can for the small community I live in. I know it's not enough.

I have come to the conclusion that our society is on a massive downward spiral. I am not sure when or how it became ok that our own personal rights trumped the rights of another person's right to life, but it has. The overriding argument of nearly every pro-choice person I have ever met is that the government should not be able to tell them what to do with their body. My personal response - if you can not accept the consequences of sex, than you should not be having sex, plain and simple. As someone else pointed out, yes a lot of these views coincide with my religious beliefs, and again yes, my religious beliefs should not be forced on any one else. HOWEVER, it should not be a Catholic (or Christian, or specific to any other religion) belief that life should trump all else, including our own personal self-entitlement.

J

JenaW
02-06-2009, 11:39 AM
What happens the baby is severely malformed (no legs and no stomach) and will not survive outside of the womb. Let's say this found out at 12 weeks along. Should the mother continue the pregnancy until she delivers.

I also would not be able to terminate the pregnancy. Again my faith plays a huge role here and I openly acknowledge that. I would simply pray that God give me the grace to carry the baby to term (or for as long as he/she survived) and allow me to do His will and give glory to Him through the life (however long) of my child.

These "supposed" fatal malformations are an area I have difficulty with. I put supposed in quotes because some are obviously more fatal or life threatening than others, and I do not know where it could be acceptable to draw the line. Is it ok to abort a downs baby? What about a child with cleft palate? Club leg? A hole in the heart? No brain? I have heard people who chose termination in some of these instances say that they are being selfless and choosing the best option for their child. Other than my situation with Natalie, I have never been forced to make this choice and I do not ever want to minimize the intense emotional grief of any parent who has had to. However, I can not make myself see it as a "selfless" sacrifice on the part of the parents, but instead as a selfish one. I am sorry, and I truly do not intend to offend ANYONE here on this matter. I can not think of anyone here who has been in this situation, and if I knew there was one, I would probably not say this out loud. I do know people in real life who have had to make decisions like this and I would NEVER EVER do or say anything to them directly to make them feel like I am judging them for their decision, because I can only imagine how difficult it would be. But I do feel that it IS selfish to deny your child a chance at life simply because you feel that their life is not worthy enough. In my opinion, EVERYTHING God creates is perfect, and every single life has a purpose.

J

LarsMal
02-06-2009, 11:45 AM
What I'm mostly against is the fact that society endorses, encourages, and funds abortions.

I think I explained enough in the other thread why I am pro-choice. I don't belive the government has a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. Beyond that, it is a moral choice, and that is between the mother and whatever God she believes in.

I am not pro-abortion, I do not endorse or encourage abortion. I don't run around finding teenage moms and tell them to go "kill" their babies, and that I'll pay for it. This is the biggest problem I have with the pro-life view of pro-choicers. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a pro-choicer who supports abortion. We support a woman's RIGHT to choose. What we support, encourage, and fund are ways to educate them on how to practice safe sex so as not to find themselves in a position where they need to exercise that right.

I do not think you can truly know what you would do in that situation until you are IN that situation- which is why I fully support a woman's right to choose. I was once part of the pro-life club in my Catholic HS, until I had a close friend get pregnant and realized just how important choice was. Her very religious parents basically told her she was going to college, and they weren't raising her child. Talk about an eye-opening experience! They had considered themselves pro-life, but once faced with it, they were quick to jump on that legal right.

I do agree with you on the condom front, though, which is why I think education is very important. I know too many Catholic girls who got pregnant because they just didn't know any better. Abstinence is a great thing to teach, but it's not realistic. We were forced to watch a video of abortion in religion class to try to scare us, and it still didn't work for many girls. Some of the girls were bullied into having sex w/o a condom, or bought into the fact that "it will be fine this time". While I don't think that women should have to tell the father or get his permission, I don't think guys should get off so easily, either. DH and I argue about this a lot. He makes comments like, "I worry about having daughters b/c at least L won't have to be pregnant." I always respond that IF L were to get a girl pregnant, he is *just* as responsible. I will be teaching him to practice safe sex, if and when he feels that he is ready, and that he will be responsible for whatever consequences that may bring.

**I'm not bashing Catholics, it's just my experience, since that is what I grew up with.

maylips
02-06-2009, 11:50 AM
I am just lurking on all of these threads because I find the dialogue so interesting. I have not made any comments pro choice or pro life.

But I did feel that I must comment on many of you - especially the pro life folks - saying you're "putting on your armor," or waiting to get flamed, or any of that. I feel that both threads have been very civil and, because of that, very interesting to read. I'm sorry that you start threads with the idea that you're going to get beaten down by expressing your views. There are definitely some moms on this board who seem to have strong personalities - and definitely moms on both sides of this issue who believe passionately about their stance. But I, for one, am appreciating the conversation and debate because it actually IS a great debate to read - not a "you don't believe what I do so you're an idiot" kind of debate that we all see too much of on 24-hour news channels. The only thing that's driving me nuts is reading posts that say "I know I'll get thrown under the bus" or something similar - because I don't feel any of these conversations have taken that road.

*off my soap box* and waiting to read more on this very interesting topic....

o_mom
02-06-2009, 11:57 AM
....Again, if you can not accept the consequences you should not be having sex in the first place. Perhaps this is where we need to focus our education.

...

My personal response - if you can not accept the consequences of sex, than you should not be having sex, plain and simple.




What about when it was NOT the woman's choice to have sex?

JenaW
02-06-2009, 12:00 PM
But I did feel that I must comment on many of you - especially the pro life folks - saying you're "putting on your armor," or waiting to get flamed, or any of that. I feel that both threads have been very civil and, because of that, very interesting to read.

I think in the past, it often felt like ANY conservative viewpoint immediately got bashed. I went for a long period during both of the previous elections not posting ANYTHING because I was afraid of the response. That being said, things have really changed in the more recent past. Yes, we do still disagree, and yes many of us have very polarizing views we feel VERY passionately about. But I too think it is awesome that we can express our differences and we can all hear what the others have to say without attacking the poster. That said, I often still worry about what I post and I too feel like I am just waiting for the attack. In all of my recent posts, I sat for a few minutes with my mouse poised over the "submit" button worrying whether or not I should actually send my reply. I think some of that is just leftover fear from how things used to be....
J

o_mom
02-06-2009, 12:02 PM
.... As someone else pointed out, yes a lot of these views coincide with my religious beliefs, and again yes, my religious beliefs should not be forced on any one else. HOWEVER, it should not be a Catholic (or Christian, or specific to any other religion) belief that life should trump all else, including our own personal self-entitlement.



I think this is where many people part ways on the issue. It is your religious belief that life begins at conception. That is not a belief that is shared by everyone, regardless of how black and white you see it.

JenaW
02-06-2009, 12:16 PM
What about when it was NOT the woman's choice to have sex?

I have addressed situations of race and incest in my previous posts. Yes, I understand that the woman does NOT always consent to sex. I do not have the data on the percentage of abortions these instances account for, nor do I know if that data even exists. I am not aware that you have to give any "reason" for why you are choosing an abortion, so other than a random sampling of women who have undergone an abortion and are willing to share why, I do not know how you could even collect that data. BUT, if I had to guess (based upon my experience as a health care provider), I would assume that they do not constitute the majority of abortions. I still would not agree with abortion, but if ALL other cases of abortion ended, and the ONLY abortions were from women who were raped, victims of incest, or TRULY in the situation where their own life was at risk, then I would be much happier.

j

JenaW
02-06-2009, 12:20 PM
I think this is where many people part ways on the issue. It is your religious belief that life begins at conception. That is not a belief that is shared by everyone, regardless of how black and white you see it.

If you don't agree that life begins at conception, then when do you think it does begin? Viability? Birth? If you define it at viability (say 23 weeks for sake of argument), then do you think abortions are ok up until that point, but not afterward? I am not trying to pick a fight, I truly want to understand how other women rationalize this, so I hope I am not coming across as accusatory.

J

o_mom
02-06-2009, 12:23 PM
I have addressed situatio
ns of race and incest in my previous posts. Yes, I understand that the woman does NOT always consent to sex. I do not have the data on the percentage of abortions these instances account for, nor do I know if that data even exists. I am not aware that you have to give any "reason" for why you are choosing an abortion, so other than a random sampling of women who have undergone an abortion and are willing to share why, I do not know how you could even collect that data. BUT, if I had to guess (based upon my experience as a health care provider), I would assume that they do not constitute the majority of abortions. I still would not agree with abortion, but if ALL other cases of abortion ended, and the ONLY abortions were from women who were raped, victims of incest, or TRULY in the situation where their own life was at risk, then I would be much happier.

j

I can certainly agree with that last part. :)

I don't know if anyone can say what % are rape, incets, etc. because it is such an underreported crime. In any case, I have never seen a proposal of how to limit it to those cases that was in any way feasible. I also have never seen how one could legislate around a woman's life or health. As you know, different doctors will give wildly different assessments of the risks at any point in time and honestly every single pregnancy is a risk to the woman's life. Who gets to decide what constitutes how much risk to their life someone should have to assume for someone else?

brittone2
02-06-2009, 12:28 PM
If you don't agree that life begins at conception, then when do you think it does begin? Viability? Birth? If you define it at viability (say 23 weeks for sake of argument), then do you think abortions are ok up until that point, but not afterward? I am not trying to pick a fight, I truly want to understand how other women rationalize this, so I hope I am not coming across as accusatory.

J

I personally think it doesn't matter when I believe life begins. I think every woman has a right to form her own thoughts on that issue as part of her decision (eta: even if I may have a different view of when life begins).

LarsMal
02-06-2009, 12:35 PM
I personally think it doesn't matter when I believe life begins. I think every woman has a right to form her own thoughts on that issue as part of her decision (eta: even if I may have a different view of when life begins).

I agree with this.

For me the "black and white" part of this issue is that I DO NOT believe the *government* has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Religious beliefs/when conception begins shouldn't play any role in legislation regarding abortion.

That said, I (personally) don't particularly agree with late-term and partial-birth abortions. I don't understand why anyone would choose that, unless it was a life-threatening circumstance. But, what I ultimately believe in is a woman's RIGHT to choose, and if a woman chooses that option (late term/partial-birth), it's on her.

Lolabee
02-06-2009, 12:40 PM
These "supposed" fatal malformations are an area I have difficulty with. I put supposed in quotes because some are obviously more fatal or life threatening than others, and I do not know where it could be acceptable to draw the line. Is it ok to abort a downs baby? What about a child with cleft palate? Club leg? A hole in the heart? No brain? I have heard people who chose termination in some of these instances say that they are being selfless and choosing the best option for their child. Other than my situation with Natalie, I have never been forced to make this choice and I do not ever want to minimize the intense emotional grief of any parent who has had to. However, I can not make myself see it as a "selfless" sacrifice on the part of the parents, but instead as a selfish one. I am sorry, and I truly do not intend to offend ANYONE here on this matter. I can not think of anyone here who has been in this situation, and if I knew there was one, I would probably not say this out loud. I do know people in real life who have had to make decisions like this and I would NEVER EVER do or say anything to them directly to make them feel like I am judging them for their decision, because I can only imagine how difficult it would be. But I do feel that it IS selfish to deny your child a chance at life simply because you feel that their life is not worthy enough. In my opinion, EVERYTHING God creates is perfect, and every single life has a purpose.

J

I generally try to stay out of these discussions, but I had to chime in on this because I know someone who terminated for this reason and it has made me a little defensive where this issue is concerned. There are very real "malformations" that can happen to a fetus in utero that are also inevitably fatal . These conditions can be so severe that there is simply no chance for the fetus to survive outside of it's mother, and no medical intervention is available to cure those conditions. Please research this a little further before you judge, because I think it's terribly unfair to pass judgment on a woman for terminating such a pregnancy when she is already grieving the loss of a child she will never have.

It's all well and good for you to have opinions on what you would do in a given situation, but I simply can't understand why you think you should have the right or power to tell another woman what she should do when faced with her own set of similar circumstances. It's wonderful that your daughter was able to survive and continue to thrive, but from what you've said here she was fortunate enough to not suffer any major complications throughout your ordeal. There is a fundamental difference between your situation and that of a baby diagnosed with something like anencephaly (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/anencephaly/anencephaly.htm), which is always fatal. I refuse to agree that a mother who decides to terminate such a pregnancy is denying that fetus life, because the die has already been cast (and not in the fetus' favor.)

I have never met a parent in such a situation who undertook the decision to terminate lightly (unfortunately in infertility circles there seems to be too many parents who face such circumstances,) and they grieve those losses just as much as any other who has lost a child. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not talking about birth defects that can still result in a healthy, live birth, and I think that's an entirely different debate. But as much as we don't want to envision the worst case scenario for ourselves, they do happen, and they are horrible and heartbreakingly real for some parents.

niccig
02-06-2009, 12:44 PM
I am not pro-abortion, I do not endorse or encourage abortion. I don't run around finding teenage moms and tell them to go "kill" their babies, and that I'll pay for it. This is the biggest problem I have with the pro-life view of pro-choicers. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a pro-choicer who supports abortion. We support a woman's RIGHT to choose. What we support, encourage, and fund are ways to educate them on how to practice safe sex so as not to find themselves in a position where they need to exercise that right.



Yeah this.

I'm still thinking about the girls Jera mentioned that had had multiple abortions and didn't seem to care, and then Kransden said those girls sound like the girls she teaches, who are sexualized at a young age and treated like human garbage, so they don't value themselves.

Those girls need help not condemnation.

o_mom
02-06-2009, 12:46 PM
If you don't agree that life begins at conception, then when do you think it does begin? Viability? Birth? If you define it at viability (say 23 weeks for sake of argument), then do you think abortions are ok up until that point, but not afterward? I am not trying to pick a fight, I truly want to understand how other women rationalize this, so I hope I am not coming across as accusatory.

J

I don't really have a concrete view on this, I was just pointing out that it is not a universally accepted view and very much religious based. I hope that others will chime in with their views here as well.

I certainly don't think at conception, but somewhere up to viability. For example, I have an IUD. I know that part of how it may work is by preventing implantation. No matter how I think of it, I just can't get upset about that, even having seen DS1 on u/s as a freshly implanted embryo. After viability? I would not choose anything except for life or health, but I don't know of any realistic way to enforce that which would not put women in some horrific situations. I also know that this is _my_ belief and it is not shared by everyone, so I don't think it is my place to decide for everyone else.

ETA: So what would your position be on IUDs - not for you personally, but for someone that wanted one? Should they not be legal?

mommy111
02-06-2009, 12:48 PM
I will say this, which another poster put in the other thread (and they said it much better). Your belief as to when life begins, etc, is YOUR belief (I assume affected by your religion, but that is only an assumption, possible incorrect). I do not share your beliefs. So why should your beliefs preside over my body? If you don't want an abortion or do not believe they are right, it is simple. You do not have to get one.

But I do not see why your beliefs have any hold over me and my body.

I do not believe life as we view it begins at conception. period.

See, this is why I am prochoice. I do believe life begins at conception, but I also recognize other people don't believe that. In a multicultural/multireligious/multiethnic society, not everyone does. And why should my beliefs govern what fivi2 or anyone else do to their body or how they live their lives? What gives me the right to dictate what they will be allowed or will not be allowed to do?

malphy
02-06-2009, 12:53 PM
[QUOTE=himom;2298807]
The following are extreme examples, obviously very, very, VERY extreme examples (think Jonathan Swift), but it kinda illustrates how I see it:

Give a newborn to his crackhead mother, or shoot the newborn in the back of the head.
........


My other issue with this is in regards to the woman involved. It is my opinion that the legalization of abortion has been one of the biggest blows to women in the last century........


With regard to parental consent...to me it's ridiculous that a child can get this done without some kind of a guardian being aware of it.

QUOTE]

*Respectfully snipped for space*

Fiirst, I would like to say I respect that the above is your opinion and you have the strength to stand by it.

I did not think the other thread got heated, I was actually surprised how reasonable it was. Sorry if any of my posts may have been misconstrued.

I think you analogy is incorrect because I newborn is not an embryo or developing fetus. I would not shoot a newborn in the head no matter what the awful consquence could be. I could address each one of your scenarios individually but I won't.

I happen to come from a background that gives me sound reasoning for my belief in choice. I am white college-educated woman. I was raised in a poor gritty neighborhood where whites were the minority. I come from a large family that had an abusive father. When mom left him to save her life he never paid any child support. We were dirt poor on welfare.

We didn't talk about sex or bc or any of that. 2 sisters had baies as teens. 1 sister has over 10 children. Her reason for no abortion or birth control was religious but she didn't seem to be bothered with the sex out of wedlock part of the religion.

For The boys, I am sure they have some unknown babies out there because of that old double standard.

Since I was the youngest and escaped into books I was able to arm myself with tools not to fall into their trap. I was called a bitch because I had self respect and wouldnt let anybody make me do something I didnt want.

I was lucky that even though i was surrounded by unwed mothers I didn't think that was right. It may have been normal in my neighborhood but I wanted more out of life. I was ridiculed for not following the crowd and being so serious about school and my future.

My point is this environment is terribly difficult to rise up from. There is violence, drugs, cultural issues, socio-economic issues that are a quagmire for even the smartest people.

As for my sister with all the kids, who by the way was a drug&alcohol abuser, her family is fractured and badly damaged. They were on welfare their whole life. They have assorted medical issues including FAS. Some of them are now young adults and they are no strangers to LE. Their home was always dirty and loud and the poor kids only got good attention from my mom or other sibs.

You and I as hardworking tax payers are footing the bill for them. We have helped feed and clothe them, educate them, care for their legal expenses, etc. They are most likely just going to perpetuate the same lifestyle so will will be paying for thier kids.

How is that better than choosing to make a wise decision, albeit, an extremely difficult one.

As for men's power. You cannot make a man responsible for a life he has not carried in his own body. They will never understand or care the way a woman can. There are many men who care but there are far more that don't. you can order support but cannot make them pay. My father traveled all over the world to avoid payment.

Choice means no man has power over a woman's body. This is part of the knowledge we mothers need to share with our girls when we talk about life. It may be difficult for some to talk about but the more knowledge she has the better off she will be able to avoid problems.

Our daughters must know what all the consequences are of having sex. Even that they will be supported with love but not necessarily financially. You want to have the baby, fine, but you must be able to raise it. No more carefree days, finish school, absolutely but you must get a job to help pay for the life you brought into this world.

As for parental consent/notification, I would love for it to be required because I do know the risks. But I also know the risks of people finding out you are pregnant. I will err on the side of those that do not, for various reasons, have the ability to take that risk.

I am sorry so long, i could actually go on and on. This is such a multifaceted issue and most definitely is not black or white.

AS women we need to stick together. As human beings we have the right to disagree with eachother and share our perspectives.

thanks and have a great day all.

fivi2
02-06-2009, 01:57 PM
I personally think it doesn't matter when I believe life begins. I think every woman has a right to form her own thoughts on that issue as part of her decision (eta: even if I may have a different view of when life begins).

ITA. Which is why I will not be answering the many people who asked me when I believe life begins.

MelissaTC
02-06-2009, 02:34 PM
Choice means no man has power over a woman's body. This is part of the knowledge we mothers need to share with our girls when we talk about life. It may be difficult for some to talk about but the more knowledge she has the better off she will be able to avoid problems.


This is an extremely powerful statement. Thank you for putting it so well.

SASM
02-06-2009, 02:50 PM
To OP...I couldn't agree with you (& Jera) more. TY!!

JenaW
02-06-2009, 03:06 PM
There are very real "malformations" that can happen to a fetus in utero that are also inevitably fatal .... Please research this a little further before you judge, because I think it's terribly unfair to pass judgment on a woman for terminating such a pregnancy when she is already grieving the loss of a child she will never have.

It's all well and good for you to have opinions on what you would do in a given situation, but I simply can't understand why you think you should have the right or power to tell another woman what she should do when faced with her own set of similar circumstances. ... There is a fundamental difference between your situation and that of a baby diagnosed with something like anencephaly (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/anencephaly/anencephaly.htm), which is always fatal. I refuse to agree that a mother who decides to terminate such a pregnancy is denying that fetus life, because the die has already been cast (and not in the fetus' favor.)

I have never met a parent in such a situation who undertook the decision to terminate lightly (unfortunately in infertility circles there seems to be too many parents who face such circumstances,) and they grieve those losses just as much as any other who has lost a child. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not talking about birth defects that can still result in a healthy, live birth, and I think that's an entirely different debate. But as much as we don't want to envision the worst case scenario for ourselves, they do happen, and they are horrible and heartbreakingly real for some parents.

I read this a while ago but had to take some time to figure out how best to respond. First off, I fully understand anencephaly and other fatal conditions. I am an OBGYN PA, so I have first hand experience with many of these pregnancies. I also tried very hard in my post to convey the fact that I DO NOT JUDGE anyone who has been in these situations for choosing to terminate her pregnancy. I just take umbrage with the statement that they are being selfless. I have a few IRL friends who have chosen to have an abortion (for various reasons). While I guarantee every single one of them is aware of my position on the issue, I think you will find that none of them have ever felt judged my be. My personal mission statement is to love God with all my heart as He loves me, and extend that love to every single person I come in contact with. Whether you personally believe in a God or not, I believe that all of us WILL come before our maker when we die and we WILL be judged for every single action (or lack of action) while we were alive. That is God's role, NOT MINE! I do NOT judge! Yes, we all have our own personal (mis)conceptions about others and we may allow our own personal feelings to cloud how we feel about someone. But I pride myself on trying extremely hard NEVER to offend anyone, never to judge anyone, and never to make myself seem superior to anyone. I am not perfect, and I have never pretended that I am. I am sharing my beliefs and opinions here because I think we can all learn from each other. Whether or not you agree with me is your own personal choice.

Having said all of that, I also know (both online and IRL) several people who have had their unborn children diagnosed with diseases that are completely incompatible with life and still chosen to carry those children to term (or for as long as God permitted). I can provide several blog links if any one is interested. Yes, every single one of them has a strong faith. And I can almost guarantee your life will be altered if you read their stories. You can't not be touched by hearing them. And no, I am sure their decisions were not easy, neither were any of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancies, deliveries, or births of these children. In my mind, THEY were the selfless ones. The ones who chose to continue to let their child live until God decided their time on earth was done.

Maybe indirectly I am judging the women who have chosen to end the pregnancy early. I hesitated to post this here because I did not want to offend any one who has been in that situation. But I also tried very hard to point out that this is my personal opinion (maybe one I would have been better off not sharing) and I wanted to show that there are other options. I guess I will just leave it at that.

J

egoldber
02-06-2009, 03:22 PM
I agree that there are other options. What I believe though, is that no one has the right to take any of those options away, certainly not the government. How each person responds to a pregnancy that is incompatible with life will vary tremendously.

I would not personally choose to continue to carry a pregnancy incompatible with life. Admittedly, most of my reasons for that are pretty selfish. I would consider it an unimaginable agony to go about my every day life dealing with all the happy go lucky questions that pregnant women are bombarded with "When are you due? Boy or girl? Have a name yet?" I could not face that.

I also do not personally believe that just because a decision is selfish in it's origin (meaning, about one's self) makes it in and of itself an undesirable one. I think that many people, often women especially, do things for other people with no thought for themselves, or by placing themselves last. I do not personally think that this is a good thing.

I spent time in therapy in my young adulthood as the result of being raised in a dysfunctional, emotionally abusive home. I basically had to re-wire my brain to realize that "my needs are important too" (my therapist's mantra for me). Just because it was something I wanted, did not mean I should put that need last. But so often I did. And many other people do as well. I do not think this is healthy.

BelleoftheBallFlagstaff
02-06-2009, 03:32 PM
Can I add 1 more question?

If abortion were made illegal women would still seek them out (they have all through history). Would you rather women go to unlicensed providers and engage in potentially more dangerous, harmful practices to get to their desired end result? That would be a big fear of mine. Simply making it illegal isn't going to stop the practice- it will just make it less safe, imo.

Beth

:yeahthat:

C99
02-06-2009, 03:48 PM
If you don't agree that life begins at conception, then when do you think it does begin? Viability? Birth? If you define it at viability (say 23 weeks for sake of argument), then do you think abortions are ok up until that point, but not afterward? I am not trying to pick a fight, I truly want to understand how other women rationalize this, so I hope I am not coming across as accusatory.

J

I believe that life begins at birth, whenever that happens to occur. As far as I am concerned, a woman's right to choose is her right to choose. If she chooses to have an abortion at 39w,5 days, that is her decision and should be her right. *I* would not choose that, but if someone else does, who am I? who are you? to judge?

gatorsmom
02-06-2009, 03:52 PM
But none of it outweighs what, for me, is the taking of an innocent human life.





.....


I agree. NOTHING, no situation, that you can name, no extremely horrific reason for abortion that you can give me (and there are hundreds, I know), is more horrific than the taking of an innocent human life. And the thought of my daughter one day being given permission to do something like this without her mother's consent or even being notified, can only be described as evil.

lizajane
02-06-2009, 03:52 PM
If you don't agree that life begins at conception, then when do you think it does begin? Viability? Birth? If you define it at viability (say 23 weeks for sake of argument), then do you think abortions are ok up until that point, but not afterward? I am not trying to pick a fight, I truly want to understand how other women rationalize this, so I hope I am not coming across as accusatory.

J

i don't know when life begins. i am anti-abortion. i am pro choice.

but i wonder, if life begins at conception, then why do we say, when a women who is 8 weeks pregnant loses a baby, that she had a miscarriage when a women is is 25 weeks pregant has a stillborn? if a fetus' heart stops beating at 8 weeks, we do not say the baby is stillborn. we say the mother miscarried. but if a baby in utero at 25 weeks no longer has a heartbeat, the baby has died and is stillborn.

why distinguish if there really is no difference?

**asked with great respect to those who have suffered both of these terrible forms of loss.***

niccig
02-06-2009, 04:00 PM
I agree. NOTHING, no situation, that you can name, no extremely horrific reason for abortion that you can give me (and there are hundreds, I know), is more horrific than the taking of an innocent human life.

Sorry, Lisa. But having been sexually assaulted, I can. It is something I wish no one else had to experience, but far too many do. In my kid's playgroup, HALF of us mothers had been sexually assaulted. We had a girls night out and after a few glasses of wine, someone shared their story and half of us knew what she had gone through, and the other half sat there in shock.

My life experience is different to others. And this is why I will not tell someone what they can or can not do. Unless you have walked in my shoes, you do not know what I have experienced.

fivi2
02-06-2009, 04:06 PM
I agree. NOTHING, no situation, that you can name, no extremely horrific reason for abortion that you can give me (and there are hundreds, I know), is more horrific than the taking of an innocent human life. And the thought of my daughter one day being given permission to do something like this without her mother's consent or even being notified, can only be described as evil.

And, imo, it is "evil" (to use your word) to require a girl who has been raped by her father to obtain his consent before terminating. or the consent of the woman who stood by and let it happen.

Lolabee
02-06-2009, 04:08 PM
Having said all of that, I also know (both online and IRL) several people who have had their unborn children diagnosed with diseases that are completely incompatible with life and still chosen to carry those children to term (or for as long as God permitted). I can provide several blog links if any one is interested. Yes, every single one of them has a strong faith. And I can almost guarantee your life will be altered if you read their stories. You can't not be touched by hearing them. And no, I am sure their decisions were not easy, neither were any of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancies, deliveries, or births of these children. In my mind, THEY were the selfless ones. The ones who chose to continue to let their child live until God decided their time on earth was done.

Maybe indirectly I am judging the women who have chosen to end the pregnancy early. I hesitated to post this here because I did not want to offend any one who has been in that situation. But I also tried very hard to point out that this is my personal opinion (maybe one I would have been better off not sharing) and I wanted to show that there are other options. I guess I will just leave it at that.

J

With all due respect, and as you allude to you yourself above, you seem to be giving greater credit to those who have based their decisions on religious belief and faith than to those who do not. Of course you have every right to your opinion, but that just seems to go back to the point that many others have made that matters of religious faith should not dictate the laws of our nation. The problem is that we are all human, and as humans we all bring our own baggage along when it comes to interpreting what the Creator intends for any of us. Nobody can say with absolute certainty what God thinks, although that certainly doesn't stop people from believing that they can, and that makes it all the more difficult for many of us to stomach seeing those religious interpretations turned into law.

Thank you for being self-aware enough to acknowledge that you may have been indirectly judgmental. Nobody is immune from judging those who do things with which you disagree, in some ways I may judge those who I see as being unfairly judgmental. Like I said, we're all just human after all.

gatorsmom
02-06-2009, 04:09 PM
Sorry, Lisa. But having been sexually assaulted, I can. It is something I wish no one else had to experience, but far too many do. In my kid's playgroup, HALF of us mothers had been sexually assaulted. We had a girls night out and after a few glasses of wine, someone shared their story and half of us knew what she had gone through, and the other half sat there in shock.

My life experience is different to others. And this is why I will not tell someone what they can or can not do. Unless you have walked in my shoes, you do not know what I have experienced.


I'm terribly sorry you and many others here have gone through such terrible situations. I"m sure they haunt you. But I still disagree. I don't want to offend you, as I"m sure I'll offend you and many others by saying this. But sexual assault is not as bad as murder.

I've been drawn in these threads before and if anyone cares to see how others tried to put me in my place for expressing my opinions (ALL Pro-life), you'll be gratified to see I was outnumbered and rebutted down to nothing.

I've been taking care of all 4 kids this week without DH since he's away on business so I didn't have much time and I just logged on to check on a question I started a couple days ago. I'm done and logging off. I just can't get flogged again.

niccig
02-06-2009, 04:20 PM
I'm terribly sorry you and many others here have gone through such terrible situations. I"m sure they haunt you. But I still disagree. I don't want to offend you, as I"m sure I'll offend you and many others by saying this. But sexual assault is not as bad as murder.


Lisa, that does offend me.

But I know you're entitled to your opinion and your beliefs, as I am to mine. And I do like that you express your opinion and beliefs, even though I may not agree with all of it. But likewise, you then get to read my opinion and beliefs. And this is something we disagree on. I am glad discussions like this happen, but I don't think anyone's opinions change from having them.

Go look after the kids, and I have a tonne of laundry to do.

stella
02-06-2009, 04:29 PM
The answer to "Which is worse: sexual assault or murder?" depends on whom you ask.
I don't think it's an absolute.

motherofone
02-06-2009, 04:37 PM
If you believe abortion is murder, don't have an abortion.

Gena
02-06-2009, 04:37 PM
I am strongly pro-life. Like many others my thoughts and beliefs on this issue are formed by my religious beliefs and my personal experiences.

I believe that life begins at conception. I believe that every human life is sacred and should be protected. And I do believe that every person (man or woman) should have a right over their own body. But I believe that the tiny embryo/fetus is NOT part of the woman's body. It resides within her body, but it is the body of a new, unique individual with his or her own personhood.

I honestly do not understand how some people can say that they believe abortion is wrong, but they are pro-choice anyway becasue they do not believe in making that decision for others. I often see and hear people say this, and I truly do not understand it. How is this type of statement any different than saying something like, "I believe slavery is wrong, so I wouldn't own slaves. But I think it's OK for other people to own slaves, since they don't believe that slaves are people." I believe that abortion is morally wrong, just as I believe that slavery is morally wrong. This means that I believe these things are wrong in all circumstances, not just that they are wrong for people who happen to agree with me.

My personal experiences have to do with my own birth history and my volunteer work with adult adoptees. I was born to a 19 year old woman who was discharged from the US Marines for "Pregnancy Without Permission" (PWOP). My birthfather was a fellow Marine who chose to "not get involved in her situation." If my birthmother had been given the choice, she would have had an abortion, continued her military career, and possibly kept her boyfriend. Luckily for me, she did not have a choice. Although this was before Roe v. Wade she could have gotten an abortion through the military, except that by the time she realized she was pregnant, she was 6 months along. For her my birth was a tragedy but for my adoptive family it was a joy. I cannot tell you the number of times I have told the story of my birthmother to someone who is pro-choice and have had them tell me that what happened to her is terribe and I should have been aborted. To me that is something that is incredibly cruel to say and is no different than suggesting that somebody should break into my house and murder me in my sleep. I'm not saying that everyone who is pro-choice feels this way, but I would guess that there are many who think it and have the good manners to not say it out loud.

In working with adult adoptees, I have known several who searched out their birth families and discovered that they were the result of rape or incest. This is a very difficult situation for them to deal with. I'm sure that many pro-choicers believe that these individuals should not have been born. But having known these adults I can tell you that I think every one of them is a valuable human being. Rape and incest are terrible things, but the child who results from these events is not guilty of the action. Killing the child does not heal the pain of the attack or abuse. It's not a question of which is worse, the attck or the abortion. It's a question of compounding one terrible event with another.

SnuggleBuggles
02-06-2009, 04:42 PM
How is this type of statement any different than saying something like, "I believe slavery is wrong, so I wouldn't own slaves. But I think it's OK for other people to own slaves, since they don't believe that slaves are people." I believe that abortion is morally wrong, just as I believe that slavery is morally wrong. This means that I believe these things are wrong in all circumstances, not just that they are wrong for people who happen to agree with me.

.

This analogy struck me and it took me a bit to work out how I felt about it. I think my problem with it is the idea of when a person believes a fetus becomes a baby. I don't know when my line is but I don't think it is at conception. So, a slave is a tangible person, but a fetus is not. That is why the analogy doesn't work for me (in my very crude, less than articulate way).

Beth

stella
02-06-2009, 04:47 PM
Gena, I would never say that a child who is the result of rape or incest should never have been born. I would say that the child's mother, the victim of the attack, should have the choice of whether to carry and bear the child. I can definitely see that a child born in those circumstances would be a gift to an adoptive family, but I still think that the mother should make the choice rather than have it imposed on her.

fivi2
02-06-2009, 04:51 PM
I am sorry for the terrible experiences many of you have suffered.

I do not believe life begins at conception, therefore, to me, abortion is not "murder". Whether or not someone else believes it begins at conception does not matter to me. There is not a scientific absolute answer. You may have your beliefs, based on religion or whatever, but your beliefs are not mine. Therefore, to me, these comparisions to murder are irrelevant.

I would also never presume to say that someone should not have been born. I have never met a person who is pro-choice that would try to make that decision for another person. That is the whole point. I can't know another person's story and so would never presume to tell them what they should or should not do.

sste
02-06-2009, 04:53 PM
I think this is an issue where it is impossible to convince anyone - - whether pro-life or pro-choice those beliefs are so strongly held.

I will ask that those of you with a no abortion, never, under no circumstances think about who this might affect.

This month, an immediate family member discovered at five months of pregnancy that her baby had lethal, horrific birth defects so that it would not have survived the pregnancy or would have died within days or even hours of being born. I can't emphasize how pervasive and serious this genetic mutation was - - that baby would not have lived. Our relative felt it would be heartbreaking to carry this pregnancy to term. She chose to say her goodbyes now at five months. Also, she is 41 years old and carrying the pregnancy risked complications/harms to her reproductive system as it is likely the baby would have died in utero. The best case scenario: after delivering that baby, who would have died right away, she would be trying to get pregnant at over 42 years old and without any time to mourn the loss of the baby with the birth defects.

I thank any and all gods that she was able to make that choice.

niccig
02-06-2009, 04:54 PM
I honestly do not understand how some people can say that they believe abortion is wrong, but they are pro-choice anyway becasue they do not believe in making that decision for others. I often see and hear people say this, and I truly do not understand it. How is this type of statement any different than saying something like, "I believe slavery is wrong, so I wouldn't own slaves. But I think it's OK for other people to own slaves, since they don't believe that slaves are people."

In working with adult adoptees, I have known several who searched out their birth families and discovered that they were the result of rape or incest. This is a very difficult situation for them to deal with. I'm sure that many pro-choicers believe that these individuals should not have been born. But having known these adults I can tell you that I think every one of them is a valuable human being. Rape and incest are terrible things, but the child who results from these events is not guilty of the action. Killing the child does not heal the pain of the attack or abuse. It's not a question of which is worse, the attck or the abortion. It's a question of compounding one terrible event with another.

I can't speak for all pro-choice people, this is what I mean by not making the decision for others. For me, in my current situation, with my DH and DS and my life, NO I would not choose abortion. But me after being sexually assaulted in college and the mental state I was in at that time, Maybe. I didn't get pregnant, so it wasn't something I had to deal with then, thankfully. But from having that awful experience, I can say that I don't know what situation someone is in, physically or mentally. So I won't decide for them.

As for the adult adoptees who were born from rape or incest. I don't think they should not have been born. It's not my choice what happens, it's the choice of their birth mothers.

I think someone else said Pro-choice doesn't mean you're pro-abortion. For me, it means the mother decides and that I don't decide for her.

brittone2
02-06-2009, 05:00 PM
Gena, I would never say that a child who is the result of rape or incest should never have been born. I would say that the child's mother, the victim of the attack, should have the choice of whether to carry and bear the child. I can definitely see that a child born in those circumstances would be a gift to an adoptive family, but I still think that the mother should make the choice rather than have it imposed on her.

:yeahthat:

Something I also take into consideration is that if a woman is raped, there are instances where this may put her at great risk of being killed if she has a spouse, boyfriend, etc. Women are at a higher risk of abuse and homicide from their partners when they are pregnant. I fear what it would mean for some women to be forced to endure a pregnancy where they may face abuse or death. There are situations where the spouse/boyfriend/partner may not be able to cope emotionally with their significant other carrying a pregnancy resulting from rape to full term. That doesn't make it excusable, but there are cultures where rape is (sadly) viewed as bringing shame on a family. I fear "honor killings" of teens from certain cultures, etc. as well (if they were raped and the family found out about it, there could be dire consequences for the mother's life)

I just think it goes back to the point that our own experiences are not necessarily the experiences of others. Since I can't even fathom the pain and heartbreak of some of the scenarios mentioned, I would never feel equipped to decide for someone else how they should handle a pregnancy.

himom
02-06-2009, 05:14 PM
I believe that life begins at birth, whenever that happens to occur. As far as I am concerned, a woman's right to choose is her right to choose. If she chooses to have an abortion at 39w,5 days, that is her decision and should be her right. *I* would not choose that, but if someone else does, who am I? who are you? to judge?

See, this is where I get hung up. We are members of a society, and as a society we have decided what we judge and don't judge. We judge every day of our lives in the laws we endorse and the beliefs we hold. We judge murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, people who talk on their phones while driving, terrorists, people who let their dogs poop in other people's yards, etc. merely by being part of a society who has deemed these things "bad."

If you're going to beat your kid to a pulp and hide their body in a cooler, I judge you. If you're going to rape your daughter for years on end, I judge you. If you're going to drive drunk and you hit a carload of innocent people, I judge you. That's the way our civilization works -- we establish that which is unacceptable and we try to hold one another to those standards.

With abortion the issue is mostly that we cannot all agree with what is acceptable and what is not. That seems to be the crux of the entire abortion debate.

himom
02-06-2009, 05:20 PM
In reading some of your responses, I keep getting one of those "Mom" phrases stuck in my head....you know the one:

"I gave you life, and I can take it away!"

Only applied to these circumstances, it's sad.

gatorsmom
02-06-2009, 05:39 PM
I think in the past, it often felt like ANY conservative viewpoint immediately got bashed. I went for a long period during both of the previous elections not posting ANYTHING because I was afraid of the response. That being said, things have really changed in the more recent past. Yes, we do still disagree, and yes many of us have very polarizing views we feel VERY passionately about. But I too think it is awesome that we can express our differences and we can all hear what the others have to say without attacking the poster. That said, I often still worry about what I post and I too feel like I am just waiting for the attack. In all of my recent posts, I sat for a few minutes with my mouse poised over the "submit" button worrying whether or not I should actually send my reply. I think some of that is just leftover fear from how things used to be....
J

Just wanted to comment that there are many more prolifers out there who are regular members of this board who are not commenting (I'm also trying unsuccessfully to stay out of this)because in the past we HAVE been bashed. That tends to scare us off. I think if you look at the discussion and take a tally of the posters here who are prolife and those who've chimed in who are prochoice, the prochoice side has more posters. not for nothing.

Ceepa
02-06-2009, 05:41 PM
I'm not going to convince everyone to stop and really consider when a baby in utero is considered a human baby and not just a cluster of cells. Who wants to grapple with that ethical quandry? The best I could hope for is that there is education to help decrease the number of girls and women getting into the situation of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place and then hope and pray that they are thoroughly educated about alternatives to abortion. There are millions of couples waiting to adopt.

I think more resources should be channeled to modifying the U.S. adoptive and foster programs. (well, for many reasons)

brittone2
02-06-2009, 05:42 PM
Just wanted to comment that there are many more prolifers out there who are regular members of this board who are not commenting (I'm also trying unsuccessfully to stay out of this)because in the past we HAVE been bashed. That tends to scare us off. I think if you look at the discussion and take a tally of the posters here who are prolife and those who've chimed in who are prochoice, the prochoice side has more posters. not for nothing.

The same is true of many other topics. Many of us have been on the bashing end of things more than once on any number of topics. Or at least, we perceive ourselves as feeling bashed.

I think this has been an overall civil discussion. I'm always glad when people can share their views even if I don't agree.

khm
02-06-2009, 05:49 PM
My personal experiences have to do with my own birth history and my volunteer work with adult adoptees. I was born to a 19 year old woman who was discharged from the US Marines for "Pregnancy Without Permission" (PWOP). My birthfather was a fellow Marine who chose to "not get involved in her situation." If my birthmother had been given the choice, she would have had an abortion, continued her military career, and possibly kept her boyfriend. Luckily for me, she did not have a choice. Although this was before Roe v. Wade she could have gotten an abortion through the military, except that by the time she realized she was pregnant, she was 6 months along. For her my birth was a tragedy but for my adoptive family it was a joy.

But, neither you nor even her know what choice she ULTIMATELY would have made, had she actually HAD a choice. She might have gotten all the way to the appointment, only to change her mind and walk away. This happens a lot. Many people do believe in choice, then end up choosing to not have an abortion for themselves.

You sound so angry at her and that makes me sad. If she'd really have had a choice, maybe the career and the boyfriend would have ended up coming in second, ultimately. If she didn't have a choice.... the mind is a funny thing and all she could see is what she was being taken from her without her input.

That someone has actually said to your face that you shouldn't be here is heartless, and I'm sorry.

himom
02-06-2009, 06:03 PM
I'd love it if someone pro-choice could comment on the article linked, since that seems to be one of the things we haven't really touched on too much yet.

Oh, and the idea of an adult appointed to monitor a child who has had an abortion. Doesn't this seem like a good idea?

pastrygirl
02-06-2009, 06:04 PM
This analogy struck me and it took me a bit to work out how I felt about it. I think my problem with it is the idea of when a person believes a fetus becomes a baby. I don't know when my line is but I don't think it is at conception. So, a slave is a tangible person, but a fetus is not. That is why the analogy doesn't work for me (in my very crude, less than articulate way).

BethBut slave owners didn't view a slave as a person. They were disposable. I find the analogy quite accurate. I view the baby as a person from the moment of conception, whereas someone else views it as disposable until a certain point in time or until birth. We (hopefully) all view slaves as people, no doubt! But that's the difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, and slave owners and anti-slave people. It's as clear to me that a baby is a person from the first second, just as it is clear to you that a slave is a tangible person. Imagine having to explain to someone WHY you think a slave is a person, and being shot down repeatedly as saying it's your religion telling you that? It's very sad.

pastrygirl
02-06-2009, 06:09 PM
Finally, I want to say that federal funding for abortions, here or abroad, is a huge violation of my rights.This disturbs me to no end. I do NOT want to pay for abortion services. No way, no how. It will haunt me for the rest of my life.

LarsMal
02-06-2009, 06:27 PM
I honestly do not understand how some people can say that they believe abortion is wrong, but they are pro-choice anyway becasue they do not believe in making that decision for others. I often see and hear people say this, and I truly do not understand it.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but just had to chime in- again- to try to drive home the point that most (I'd would go so far as to say the vast majority) of pro-choicers do not think abortion is "right". It's exactly as you stated- at least speaking for myself here- that I do not believe I have the right to make that decision for others. I do not think the government does either, so I am pro-choice.

If religion teaches you (general) that life begins at conception, and you think abortion is murder, then don't have one. If you want to teach your children that, it is your right. But, we have separation of church and state for a reason. We do not all have the same religious beliefs. No one religion has the right to say "we're right, you're wrong, so this is the law".

I understand and respect a person's belief that abortion is wrong. I don't understand how someone can say it's wrong in *all* instances, so make it illegal for anyone and everyone. I also can't wrap my head around the idea that people think that they have the right to take away another woman's choice to make a decision about her own body.

It's just one of those things, as others have stated, that when you feel passionately about your position, you're not going to find common ground or agree on any of it.

It's just one of those things where we'll have to respectfully disagree!

n2ou
02-06-2009, 06:29 PM
Can I add 1 more question?

If abortion were made illegal women would still seek them out (they have all through history). Would you rather women go to unlicensed providers and engage in potentially more dangerous, harmful practices to get to their desired end result? That would be a big fear of mine. Simply making it illegal isn't going to stop the practice- it will just make it less safe, imo.

Beth

I always think of "Dirty Dancing". Isn't there some sort of "butcher" quote ...

So, yeah, very touchy subject and the first thing that comes to my mind is "Dirty Dancing".

:-)

Simone

himom
02-06-2009, 06:38 PM
I also wanted to add that I don't think this is a religious issue. The belief that life begins at conception isn't limited to only religious persons, so the argument that people are trying to push their faith off on others is invalid.

For example, I think driving while texting should be illegal, and I will support any legislation that imposes this as a law. It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, it's just something I believe.

I believe that life begins at conception based on plain and simple science, not any religious affiliation.

himom
02-06-2009, 06:42 PM
I always think of "Dirty Dancing". Isn't there some sort of "butcher" quote ...

So, yeah, very touchy subject and the first thing that comes to my mind is "Dirty Dancing".

:-)

Simone

Funny, I was thinking of Dirty Dancing too while I was writing the original post -- "The guy had a dirty knife and a folding table."

Oh, and when I was writing the "extreme" examples, I was thinking of "Birdcage" when Albert said the fetus might as well go down with the ship!

Weird how movies stick with you.

KBecks
02-06-2009, 06:52 PM
I am anti abortion, not enough time to post in depth now but will come back later.

niccig
02-06-2009, 06:58 PM
I also can't wrap my head around the idea that people think that they have the right to take away another woman's choice to make a decision about her own body.


Big ethical questions all around about choice.

We make lots of choices about our bodies and those of our children until they are old enough to make their own decisions. Does the government or other people get to decide instead of us deciding for ourselves?

Some that spring to mind are to circ or not for boy? to vax or not - eg. govt says it's 100% compulsory and you can't sign waiver? to bf or not ?

Who gets the right to choose for you.

icunurse
02-06-2009, 07:02 PM
I'm not going to convince everyone to stop and really consider when a baby in utero is considered a human baby and not just a cluster of cells. Who wants to grapple with that ethical quandry? The best I could hope for is that there is education to help decrease the number of girls and women getting into the situation of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place and then hope and pray that they are thoroughly educated about alternatives to abortion. There are millions of couples waiting to adopt.

I think more resources should be channeled to modifying the U.S. adoptive and foster programs. (well, for many reasons)


I am just jumping in to clarify a few things about adoption, as someone who has both adopted and does frequent adoption outreach/education. There are not "millions" of people waiting to adopt. Latest stats show that in a given year, there are between about 100,000 (highest stat I have ever seen stated "up to 150,000") people waiting to adopt each year. Of those, many choose to go the international adoption route for many personal reasons. I have met very few people who say their road for a child was easier/cheaper/faster doing an international adoption vs a domestic adoption. I have heard many people state that they didn't want to have any risks of a change of heart. Many people just want nothing to do with birthparents. Neither of these would be changed by increasing the number of domestic adoptions.

There is an average of 25,000-30,000 domestic adoptions completed every year. The average wait for a child is under 1 year. The more open you are to race, health risks, openness, the better your odds for a faster placement. However, despite the advances in society towards transracial adoption and the improvement in services available to children with needs, many people still want a perfectly healthy Caucasian baby. So, not only are you dealing with many more people who want that same baby to raise, but there are very few babies out there with a "perfect" health history, much less Caucasian. Yes, they are out there, but it is very seldom to find someone who had prenatal care the entire time, maybe didn't smoke or drink or use drugs (even OTC), and has an otherwise clean bill of health. So, you have a lot of families waiting so long because they are looking for someone who would have done things "perfectly" and, well, that just isn't the norm.

There are over 115,000 children waiting to be adopted from foster care. Not waiting in foster care. WAITING TO BE ADOPTED. Why don't we have more people stepping up to help these kids? Their parents chose life for whatever reason - why aren't these kids being helped? And I am not just talking about sending in a donation now and then. Why isn't every church trying to get a family to adopt a child and then supporting that family in what is sure to be a hard process (foster kids, as you know, tend to have physical or emotional problems....they are not placed because their parents wanted them to have a better life, they were taken away because of abuse or neglect). To me, to be sincerely pro-life, you have to be prepared to take care of that child FOR LIFE, not just see it come into the world. If more people adopted from the foster-care system, we would have a better chance of restructuring it and making it better for the child.

Building on that, if we were to improve the fostercare system, our welfare system, and the healthcare system, perhaps women would feel that they have better options. Better healthcare would bring in healthier children. Affordable childcare would let women keep their jobs, continue school, or find work to be able to take care of a child. And welfare or WIC could be used to help, especially during that first year when things cost so much. But few people want to increase their taxes or, because the system is already messed up, don't want to feed their dollars further into it. But something needs to be done.

Finally, I ask that people respect the difficult decision of placing a child for adoption. Having worked with many birthparents, I can assure you that no placements are ever easy. Recall the love that you had for your child when they were first born.....and then imagine that life circumstances have you in a place where you just cannot take care of that child right now - no job, lack of childcare, you're too young, in an abusive relationship...the list goes on and on and the reasons are not one-size-fits-all. Much of society berates the welfare mother with 5 kids, but also belittles the woman who "gives up" her baby for being irresposible enough to get pregnant and surely not loving that child because she "gave him/her away" and that is simply not the truth for 99% of adoptions. Adoption is never an easy option and it is truly unfair to just think that if we stop abortions every one will end up adopted and we'll have happy endings for everyone. We will have women who, much like in the 60's when adoptions were forced, face psychological scars for the rest of their lives (feeling that this pregnancy and decision was forced upon them). We will have more kids in foster care because there just won't be enough families every year to adopt them. And we will have kids without families simply because they are the "wrong" race or have medical issues that no one wants to deal with. Or we may very well have kids who came from unwanted pregnanices, whose parents do not have the love and courage to place them for adoption, growing up in abusive, neglectful homes with inadequate food, clothing, etc.


There isn't an easy answer, but we need to start at a grassroots level to help these women a) not get pregnant unintentionally, b) deal with their pregnancy in a healthy way (whether a safe abortion or full prenatal care), c) support women in raising their child with childcare assistance, WIC/welfare, healthcare and d) provide accurate education about adoption as an option to everyone (women who might place, while encouraging more people to adopt).

I apologize for the length, but adoption is near and dear to my heart. I see it too many times being the "easy" answer from people not in the adoption world when it really, really isn't. And I would love to see more people walk the walk from the groups/churches who want to stop abortions, as that would truly show support to life and children and make an impact on the kids here RIGHT NOW. Lead by example.

pastrygirl
02-06-2009, 07:05 PM
I also can't wrap my head around the idea that people think that they have the right to take away another woman's choice to make a decision about her own body.Not trying to convert you ;) but I view it more as trying to protect the innocent life growing inside. That child cannot speak for or defend him/herself. The mother is not making a choice about her own body; she's making a choice about another body -- the child that grows within her. Again, I realize that not everyone views it as a "child," but many of us do. I want to protect that child just as much as I want to protect my 2.5-year-old who is standing next to me.

From a legal standpoint, I don't know what the right answer is. I agree with the ideal being that we have a situation where abortion isn't needed. I have no idea how to make that happen. ETA to clarify that I don't think it's needed right now, but I understand that many people do think it's a necessary option. I didn't know how to phrase that better.

LarsMal
02-06-2009, 07:10 PM
Some that spring to mind are to circ or not for boy? to vax or not - eg. govt says it's 100% compulsory and you can't sign waiver? to bf or not ?

Who gets the right to choose for you.

Funny...I've been thinking about choices since I posted, and these are all the examples that I had rolling around in my brain!

Ceepa
02-06-2009, 07:28 PM
icunurse, thank you for your input. Yes, I miswrote as there are millions potentially eligible for fostering and/or adoption. I don't think adoption is the easy answer; if anything it is more often the exact opposite, IMO.

I have very close friends who are currently fighting to keep their adopted son; it's heartbreaking all around.

JamiMac
02-06-2009, 07:40 PM
I don't think "life begins at conception" is always a religious point of view. I was unclear on how I felt about things until I actually carried my children. Seeing the heartbeat at 8 weeks, feeling flutters at 14 weeks, swimming feelings, kicks and hiccups. If that isn't life, then what is? I'm truly amazed now at women that have carried babies that say life doesn't begin until birth.

MelissaTC
02-06-2009, 07:41 PM
The answer to "Which is worse: sexual assault or murder?" depends on whom you ask.
I don't think it's an absolute.
Amen sister.

Fairy
02-06-2009, 07:43 PM
I haven't read thru this whole thing, but why are we talking about this? It's only going to serve to be divisive amongst ourselves. We've had major fights here before on the heavily controversial subjects, and while I do see a place for these discussion, I quite frankly, don't think the BBB is the right culture for it. If you disagree, fine. But in my mind, we are a community of people who come here for information on parenting, sometimes need support, and other times like to talk about completely off topic stuff that is fun for us. Topics like abortion being black and white and circumcision being good or bad and choosing only childhood is wrong and other things that really can cause someone to suddenly hate you at worst for your choices or think alot less of you at best do nothing good for this board.

I'm not sayin don't express your opinion. I'm saying be careful what you wish for. There are other message boards, some of them even parenting boards, that have a culture of controversial topics. Ours does not ride these storms well.

I beseech all of us on this board to please let's not do this. It will only serve to be divisive. Things have been going so well, I've realy enjoyed all the conversations and all the people, and I really mean that, and I really care. I respect your opinions about these topics whether I agree with them or not, but this particular topic (and a few others)? I'm begging all of us to not go there. Not here. Please.

-- Fairy

egoldber
02-06-2009, 07:52 PM
Ours does not ride these storms well.

I completely disagree. I have been here a long time. I have seen many posters come and go. I have watched it through TWO presidential elections. (If people think '08 was bad, they should have been here in '04 LOL!!!) I think the board weathers these things fine.

I do agree that there are individuals who do not like and are hurt by these types of discussions. My advice to them is do.not.read.these.threads.

Really, honestly why is that so hard? I have seen nothing uncivil here. Although I did note that one thread got pulled today, related to ADD/ADHD. Should we not discuss THAT on this board?????? Any topic can turn controversial.

If this becomes a board of American Idol and Facebook chat, I'm done. I come here to talk with other educated moms about things pertinent to me and my life (alas, AI and FB are neither for me.....) But you know what, I could care less that they are here. They don't interest me, I don't click on them. There are theads that I find upsetting about child and infant loss. If I am not feeling in a good place, I don't read them.

missym
02-06-2009, 07:55 PM
I completely disagree. I have been here a long time. I have seen many posters come and go. I have watched it through TWO presidential elections. (If people think '08 was bad, they should have been here in '04 LOL!!!) I think the board weathers these things fine.

I do agree that there are individuals who do not like and are hurt by these types of discussions. My advice to them is do.not.read.these.threads.

Really, honestly why is that so hard? I have seen nothing uncivil here. Although I did note that one thread got pulled today, related to ADD/ADHD. Should we not discuss THAT on this board?????? Any topic can turn controversial.



The ADD/ADHD thread got pulled briefly so that some problematic posts could be separated out. It is back now. :)

Overall, I think both abortion threads are going pretty well. There have been a couple of borderline comments for my personal comfort level, but I think most folks are making a real effort to be respectful. That goes a long way. I'd rather it hadn't started on a Friday, but such is life.

brittone2
02-06-2009, 07:56 PM
I completely disagree. I have been here a long time. I have seen many posters come and go. I have watched it through TWO presidential elections. (If people think '08 was bad, they should have been here in '04 LOL!!!) I think the board weathers these things fine.

I do agree that there are individuals who do not like and are hurt by these types of discussions. My advice to them is do.not.read.these.threads.



As another long-time member, I agree 100% and actually considered posting the same thing. Debating among spirited, bright parents has always been a hallmark of this board, IMO. Personal attacks, overall, have generally been uncommon.

Fairy
02-06-2009, 07:58 PM
You are free to disagree with me, Beth. And I totally do agree that we've weathered stuff before, we definitely have. But there's others that have blown up. The ADD thing? No clue, didn't go there, but that's not the kind of thread I mean. I've been here as long as you have, and we have similar backgrounds. I do think these threads can be damaging, cuz it's not about what may or may not be said publicly but how one may react to a poster once a view is stated that changes their willingness to contribute to a discussion or a plea for support. I've seen it happen. I think most of us are perfectly capable of seeing beyond it, but some don't. That's all I'm saying.

Fairy
02-06-2009, 08:00 PM
To be fair, in no way am I saying pull this thread! I'm just stating my opinion, I don't think I'm attacking anyone.

egoldber
02-06-2009, 08:03 PM
The ADD/ADHD thread got pulled briefly so that some problematic posts could be separated out. It is back now

My only point about that was ANY thread on ANY topic has the potential to go south. Message boards are an imperfect medium. People type quickly, others get their feelings hurt and POOF you have a controversial thread. It can happen anywhere on the board, even in topics that seem innocuous.

crayonblue
02-06-2009, 08:38 PM
I just have a second as I have a very sick child but I totally agree with this from icunurse:

"And I would love to see more people walk the walk from the groups/churches who want to stop abortions, as that would truly show support to life and children and make an impact on the kids here RIGHT NOW. Lead by example."

I wish that everyone in my church would adopt. And we hope to adopt again. And he/she most likely won't be a perfectly healthy white infant. DH and I went to a church in Dallas that had an entire adoption ministry. I thought that was awesome.

And I agree with this from pastrygirl:

"Not trying to convert you but I view it more as trying to protect the innocent life growing inside. That child cannot speak for or defend him/herself. The mother is not making a choice about her own body; she's making a choice about another body -- the child that grows within her. Again, I realize that not everyone views it as a "child," but many of us do. I want to protect that child just as much as I want to protect my 2.5-year-old who is standing next to me."

If Carmen's birthmom had been in the U.S. and had known she was carrying a child with Tay Sachs, the likelihood she would have aborted Carmen would have been 99.999999%. I've read so many pro-choice articles which site Tay Sachs as a compelling example of why abortion should be legal.

missym
02-06-2009, 08:40 PM
My only point about that was ANY thread on ANY topic has the potential to go south. Message boards are an imperfect medium. People type quickly, others get their feelings hurt and POOF you have a controversial thread. It can happen anywhere on the board, even in topics that seem innocuous.

Sure, Beth. I was just clarifying for the benefit of those who might have wondered what anyone had against a thread on ADD. :wink2:

brittone2
02-06-2009, 10:58 PM
(edited to fix this first sentence) Well, other than politics and some other more controversial topics that aren't directly parenting-related, any number of actual parenting related decisions can be controversial. Circ, discipline, vax, cosleeping, BFing, sleep training, medicating for ADHD, elective c-sections, vbac, homebirth, sex education in schools, etc. Any number of those topics are topics that parents come here asking for information about (over and over again). Any number of those can be divisive or bring up a lot of emotions. However, they are all relevant to parenting, and are often topics started with a poster truly having questions, concerns, etc. And they often turn to debate. I think that's the nature of parents feeling highly invested in their own decision making process on those topics, or sometimes just feeling the need to defend or explain their choices. Should we just stop all of the discussions that could possibly be deemed too loaded?

And yes, there are topics that erupt into nastiness or personal attacks or whatever even if they aren't controversial to begin with.

eta: Even the hot-button topics of politics and abortion are IMO somewhat related to parenting...healthcare, education reform, fiscal issues...all related to parenting. When we're talking about minors needing parental consent to have an abortion, it is related to parenting. I don't think it is all that easy to separate what issues are and aren't parenting-related.

purpleeyes
02-06-2009, 11:05 PM
If this becomes a board of American Idol and Facebook chat, I'm done. I come here to talk with other educated moms about things pertinent to me and my life (alas, AI and FB are neither for me.....) But you know what, I could care less that they are here. They don't interest me, I don't click on them. There are theads that I find upsetting about child and infant loss. If I am not feeling in a good place, I don't read them.

:yeahthat:

I am finding this thread to be very interesting and illuminating. Thanks!

Gena
02-07-2009, 10:50 AM
But, neither you nor even her know what choice she ULTIMATELY would have made, had she actually HAD a choice. She might have gotten all the way to the appointment, only to change her mind and walk away. This happens a lot. Many people do believe in choice, then end up choosing to not have an abortion for themselves.

You sound so angry at her and that makes me sad. If she'd really have had a choice, maybe the career and the boyfriend would have ended up coming in second, ultimately. If she didn't have a choice.... the mind is a funny thing and all she could see is what she was being taken from her without her input.

That someone has actually said to your face that you shouldn't be here is heartless, and I'm sorry.

Thanks for your concern, but I'm not angry at either of my birthparents. I have spent a lot of time working through issues related to my birth and relinquishment and I can honestly say that I am at peace with it. I fully understand the situation she was in, which is much more complex than I outlined in my post. My birthmom has had a difficult life, but I am proud of her strength and of the heritage she has given me. Although we are no longer in contact (her decision, not mine), I think of her often and with great love. My birthfather past away before I even knew his name, so I'll never get to ask him the questions I would have liked to. It isn't worth my time and energy to be angry with a dead man for choices he made in his youth. Still, I wish I had gotten the opportunity to know him.

KBecks
02-07-2009, 03:44 PM
I think it's very common sense that babies are living human beings prior to birth. To say that a 38 week infant isn't human until s/he's actually born and out of the mother's womb is ridiculous. There's a whole lot of denial going on.

I don't know when life begins for certain. It could be at conception, it could be at implantation.... I am not sure. Once there is a heartbeat, that's a living human baby, a tiny human being. A very tiny one.

I think it is best to err on the side of caution and protect the tiniest humans than allow them to be legally killed.

KBecks
02-07-2009, 03:57 PM
Here is a sad story that shows how ugly life can be.

A mother who tried to self-abort but it did not work, gave birth after her water broke when she was being beaten by the baby's father. The baby starved to death.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/39151362.html

I know people who support abortion think that things would be better if the mom had aborted. Whether the baby died in the womb or after having been born, the baby is dead either way. In this case, the mother now will likely go to prison.

Life can be very hard, ugly and unfortunately evil. As much as we might hope that abortion makes women's lives better, I don't think that's the truth.

kijip
02-07-2009, 04:05 PM
Reducing or eliminating abortions is a far more complicated situation than changing what is pretty much an unchangeable law (more states have laws specifically protecting abortion rights than would be needed to ratify any constitutional amendment barring abortion). It is a complicated issue as a large number of those opposed to legal abortion are also opposed on the same religious grounds to birth control or the comprehensive sex education component needed to reduce pregnancy. I don't want to see anyone's religion, including my own, used as the basis for law on any topic.

And by extension, it seems to me a real culture of life costs a lot of money for things like health care, housing for low income birth mothers and education opportunities and foster care and group homes for kids whose parents can't/won't care for them. Plus more for education and existing services to kids and families. There are not as many people waiting to adopt as there are abortions in this country, and many if not most of those that chose abortion would not necessarily choose adoption anyways. Are we, as a culture ready to or able to commit those resources? Are we able to or willing to change the attitudes that stigmatize low income or young mothers who parent or birth mothers that choose to place for adoption? Are we headed back to forced adoptions- I certainly hope not!

I don't think I can nor do I really care to try to change anyone's mind on this issue. I just think it is far more complicated to solve than changing the law to outlaw the procedure.

1964pandora
02-07-2009, 04:09 PM
I just thought I would post to say that people DO change their minds about this issue. I was as pro-choice as you can be for most of my adult life. I used to say that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, I would quit my job and protest full-time! I blame the "women's movement" and abortion rights groups for convincing me (as a twenty something) that abortion was good for women and that it was a "right" we should have.

Now I am as pro-life as you can possibly be. Now I believe that even though abortion is held out as this compassionate thing we permit women to do, that compassion is misplaced. Abortion hurts women.

stella
02-07-2009, 04:19 PM
"As much as we might hope abortion makes women's lives better, I don't think that's the truth."

I do not believe that "abortion" makes women's lives better. I don't hope it either. I hope that no woman ever has to face a choice where abortion is the more attractive option. I want it to NEVER happen.

But I would also never presume to tell another woman that I know better than she what her circumstances are, and which of her choices is more or less evil or that my God says that what she is doing is wrong and she will have to face her maker one day and perhaps burn in hell for her decision to terminate a pregnancy, which is in fact, a human life. I am going to assume that she knows that and is making her decision accordingly.

And I would like to be afforded the same respect from other women. I would appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt that I know best what my circumstances are and that I can best assess my options.

Clarity
02-07-2009, 04:31 PM
I'm pro-choice and I believe that the fetus is life, but it doesn't have A LIFE, so it's rights are trumped in my mind by the ones that do have a life. That said, I think that what's been said here by others has been ignored so I'm saying it again. That is: just because we are pro-choice, does not mean that we are pro-abortion.

I read the article and found the actions of the dr. that performed the abortion criminal, as I'm sure you did too. It's a fine line to walk, I see your point. I support the right of women to have an abortion but suffocating a baby that has been born alive is murderous, plain and simple.

I have to say re: your original analogies. I wouldn't wish a life filled with heartache, cruelty and abuse on any child. I ache for the 3yr old local boy thrown down the stairs by his own mother. I ache for the baby whose mother put him in the microwave. I ache for baby Grace who was beaten and murdered, stuffed in a box and thrown in the ocean. I ache for Cayley Anthony. Better they never been born than have to suffer as they suffered. I believe that, right or wrong. The pain they've suffered is beyond my comprehension.

gatorsmom
02-07-2009, 04:44 PM
I view it more as trying to protect the innocent life growing inside. That child cannot speak for or defend him/herself. The mother is not making a choice about her own body; she's making a choice about another body -- the child that grows within her. Again, I realize that not everyone views it as a "child," but many of us do. I want to protect that child just as much as I want to protect my 2.5-year-old who is standing next to me.



This is how I feel. My prolife stance is simply about protecting the most vulnerable members of our society. The ones who can't speak for themselves. Just as we want to protect the people in our society from kidnapping, murder, theft, etc., and put laws in place outlawing them.

Fwiw, religion does not dictate how our society handles theft, however, many religions have strong viewpoints on this subject. I don't see this issue as any different.

(hmmm, looks like I"m being drawn into this subject again. It's hard not to, isn't it?)

deborah_r
02-07-2009, 04:54 PM
I wouldn't wish a life filled with heartache, cruelty and abuse on any child. I ache for the 3yr old local boy thrown down the stairs by his own mother. I ache for the baby whose mother put him in the microwave. I ache for baby Grace who was beaten and murdered, stuffed in a box and thrown in the ocean. I ache for Cayley Anthony. Better they never been born than have to suffer as they suffered. I believe that, right or wrong. The pain they've suffered is beyond my comprehension.

I have been trying not to comment, but I have to chime in to say this is my sticking point right here. Just about 5 posts above here, someone (was it KBecks?) linked to a story about a dead 1 month, 22 day old baby boy who was starved to death. He was found dead in his dirty, disgusting house in a filthy diaper. An older sibling had been caring for the other children that morning (what was he, 4 years old?) I cannot help but think the little baby that died would have been better off aborted when the mother was 2 months along (she tried to self-abort). Trying to imagine the suffering of any of these now-dead children we have heard about recently makes me hurt so bad I can hardly stand it. I guess you don't know what child may beat the odds and turn out well despite those circumstances, but knowing the outcome now with this poor baby boy, I cannot see any value in his living 52 days of suffering.

If women are going to keep these unwanted babies and torture them, I wish they would have an early abortion instead.

stella
02-07-2009, 05:01 PM
I have been trying not to comment, but I have to chime in to say this is my sticking point right here. Just about 5 posts above here, someone (was it KBecks?) linked to a story about a dead 1 month, 22 day old baby boy who was starved to death. He was found dead in his dirty, disgusting house in a filthy diaper. An older sibling had been caring for the other children that morning (what was he, 4 years old?) I cannot help but think the little baby that died would have been better off aborted when the mother was 2 months along (she tried to self-abort). Trying to imagine the suffering of any of these now-dead children we have heard about recently makes me hurt so bad I can hardly stand it. I guess you don't know what child may beat the odds and turn out well despite those circumstances, but knowing the outcome now with this poor baby boy, I cannot see any value in his living 52 days of suffering.

If women are going to keep these unwanted babies and torture them, I wish they would have an early abortion instead.

Amen, Deborah. If only every unwanted child were placed for adoption.

KBecks
02-07-2009, 06:39 PM
I have to say re: your original analogies. I wouldn't wish a life filled with heartache, cruelty and abuse on any child. I ache for the 3yr old local boy thrown down the stairs by his own mother. I ache for the baby whose mother put him in the microwave. I ache for baby Grace who was beaten and murdered, stuffed in a box and thrown in the ocean. I ache for Cayley Anthony. Better they never been born than have to suffer as they suffered. I believe that, right or wrong. The pain they've suffered is beyond my comprehension.

But who are we to say that they are better off aborted? It's as if abortion is not bad. Abortion is legal but that does not mean it is not horrible. Only because we don't see the suffering does not mean it does not exist.

KBecks
02-07-2009, 06:42 PM
I have been trying not to comment, but I have to chime in to say this is my sticking point right here. Just about 5 posts above here, someone (was it KBecks?) linked to a story about a dead 1 month, 22 day old baby boy who was starved to death. He was found dead in his dirty, disgusting house in a filthy diaper. An older sibling had been caring for the other children that morning (what was he, 4 years old?) I cannot help but think the little baby that died would have been better off aborted when the mother was 2 months along (she tried to self-abort). Trying to imagine the suffering of any of these now-dead children we have heard about recently makes me hurt so bad I can hardly stand it. I guess you don't know what child may beat the odds and turn out well despite those circumstances, but knowing the outcome now with this poor baby boy, I cannot see any value in his living 52 days of suffering.

If women are going to keep these unwanted babies and torture them, I wish they would have an early abortion instead.


You know I see this angle and yet, maybe his life has greater meaning and impact than it seems. Who am I to say he was better off aborted?

kusumat
02-07-2009, 06:57 PM
Generally, I believe people can do what they want with their bodies as long as they aren't harming any other bodies.

I totally agree with you on this. I think pp should take responsibility of their action.
No sex if you can't handle the unexpected consequence. Even using the condom, it is not always 100% effective.

stella
02-07-2009, 07:02 PM
But who are we to say that they are better off aborted? It's as if abortion is not bad. Abortion is legal but that does not mean it is not horrible. Only because we don't see the suffering does not mean it does not exist.

It is just so personal - every time I try to discuss this, I have to think in terms of values and judgments, and I place more value on the life of the mother than the unborn baby and give her the benefit of the doubt that she knows better than I what is best for her.

But then we consider what kind of suffering hurts more - the fast pain of the procedure or the slow death of an infant as in the story above. The questions call for analysis at sooo many levels and the answers will depend on the beliefs of the individual - and I guess THAT is why I am glad abortion is not illegal. If you place more value on the life of the baby than its mother, that is your prerogative and I really do respect it, but I don't think *I* should be able to make a decision for everyone, and it's the reason I don't want the pro-life/anti-choice movement to make the decision for me.

KBecks
02-07-2009, 07:03 PM
Reducing or eliminating abortions is a far more complicated situation than changing what is pretty much an unchangeable law

I agree the law is unlikely to be changed and we need to deal with the reality now - that abortion is currently legal and widely accepted as an OK way of avoiding pregnancy. Changing people's minds so they are more likely to reject abortion and helping people avoid unwanted pregnancy is where the results are more likely to be effective. That said, the law is wrong and the effort to change the law should not be given up on.



..a large number of those opposed to legal abortion are also opposed on the same religious grounds to birth control or the comprehensive sex education component needed to reduce pregnancy.

No one here has advocated making birth control illegal. Birth control is pretty widely accepted and religious folks are more likely to see this as a personal issue vs. something to be legislated for others. This is an area where a woman's informed choice is the way to go.


And by extension, it seems to me a real culture of life costs a lot of money for things like health care, housing for low income birth mothers and education opportunities and foster care and group homes for kids whose parents can't/won't care for them. Plus more for education and existing services to kids and families. There are not as many people waiting to adopt as there are abortions in this country, and many if not most of those that chose abortion would not necessarily choose adoption anyways. Are we, as a culture ready to or able to commit those resources? Are we able to or willing to change the attitudes that stigmatize low income or young mothers who parent or birth mothers that choose to place for adoption? Are we headed back to forced adoptions- I certainly hope not!

I don't think people who are pro-choice support it because they are cheap and don't want to pay more taxes. I don't think that's a good argument for keeping abortion legal.

I was placed for adoption in 1970 before Roe v. Wade and it was not forced. I think we will not head back to that, because the world is very different now than it was in the 1950's and 1960's where forced adoptions were once much more common.

kusumat
02-07-2009, 07:03 PM
You know I see this angle and yet, maybe his life has greater meaning and impact than it seems. Who am I to say he was better off aborted?

How's about using a birth control when they can't really afford having another kid? I think it is part of mom's job to provide decent and safe living for her child. It is not just giving birth.

gatorsmom
02-07-2009, 07:46 PM
Who am I to say he was better off aborted?


Better off dead. I guess we could use this defense on people who are severely handicapped. Or those 90 yo people who are suffering from dementia and all sorts of age-related problems and are lonely and living along. Murderers who have lived a criminal life filled with all sorts of evil- someone like Charles Manson. Maybe those people should never have been born either and are better off dead.

It's a very slippery slope.

stella
02-07-2009, 07:58 PM
Better off dead. I guess we could use this defense on people who are severely handicapped. Or those 90 yo people who are suffering from dementia and all sorts of age-related problems and are lonely and living along. Murderers who have lived a criminal life filled with all sorts of evil- someone like Charles Manson. Maybe those people should never have been born either and are better off dead.

It's a very slippery slope.

Better off dead before birth or better off dead after neglect and abuse and documentable suffering? My opinion is better to not have been born - but I GET that YOURS is different. And I respect that.

Why can't we just agree that opinions differ rather than trying to convince the other side?

kijip
02-07-2009, 08:12 PM
No one here has advocated making birth control illegal. Birth control is pretty widely accepted and religious folks are more likely to see this as a personal issue vs. something to be legislated for others. This is an area where a woman's informed choice is the way to go.

There are many threads here which have at times likened birth control to abortion. If one thinks abortion is evil, murder or similar, it is such a leap to outlaw birth control? The underpinnings of Roe are Griswald, which allowed for people to get birth control. Sure, no one is saying it on this thread or perhaps here even thinks that, but there are in fact pro-life groups and politicians with that objective. I left my denomination of faith, of over over 20 years, over this very issue (birth control, not abortion) because even methods you describe here as using, are not allowed. The attitude that birth control = abortion is out there and it is as mainstream as certain Protestant denominations and technically the entire Catholic church.


I don't think people who are pro-choice support it because they are cheap and don't want to pay more taxes. I don't think that's a good argument for keeping abortion legal.

A good argument for abortion? No. I have no arguments FOR abortion, just for why it can't be illegal and why it is a painful choice that needs to be on the table. But it is a good question- how do we pay for more education, more foster care, more orphanages, more health care? How do we support 100,000s, really over the years even millions more kids because we already SUCK at supporting kids in the system and we are not doing a total bang up job of educating the youth we do have?

gatorsmom
02-07-2009, 08:14 PM
Why can't we just agree that opinions differ rather than trying to convince the other side?

You know, so many of these contravercial (sp) thread I try not to take personally but can't help it. It's painful to get involved in these discussions but I have to admit that they really force me to widen my perspective. I think the trick is, to be as careful as possible to let all involved know that we mean no one here any insult or hurt. Admittedly, when these discussions get heated, that's not always easy because there's the tendency to get defensive and assume that someone is singling US out.

And, I think Fairy had a point (to a point) that maybe this isn't the place to discuss these issues. I agree with that simply because through frequent posting, we've gotten to know each other and about each other's families so we feel like we know each other and it's then much easier to be hurt. (not sure that made sense but the twins are yelling to be fed).

StantonHyde
02-07-2009, 09:21 PM
1. Paying for abortions: I don't want my tax dollars to go towards killing already born babies and women in Iraq, but I don't get a choice on that one.

2. The body aborts 1 in 3 pregnancies. (I am a textbook statistic--3 pg, 2 live births). I saw the embryo's heartbeat at 8 weeks. By 11 weeks, I miscarried--it probably had been "demised" since 9 weeks. I was sad for a bit, but not devastated. I knew that medically it was meant to be--that embryo would not have been viable so my body aborted it. Other people have vastly different experiences with miscarriages (mine was also my 2nd pg-so I already had a toddler running around. I think it made a big difference.)

3. Before Roe v Wade, there were rampant "septic miscarriages'--the code word for botched abortions. After RVW, septic miscarriages literally disappeared. My dad tells stories of taking turns with another resident sleeping in the same room as a young teen girl who had a back alley abortion. They wanted to be there night or day to do whatever they had to in order to keep that girl alive. That really had an impact on him. Illegal abortions mean middle class women get abortions and poor women do not. Pre Roe v Wade, women could go to the Bahamas or England etc to get an abortion. So outlawing abortions will NOT stop abortions. Safe, legal, rare, that's the goal.

4. When does life begin? Some cultures say not until the child is named in a ceremony (1+ weeks after birth). The bottom line is it is a BELIEF we have.

5. The bottom line, as other PP have noted, is that to stop abortions--we need to empower women and teach men that violence toward women is not ok. The key to reducing unwanted pg is to raise self confident women.

I think we can all agree that raising strong daughters is a laudible goal!

C99
02-07-2009, 10:20 PM
I think it's very common sense that babies are living human beings prior to birth. To say that a 38 week infant isn't human until s/he's actually born and out of the mother's womb is ridiculous. There's a whole lot of denial going on.

That is just it. The sense of that fetuses are babies before birth is NOT common; it is a matter of great debate as to when life begins. But that really misses my point, which is that it does NOT matter when we agree that life begins. I think that if a woman wants to abort at 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks, 33 weeks, 38 weeks, that is her decision and should be her choice.

The best argument I ever read about abortion was that the rights of a fetus should not trump the rights of the mother. And since none of us can say what the fetus would want, it's not our job to advocate for "those innocent unborn babies" at the expense of the mother's rights.

KBecks
02-07-2009, 10:54 PM
Safe, legal, rare, that's the goal.


The big problem is that abortions are anything but rare. Our society has accepted abortions as being just fine, and the support of a woman's "right to choose" has come to mean it's all good.

mom_hanna
02-07-2009, 10:55 PM
The answer to "Which is worse: sexual assault or murder?" depends on whom you ask.
I don't think it's an absolute.

Yes, I agree. I know some people who have been sexually assaulted who would rather their attacker had killed them. Very sad, but true.

KBecks
02-07-2009, 10:57 PM
I would argue that the rights of the child and mother are equal, and both lives are of equal value, with preference to the mother if the situation is life or death for both of them.

Aborting a 38 week old baby is sick and should be illegal.

egoldber
02-07-2009, 11:04 PM
Our society has accepted abortions as being just fine, and the support of a woman's "right to choose" has come to mean it's all good.

And as someone who is firmly pro-choice, I don't know *any* pro-choice people who think abortions are "just fine" and "it's all good".

Personally, I think it is a tragedy when a woman reaches the point in her life where choosing to end a pregnancy is the most preferable course of action.

egoldber
02-07-2009, 11:13 PM
I found this article very interesting, although it is 10 years old:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html

Here are a couple excerpts:


Yet, while it may seem paradoxical, a country's abortion rate is not closely correlated with whether abortion is legal there. For example, abortion levels are quite high in Latin American countries, where abortion is highly restricted. (In fact, 20 million of the 46 million abortions performed annually worldwide occur in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws.) At the same time, abortion rates are quite low throughout Western Europe, where the procedure is legal and widely available. Also, Eastern and Western Europe have the world's highest and lowest abortion rates, respectively, yet abortion is generally legal throughout the Continent.



Some abortion opponents allege that the U.S. abortion rate is due to the extreme "permissiveness" of the nation's abortion policy. (As the result of the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the right to choose abortion is constitutionally protected until fetal viability, after which states may prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to save a woman's life or protect her health.) In practice, however, U.S. policy is roughly comparable to that of many Western European countries (which, moreover, pay for the procedure under their national health programs)—and virtually all of these countries have much lower abortion rates. Consistent with the experience of other countries around the world, the key variable that accounts for the high U.S. abortion rate is not a permissive law but a high unintended pregnancy rate.

Snow mom
02-07-2009, 11:21 PM
That is just it. The sense of that fetuses are babies before birth is NOT common; it is a matter of great debate as to when life begins. But that really misses my point, which is that it does NOT matter when we agree that life begins. I think that if a woman wants to abort at 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks, 33 weeks, 38 weeks, that is her decision and should be her choice.


I'm pro-coice but I disagree with this. I don't know when I believe a fetus becomes a baby/ independent life. I guess I don't believe it happens at a single moment but is more gradual. But at 38 weeks, or even 24 weeks, even while still inside the mother, it is clearly a living being to me. To allow a woman to kill a fetus at 38 weeks is the same to me as saying it is okay to intentionally kill a newborn. I feel comfortable with a woman deciding to have a first trimester abortion. I wish girls/ women wouldn't be in this situation, as pro-choice PP have said, but unless there is some medically necessary reason for a later abortion, I don't think it is asking too much to have a deadline that a woman must decide to terminate a pregnancy by. Once you get past this date a woman should be expected to act in the best interest of the child that is going to be born.

KBecks
02-07-2009, 11:25 PM
I think what has happened is that the focus is almost entirely on the woman with little or no concern for the ended life of the unborn child. It's about the woman's feelings, the woman's loss, the woman's needs. It's gotten one sided, because the woman's feelings are the only consideration. There is little or no concern left for the unborn child. People can pretend it never existed at all.

As for when life begins, there are many opinions as to when life begins, but there is truth to what is alive and what is not alive. Living beings can die naturally, and living beings can be killed. They are not the same thing.

I don't mean to argue. I'm glad to have the opportunity to talk about what I feel is the truth of the life of the fetus and the value of that life.

gatorsmom
02-07-2009, 11:26 PM
The attitude that birth control = abortion is out there and it is as mainstream as certain Protestant denominations and technically the entire Catholic church.




To be technically correct, the Catholic Church DOES consider any forms of birthcontrol which do not allow a fertilized embryo to implant or to starve it, a form of abortion (which fits with its belief that an embryo is a living thing and must be protected). However, the Catholic Church does NOT consider abortion the use of birth control methods which prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg, in other words condoms, spermicide, the sponge, etc. And there happens to be a debate in the church right now that these latter forms of contraceptive be allowed since they are not killing anything.

Honestly, in all my years as a Catholic, I've never heard anyone say or allude to the idea of birth control being outlawed. I can't speak for Protestant churches, but its not an idea that has ever occurred to me. Catholics are asked to not use it for various reasons I won't go into, but I"ve never heard it said that it should be illegal outright. I do know that Catholic charitable organizations will not promote it because that goes against their moral beliefs but that's a separate issue altogether.

ETA: it's entirely possible that some more fundamentalist Catholic parishes have discussed the notion of pushing for legislation outlawing contraception but all parishes are different to some degree. I don't ever see that becoming a movement in the RC church.

niccig
02-07-2009, 11:27 PM
And as someone who is firmly pro-choice, I don't know *any* pro-choice people who think abortions are "just fine" and "it's all good".

Personally, I think it is a tragedy when a woman reaches the point in her life where choosing to end a pregnancy is the most preferable course of action.

Yeah this. And I would love to see programs that help to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

MelissaTC
02-07-2009, 11:35 PM
Honestly, in all my years as a Catholic, I've never heard anyone say or allude to the idea of birth control being outlawed. I can't speak for Protestant churches, but its not an idea that has ever occurred to me. Catholics are asked to not use it for various reasons I won't go into, but I"ve never heard it said that it should be illegal outright. I do know that Catholic charitable organizations will not promote it because that goes against their moral beliefs but that's a separate issue altogether.

ETA: it's entirely possible that some more fundamentalist Catholic parishes have discussed the notion of pushing for legislation outlawing contraception but all parishes are different to some degree. I don't ever see that becoming a movement in the RC church.

I am Catholic and have come in contact with other Catholics that believe that birth control should be illegal. I do not attend a fundamentalist or even a conservative parish but that sentiment does exist. These are also the same people that won't give their children vaccinations due to the whole issue with aborted cells (you may know what I am talking about- I am not completely clear on what the connection is between some vaccinations and aborted fetuses but you get the picture).

gatorsmom
02-07-2009, 11:41 PM
I am Catholic and have come in contact with other Catholics that believe that birth control should be illegal. I do not attend a fundamentalist or even a conservative parish but that sentiment does exist.


You may certainly be right. There are probably groups of people out there who discuss this. I've never heard of it. And it certainly isn't discussed to the extent of overturning Roe vs. Wade. At every parish I"ve attended the prolife issue is organized and widely discussed. I guess that's all I meant. The idea of outlawing contraception is teensy compared to the huge outcry to outlaw abortion.

BelleoftheBallFlagstaff
02-07-2009, 11:49 PM
In Ireland, women go to the UK to get abortions. Can anyone say Mexico?

kijip
02-07-2009, 11:57 PM
To be technically correct, the Catholic Church DOES consider any forms of birthcontrol which do not allow a fertilized embryo to implant or to starve it, a form of abortion (which fits with its belief that an embryo is a living thing and must be protected). However, the Catholic Church does NOT consider abortion the use of birth control methods which prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg, in other words condoms, spermicide, the sponge, etc. And there happens to be a debate in the church right now that these latter forms of contraceptive be allowed since they are not killing anything.

Honestly, in all my years as a Catholic, I've never heard anyone say or allude to the idea of birth control being outlawed. I can't speak for Protestant churches, but its not an idea that has ever occurred to me. Catholics are asked to not use it for various reasons I won't go into, but I"ve never heard it said that it should be illegal outright. I do know that Catholic charitable organizations will not promote it because that goes against their moral beliefs but that's a separate issue altogether.

ETA: it's entirely possible that some more fundamentalist Catholic parishes have discussed the notion of pushing for legislation outlawing contraception but all parishes are different to some degree. I don't ever see that becoming a movement in the RC church.

I have only attended progressive Catholic Churches (my parents are very liberal) and it is an idea I have been exposed to more than infrequently. Additionally, as I have always understood it, the Catholic church traditionally opposes all forms of BC besides FAM. A diocese produced brochure I collected at my church in 2007 mentioned specifically that abortion drugs, including birth control were on the same level as abortion. The church has worked against things like condoms in Africa. There is NO contention or reason scientifically to believe that barrier methods prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, but the Church is against them all the same. It is this issue that ultimately made my attendance, and more importantly, my $$$ support untenable in the faith I was born, baptized, educated and confirmed. Attending but not belonging and not tithing was not ok to me, but I did not like the idea my dollars could wind up being used for anti-barrier method teaching and propaganda. It did not sit well with me at all. It was a rationalization that allowed me to participate in the first place, so I had to leave. It was a hard and painful, many years in the making decision. Most Roman Catholics in the USA do not support the churches position on birth control, especially condoms, at all, but I decided not to look the other way any longer.

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 12:05 AM
I have only attended progressive Catholic Churches (my parents are very liberal) and it is an idea I have been exposed to more than infrequently. Additionally, as I have always understood it, the Catholic church traditionally opposes all forms of BC besides FAM. The church has worked against things like condoms in Africa. There is NO contention or reason scientifically to believe that barrier methods prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, but the Church is against them all the same. It is this issue that ultimately made my attendance, and more importantly, my $$$ support untenable. Attending but not belonging and not tithing was not ok to me, but I did not like the idea my dollars could wind up being used for anti-barrier method teaching and propaganda. It did not sit well with me at all.


More recently there is a debate in the Catholic Church regarding the allowed use of barrier- method forms of birth control, as I mentioned in my previous post. It is a serious debate- not offhanded discussion- amongst at least the African bishops. I read an article about 2 years ago about it in a Catholic journal. I think if you do a little research into your Catholic news sources you'll turn it up.

kijip
02-08-2009, 12:06 AM
In Ireland, women go to the UK to get abortions. Can anyone say Mexico?

Or more likely one state to another.

Most states protect the right to legal abortion, and the needed/hoped for constitutional amendment would be impossible.

kijip
02-08-2009, 12:10 AM
More recently there is a debate in the Catholic Church regarding the allowed use of barrier- method forms of birth control, as I mentioned in my previous post. It is a serious debate- not offhanded discussion- amongst at least the African bishops. I read an article about 2 years ago about it in a Catholic journal. I think if you do a little research into your Catholic news sources you'll turn it up.

I've read a lot about it. But until the church changes it's position officially, I think the debate is pretty moot. Like the ongoing on again, off again debate over married priests or women in the clergy. Or why a protestant minister can become a Catholic priest while married (there are about 100 of these priests, exempt from the celibacy rule, in the USA) and that's ok but not for someone who has always been Catholic. Until the church makes a change on condoms and spermicides and caps and elective sterilization, it is all just debate.

purpleeyes
02-08-2009, 12:39 AM
Deleted post

C99
02-08-2009, 01:39 AM
I'm pro-coice but I disagree with this. I don't know when I believe a fetus becomes a baby/ independent life. I guess I don't believe it happens at a single moment but is more gradual. But at 38 weeks, or even 24 weeks, even while still inside the mother, it is clearly a living being to me. To allow a woman to kill a fetus at 38 weeks is the same to me as saying it is okay to intentionally kill a newborn. I feel comfortable with a woman deciding to have a first trimester abortion. I wish girls/ women wouldn't be in this situation, as pro-choice PP have said, but unless there is some medically necessary reason for a later abortion, I don't think it is asking too much to have a deadline that a woman must decide to terminate a pregnancy by. Once you get past this date a woman should be expected to act in the best interest of the child that is going to be born.

I just think that as technology advances and the viability age gets earlier and earlier, it will soon be moot to define life (and therefore rule out abortion) as the point of viability. Thirty-five years ago, it was unheard of for babies to be born at 23 weeks and survive. I always think of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and the story he paints about how sex is encouraged, but all babies are grown in petri dishes and artificial wombs.

Staraglimmer
02-08-2009, 03:11 AM
Deleted to keep the peace. I no longer wish to discuss this. It is aparently something that I have no business discussing here.

o_mom
02-08-2009, 09:13 AM
I think what has happened is that the focus is almost entirely on the woman with little or no concern for the ended life of the unborn child. It's about the woman's feelings, the woman's loss, the woman's needs. It's gotten one sided, because the woman's feelings are the only consideration. There is little or no concern left for the unborn child. People can pretend it never existed at all.



This is interesting to me because I feel that the focus has swung the other way. Laws giving "fetal rights" have been used to force women to have c-sections under court order and had them charged with homicide when they had stillbirths after refusing medical advice.

I have a friend who had to deal with the police and EMTs at her house when a relative felt that her choice of HBAC was going to harm her unborn baby and called 911 (baby was just fine). Fortunately the laws of our state/city did not give them any legal ground, but there is a proposal here to change that.

The rights of the mother and the baby are not something that can be separated - they are entwined throughout the pregnancy

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 12:04 PM
I think what has happened is that the focus is almost entirely on the woman with little or no concern for the ended life of the unborn child. It's about the woman's feelings, the woman's loss, the woman's needs. It's gotten one sided, because the woman's feelings are the only consideration. There is little or no concern left for the unborn child. People can pretend it never existed at all.



I agree. As long as abortion is legal, that means the law is on the side of the woman, not the vulnerable unborn. When we start to see some significant changes in federal and state legislation, I think then we can say that there is starting to be a shift in focus to the rights of the unborn. A few isolated situations and random group discussion about protecting the unborn do not a shift in focus make. In other words, I don't think the Prochoice supporters need to take to the streets in protest yet.

egoldber
02-08-2009, 12:09 PM
I am curious how people reconcile the statistics which show that there is no correlation between the legality of abortion and the number of abortions actually performed. That is, the countries with the most liberal abortion laws (generally speaking, western Europe), actually have the lowest abortions rates.

ShanaMama
02-08-2009, 01:28 PM
I think that if a woman wants to abort at 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks, 33 weeks, 38 weeks, that is her decision and should be her choice.


What about a baby that is born at 37w 5d? Three days later the mother decides this motherhood business is too much for her. Do you support her choice to kill her baby? How is that different than aborting a 38 week pregnancy?
Not trying to be combative, just trying to make a point. :)
I am anti abortion and agree with the pp who made all the points about the unborn baby's life having value. We get caught up in the rights of the mother over her body and her right to choose.
To give an extreme example- what if some guy feels that his pleasure is to date rape his girlfriend. None of us would be ok with that. But what about his 'right' to have a good time? My point (albeit not very eloquently stated) is that the perceived rights of one person often infringe upon another. We have come to hold the mother's rights as such a holy given that it's not PC to suggest that her rights may infringe upon those of her unborn baby.
I am not trying to be black and white or insensitive. I am trying to get my point across with two kids jumping around and two possible broken toes of my own!

ETA: One more point, throwing out there for food for thought. I know I've seen at least one book out there written by someone who survived an abortion. The very idea frightens and disturbs me so much. I wonder if reading her story would make anyone rethink their prochoice position.

MelissaTC
02-08-2009, 01:42 PM
ETA: One more point, throwing out there for food for thought. I know I've seen at least one book out there written by someone who survived an abortion. The very idea frightens and disturbs me so much. I wonder if reading her story would make anyone rethink their prochoice position.

I have actually heard an interview of someone who survived an abortion. I was amazed and moved by her story but it still doesn't change my viewpoint.

MelissaTC
02-08-2009, 01:43 PM
I'm sorry. I am a well educated woman. I am 100% pro-life. What I can't stand is when people say that people are pro-life due to "limited experience" or because of religious beliefs. Basically, I don't think that anyone has the right to kill a baby. I understand the morning after pill in instances of rape. However understanding it is different than thinking it is right. Moving on, abortion is a crappy form of birth control. I think that people that use it as birth control more than once should be sterilized, because obviously they can’t figure it out.

I cannot even begin to explain what I think of the monsters that thought of things like partial birth abortion. I would not allow this form of torture to be performed on an animal, much less a human being. Ok, and finally if you are far enough along in your pregnancy that the baby can survive without you, it’s murder. Pure, selfish murder! Give the baby up for adoption! Lots of people can’t have children! I’ll happily take ALL of the children whose mothers don’t want them, I’m serious.

I’m sorry I just felt that the pro-lifers needed some support! Abortion is murder. How can it be ok, but not ok to kill your baby? I don’t like the direction that legalized abortion takes us. It is a very scary place.
:heartbeat:


This thread has been quite civil and respectful. You may want to tone down your post as it is borderline offensive. JMO...

kijip
02-08-2009, 02:02 PM
I'm sorry. I am a well educated woman. I am 100% pro-life. What I can't stand is when people say that people are pro-life due to "limited experience" or because of religious beliefs. Basically, I don't think that anyone has the right to kill a baby. I understand the morning after pill in instances of rape. However understanding it is different than thinking it is right. Moving on, abortion is a crappy form of birth control. I think that people that use it as birth control more than once should be sterilized, because obviously they can’t figure it out.

I cannot even begin to explain what I think of the monsters that thought of things like partial birth abortion. I would not allow this form of torture to be performed on an animal, much less a human being. Ok, and finally if you are far enough along in your pregnancy that the baby can survive without you, it’s murder. Pure, selfish murder! Give the baby up for adoption! Lots of people can’t have children! I’ll happily take ALL of the children whose mothers don’t want them, I’m serious.

I’m sorry I just felt that the pro-lifers needed some support! Abortion is murder. How can it be ok, but not ok to kill your baby? I don’t like the direction that legalized abortion takes us. It is a very scary place.
:heartbeat:

Does support translate to calling people selfish, murder, monsters? Seriously I have not heard any such rhetoric going the other way here. It puzzles me as to why that makes the pro-life side here so maligned.

niccig
02-08-2009, 02:56 PM
I am curious how people reconcile the statistics which show that there is no correlation between the legality of abortion and the number of abortions actually performed. That is, the countries with the most liberal abortion laws (generally speaking, western Europe), actually have the lowest abortions rates.

A guess...easier access to birth control and sex education? If you know how pregnancy happens and how to not get pregnant, you have less unintended pregnancies, less need for abortion?? I doubt the Western Europeans are having less sex!

I read somewhere, that with the abstinence only programs of last 8 years, the teen pregnancy rate has increased. I can't remember where I read it, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 03:09 PM
I'm sorry. I am a well educated woman. I am 100% pro-life. What I can't stand is when people say that people are pro-life due to "limited experience" or because of religious beliefs. Basically, I don't think that anyone has the right to kill a baby. I understand the morning after pill in instances of rape. However understanding it is different than thinking it is right. Moving on, abortion is a crappy form of birth control. I think that people that use it as birth control more than once should be sterilized, because obviously they can’t figure it out.

I cannot even begin to explain what I think of the monsters that thought of things like partial birth abortion. I would not allow this form of torture to be performed on an animal, much less a human being. Ok, and finally if you are far enough along in your pregnancy that the baby can survive without you, it’s murder. Pure, selfish murder! Give the baby up for adoption! Lots of people can’t have children! I’ll happily take ALL of the children whose mothers don’t want them, I’m serious.

I’m sorry I just felt that the pro-lifers needed some support! Abortion is murder. How can it be ok, but not ok to kill your baby? I don’t like the direction that legalized abortion takes us. It is a very scary place.
:heartbeat:

Staraglimmer, I am 100% prolife. ProALL life. And so I totally understand your feelings which are coming out loud and clear in your post. But I have to agree with kijip and MelissaTC- you need to tone it down a bit. There are other ways to get your point across without leaving any doubt, kwim? But I also have to add THANK YOU for getting in on the discussion. I, and even the prochoicers here I"m sure, look forward to seeing more of your toned-down thoughts on the subject.

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 03:36 PM
I am curious how people reconcile the statistics which show that there is no correlation between the legality of abortion and the number of abortions actually performed. That is, the countries with the most liberal abortion laws (generally speaking, western Europe), actually have the lowest abortions rates.

I can only speak for Denmark and France- 2 of the countries in Europe where I have dear friends and spent a lot of time. (Maybe a lurker living in Europe could chime in here?) But I can tell you from my time over there that my guess is very few people have economic issues, health care is over-the-top, and the culture is more mature about unplanned pregnancies. My danish friends point to the fact that they also have one of the lowest violent crime rates and homeless rates. They say it is because EVERYONE has access to the highest levels of health care. And they also say that you would have to want to be homeless to actually BE homeless. Heck, in France elderly people are "prescribed" by their doctors a free week at one of the resorts by the ocean if they feel that their health could use a little lift. When I had the flu while living in France, I was prescribed 5 different medications by my host mom (who was an MD). It is socialism at its best. Why get an abortion when you can get plenty of subsidized health care and room and board to protect you and your baby? If you play the system in France right, you could actually come out ahead. That is not even mentioning that the European way of thinking and value system is totally different from ours. Unwed mothers and babies born out of "wedlock" are not looked at as "oh, what a shame." You don't often see the stigmatization of an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a much greater value put on human life (I believe that is because of the wars fought on their soil in the past 100 years and the horrendous numbers of lives lost).

I guess I"m saying in a long round-about way, uneloquent, hurried way that that is probably WHY abortion rates as well as the rates of voilent crimes are lower overseas. It's really comparing apples to oranges. The cultures, political, tax and economic systems in European countries are very different from ours will ever be so to suggest that legalizing abortion will decrease the number of abortions here in the US by pointing to the European example is probably misplaced.

Snow mom
02-08-2009, 05:13 PM
(Maybe a lurker living in Europe could chime in here?)

How about abortion law and rates in Canada? I know we have quite a few folks from Canada on this board. I mainly ask because I'm fairly certain their laws are dramatically different. A Canadian friend of mine told me they can't legally be told the sex of the baby until 20+ weeks because of fear of people aborting unwanted girl babies (this is in BC, might not be the same throughout Canada). I guess the abortion cut-off is much later in Canada. Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing when a woman can have an abortion in Canada, when most abortions occur, and what the overall rate is.

egoldber
02-08-2009, 05:22 PM
The cultures, political, tax and economic systems in European countries are very different from ours will ever be so to suggest that legalizing abortion will decrease the number of abortions here in the US by pointing to the European example is probably misplaced.

I guess I disagree. I think the way to reduce (because I don't think they will ever be eliminated because women have always found ways....) the number of abortions is not by making them illegal, but by making sex education broad and encompassing and by making contraception easy, affordable, and well understood.

crayonblue
02-08-2009, 05:42 PM
I guess I disagree. I think the way to reduce (because I don't think they will ever be eliminated because women have always found ways....) the number of abortions is not by making them illegal, but by making sex education broad and encompassing and by making contraception easy, affordable, and well understood.

I don't think there is any good solution without the media totally changing the way sex is portrayed. If a child hears nothing constructive about sex at home, they are going to think that everyone is having sex, you are weird if you aren't, there are zero consequences (no physical or emotional consequences) and that if you do happen to get pregnant, there are convenient ways out.

Most kids today are totally being raised by TV and movies. I helped out in a 1st grade class and one day a little boy kept falling asleep. I asked him why he was so tired and he said because he stayed up with his dad to watch the Victoria Secret Fashion show. Ugh.

Of course, the media isn't going to change its portrayal of sex if this is our whole cultural view of sex, which it is. Sex sells after all.

C99
02-08-2009, 05:46 PM
I guess I disagree. I think the way to reduce (because I don't think they will ever be eliminated because women have always found ways....) the number of abortions is not by making them illegal, but by making sex education broad and encompassing and by making contraception easy, affordable, and well understood.

Plus, does anyone remember the Ceacescu regime in Romania? He outlawed abortion and birth control in 1966 in an attempt to increase birth rates. At the same time, he introduced tax credits that would encourage large families. Despite this, most Romanian families had 2-3 children AND a great number of children were abandoned or condemned to live (or, more likely, die of starvation or frostbite) in filthy orphanages under horrific conditions. Many, many women died trying to have clandestine abortions, and there was a huge AIDS epidemic.

C99
02-08-2009, 05:48 PM
I can only speak for Denmark and France- 2 of the countries in Europe where I have dear friends and spent a lot of time. (Maybe a lurker living in Europe could chime in here?) But I can tell you from my time over there that my guess is very few people have economic issues, health care is over-the-top, and the culture is more mature about unplanned pregnancies. My danish friends point to the fact that they also have one of the lowest violent crime rates and homeless rates. They say it is because EVERYONE has access to the highest levels of health care. And they also say that you would have to want to be homeless to actually BE homeless. Heck, in France elderly people are "prescribed" by their doctors a free week at one of the resorts by the ocean if they feel that their health could use a little lift. When I had the flu while living in France, I was prescribed 5 different medications by my host mom (who was an MD). It is socialism at its best. Why get an abortion when you can get plenty of subsidized health care and room and board to protect you and your baby? If you play the system in France right, you could actually come out ahead. That is not even mentioning that the European way of thinking and value system is totally different from ours. Unwed mothers and babies born out of "wedlock" are not looked at as "oh, what a shame." You don't often see the stigmatization of an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a much greater value put on human life (I believe that is because of the wars fought on their soil in the past 100 years and the horrendous numbers of lives lost).

Yes, and kids have sex in high school in France, with their parents' permission. I doubt you mean to advocate that we all follow that French model.

sste
02-08-2009, 05:51 PM
I am the poster with the horrible family situation with the baby with lethal birth defects and relative with existing reproductive issues who would be risking her chance of ever having a child to carry her current baby to term. As I mentioned earlier, life, terminating a pregnancy is not so black and white.

My best friend is a genetics counselor. She has seen MANY strongly pro-life clients . . . who decided to get an abortion when confronted with a disabled child or Downs syndrome child. They told her they would previously never have considered an abortion, had protested abortion, did not know how they would live with themselves. But they terminated the pregnancy. We have known a few lifelong, very religious Catholics who got abortions under tough circumstances - - or got abortions for their teenage daughters.

These people felt just the same way as the pro-life folks that have posted here. As my genetics counselor friend has told me, you can NEVER predict what people will do, or what you yourself will do, when faced with that kind of situation.

Whatever side of the abortion issue you are on, we all need to approach it with some humility.

Sillygirl
02-08-2009, 05:52 PM
I can only speak for Denmark and France- 2 of the countries in Europe where I have dear friends and spent a lot of time. (Maybe a lurker living in Europe could chime in here?) But I can tell you from my time over there that my guess is very few people have economic issues, health care is over-the-top, and the culture is more mature about unplanned pregnancies. My danish friends point to the fact that they also have one of the lowest violent crime rates and homeless rates. They say it is because EVERYONE has access to the highest levels of health care. And they also say that you would have to want to be homeless to actually BE homeless. Heck, in France elderly people are "prescribed" by their doctors a free week at one of the resorts by the ocean if they feel that their health could use a little lift. When I had the flu while living in France, I was prescribed 5 different medications by my host mom (who was an MD). It is socialism at its best. Why get an abortion when you can get plenty of subsidized health care and room and board to protect you and your baby? If you play the system in France right, you could actually come out ahead. That is not even mentioning that the European way of thinking and value system is totally different from ours. Unwed mothers and babies born out of "wedlock" are not looked at as "oh, what a shame." You don't often see the stigmatization of an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a much greater value put on human life (I believe that is because of the wars fought on their soil in the past 100 years and the horrendous numbers of lives lost).

I guess I"m saying in a long round-about way, uneloquent, hurried way that that is probably WHY abortion rates as well as the rates of voilent crimes are lower overseas. It's really comparing apples to oranges. The cultures, political, tax and economic systems in European countries are very different from ours will ever be so to suggest that legalizing abortion will decrease the number of abortions here in the US by pointing to the European example is probably misplaced.

It seems from your example that building a culture that values and supports life requires a LOT of government money? Yet the pro-life folks in this country seem to track Republican, the party that (on paper at least) is opposed to big government spending. One criticism I have seen about the American anti-abortion movement is that they focus on the proscriptive laws without being willing to fund programs that would reduce the numbers of abortions.

I just think it's intreresting that you list all these European socialist programs that do, in fact, seem to support the outcomes you desire - less abortions, care for the elderly, fewer homeless - but have been so opposed in other discussions to our government doing anything similar in this country. Perhaps I've misremembered things; if so, forgive me.

egoldber
02-08-2009, 05:56 PM
I don't think there is any good solution without the media totally changing the way sex is portrayed. If a child hears nothing constructive about sex at home, they are going to think that everyone is having sex, you are weird if you aren't, there are zero consequences (no physical or emotional consequences) and that if you do happen to get pregnant, there are convenient ways out.

I guess I'm confused. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Too many children are left to learn sex ed from Degrassi High and Desperate Housewives. The reality if that many (most?) parents do a lousy job of teaching their children adequately about the facts of sex and contraception.

And have you seen TV in Europe? They show sex all the time, full frontal nudity, etc. European TV is not all Nature and Masterpiece Theater LOL!!!! What they have that we lack, IMO, is comprehensive sex education AND a health care system which allows all (alright, I'm sure there are gaps, so most) women access to contraception.

Data and statistics show that children who are taught about sex and contraception actually have LESS sex and FEWER unplanned pregnancies than those who are not.

BaileyBea
02-08-2009, 06:38 PM
It's not black and white. This is a topic of many shades.

For me this is a Women's Health issue and while having an abortion would not be a choice I would make or ever want to make. I want women to have some rights over their bodies. Otherwise... well.. otherwise we should just go back to the stone ages.

While there are groups that are Prolife (which I understand). I want to see how many of these pro-lifers are willing to give up their tax dollars to support single mother's health insurance, the childs health insurance, support etc... IMHO you cannot be pro-life and then not support the system in which will provide these Mothers the support they will need to have a healthy baby, good citizen, etc..

And the thing that gets me is how these Prolife people want to hurt, kill these Doctors. Someone mentioned putting them in jail. Are you kidding me? If it was Black and White and a life is a life then they (pro-lifers) would value all lives (living and in-utero) The violence these groups in sue at times really bothers me.

I will not judge ANY Woman who chooses to get a tatoo, marry a man of a difference race, marry a woman, wear bad clothing (ha ha), and get an abortion. It is between them and their God and I rather stay out of it.

Frankly I am pro-choice to an extreme... I am profunding some of these men getting a vacsectomy. Do you think we can make men get a vacsectomy? I am sure there are some men we dated or they wanted to date us that we would all love to have taken out of the gene pool. Well if we can't make men get snipped then I say we can't make abortion illegal.

How can people be pro-life and then not want to support sex education funding? If you think kids are waiting till they get married well... you better quit smoking the funny stuff. IMHO abortion is not the big problem when it comes to sex education it's AIDS. We have seen AIDS start to increase again North America in the last year.. among teens and elderly. 1.2 Millions deaths from AIDS vs 1 Million Abortions. It's pretty much neck to neck but AIDS has a slight lead.

Frankly I believe we all essentially want the same thing.. less abortions and I hope that most of us want people to have safer sex and AIDS to decline.

But tread lightly on these womens health issues before you give away the rights to those things you believe right now that you very well deserve. Giving up rights starts somewhere and the end point may not be a place or a life you want to have... in which you have no personal rights at all to your body.

And seriously... can I wave a white flag on these abortion topics. Peace out!

Nancy

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 07:37 PM
I think the way to reduce (because I don't think they will ever be eliminated because women have always found ways....) the number of abortions is not by making them illegal, but by making sex education broad and encompassing and by making contraception easy, affordable, and well understood.

I disagree with this. Making abortion illegal will certainly not make it as convenient as it is now. Look at Amsterdam. Did making smoking pot legal reduce usage? Absolutely NOT! In fact, people come from all over to smoke pot there.

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 07:45 PM
What they have that we lack, IMO, is comprehensive sex education AND a health care system which allows all (alright, I'm sure there are gaps, so most) women access to contraception.



What they have and we lack is a different value for life. Life to them is precious. I seriously believe that if we had 2 wars on our soil eliminating millions of lives and touching every family in some way, we would value life differently too. Don't forget this part of their culture because along with the above, THIS is very important.

crayonblue
02-08-2009, 07:56 PM
I guess I'm confused. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Too many children are left to learn sex ed from Degrassi High and Desperate Housewives. The reality if that many (most?) parents do a lousy job of teaching their children adequately about the facts of sex and contraception.

And have you seen TV in Europe? They show sex all the time, full frontal nudity, etc. European TV is not all Nature and Masterpiece Theater LOL!!!! What they have that we lack, IMO, is comprehensive sex education AND a health care system which allows all (alright, I'm sure there are gaps, so most) women access to contraception.

Data and statistics show that children who are taught about sex and contraception actually have LESS sex and FEWER unplanned pregnancies than those who are not.

Sorry, I was trying to sort of agree with you! I am strongly pro-life and totally would support making abortions illegal but I was also trying to say that our culture is so screwed up that we also have to change the attitude toward sex.

I am very tired and probably didn't make sense.

egoldber
02-08-2009, 08:03 PM
Gotcha. :)

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 08:06 PM
It seems from your example that building a culture that values and supports life requires a LOT of government money? Yet the pro-life folks in this country seem to track Republican, the party that (on paper at least) is opposed to big government spending. One criticism I have seen about the American anti-abortion movement is that they focus on the proscriptive laws without being willing to fund programs that would reduce the numbers of abortions.

I just think it's intreresting that you list all these European socialist programs that do, in fact, seem to support the outcomes you desire - less abortions, care for the elderly, fewer homeless - but have been so opposed in other discussions to our government doing anything similar in this country. Perhaps I've misremembered things; if so, forgive me.

Actually, to answer you and C99, I absolutely DO NOT see us adopting a socialist way of life here. The tax burden on those people was incredible and as i stated people abused the system all the time. However maybe I wasn't clear in those other posts you mentioned. I am ALL FOR providing programs for the vulnerable in our society. The only reason I voted Republican was because they are the only prolife party in our country. As a matter of fact, I can't understand at all how Republicans- a large portion of whom are Christians, push the prolife stance but don't want to dish out any money to support the woman who are pregnant a large portion of whom seek abortions due to financial strains. I don't understand many of the unChristianly policies that Republicans support considering many of their numbers are comprised of Christians. Christ preached, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." I don't think he'd be a big fan of capital punishment or not sharing with the homeless.

I think an ideal situation in our country would be to have laws outlawing abortion as well as well-funded programs that support pregnant women and mothers to help them have a healthy pregnancy and help them become successful mothers- if they choose to keep their baby. In my ideal world, women wouldn't be treated poorly for being pregnant and young or pregnant and unmarried. Society would rally around them to provide a supportive and caring environemtn for any pregnant woman or mom- regardless of the situation in which she found herself pregnant. I see all sorts of support systems and I think as a society it's in our best interest to help fund this. I gotta go- hope I was clear enough.

ETA: I agree that we need to pump a LOT more money into programs to support pregnant women and moms. But I myself don't know of any country's policies we should model. I was just responding in that post to egoldber's post that comparing the European's abortion policies to ours is like comparing apples to oranges. There is more that figures into the European statistics on why their abortion rates are so low. Ok, I"m talking in circles. Sorry if i"m confusing.

ETAlso add: I sincerely hope no one was offended by my post. i don't really have the time ro reread it through thoroughly so I apologize in advance to anyone I insulted.

egoldber
02-08-2009, 08:12 PM
Look at Amsterdam. Did making smoking pot legal reduce usage? Absolutely NOT! In fact, people come from all over to smoke pot there.

I honestly don't know anything about drug usage rates in the Netherlands. I *do* know that our restrictive laws about drug use and possession have only served to create a HUGE, aging prison population.


Society would rally around them to provide a supportive and caring environemtn for any pregnant woman or mom- regardless of the situation in which she found herself pregnant. I see all sorts of support systems and I think as a society it's in our best interest to help fund this.

And while that would help many who cannot afford a baby, it would do little for those who simply do not want to be pregnant at a particular point in time. That's where better education and access to contraceptives comes in.

And then there is the heartbreak of those families dealing with the issue of prenatal diagnosis of health issues for the baby and for the mother.

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 08:33 PM
I honestly don't know anything about drug usage rates in the Netherlands. I *do* know that our restrictive laws about drug use and possession have only served to create a HUGE, aging prison population.





The Netherlands has actually become much more restrictive with their drug usage laws. My European friends say that it is because their previously very relaxed policies on drug usage have actually increased drug use. I'd be happy to find you hard stats if you don't believe me.

gatorsmom
02-08-2009, 08:42 PM
And while that would help many who cannot afford a baby, it would do little for those who simply do not want to be pregnant at a particular point in time. That's where better education and access to contraceptives comes in.

And then there is the heartbreak of those families dealing with the issue of prenatal diagnosis of health issues for the baby and for the mother.



I did say that I see all sorts of different programs to support those in need. This would include programs supporting the necessary people making illegal abortion unnecessary.

I just gotta go now- My kids need me. I'm terribly sorry if I am unclear.

egoldber
02-08-2009, 08:50 PM
I'd be happy to find you hard stats if you don't believe me.

It's not that I don't believe you. :) As I said, I know nothing about their laws. I just know that our laws have not produced, in my opinion, superior results.

lizajane
02-08-2009, 09:05 PM
nevermind. i worry that i sounded negative and i didn't intend to.

ast96
02-08-2009, 09:38 PM
I am staunchly pro-choice. That does not mean I am pro-abortion. I could never have an abortion, and I would have a hard time saying life does not begin with a heartbeat. But. I also very much value my right to choose what happens to my own body. I would never, ever want someone else to tell me what I could or could not do to my own body. Therefore, I can't tell anyone else either. I think it is very difficult to legislate morals and ethics, and as I don't walk in any other woman's shoes, I cannot pretend to know how everyone else feels or what everyone else should do. I very much value my right to legislate myself.

My mother almost died having a back-alley abortion when she was in college. Her father would have killed her if he had known she was pregnant. Literally. As it was, he abused her (and my grandmother, and my aunt) and more than once tried to shoot them. I have a vested interest in not only a woman's right to choose, but also in not requiring parental consent.

I too am an advocate of comprehensive sex education and medical care. We need to stop treating sex like something that is taboo and start being realistic. Teenagers have sex. Adults have sex. It's not evil and it's actually the natural course of things. If we as a society would just take our heads out of the sand and treat the root of the problem, abortion wouldn't have to be such an issue.

In my opinion, of course.

Nicsmom
02-08-2009, 09:48 PM
The Netherlands has actually become much more restrictive with their drug usage laws. My European friends say that it is because their previously very relaxed policies on drug usage have actually increased drug use. I'd be happy to find you hard stats if you don't believe me.

This is off topic but you made me curious. According to Wikipedia (I know, not necessarily and academic source but they do quote from several sources on the subject):

"In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15-24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%),[18] but much higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece.[3] Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category.[19]" Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#The_results_of_drug _policy_in_Netherlands

mommy111
02-08-2009, 10:08 PM
I disagree with this. Making abortion illegal will certainly not make it as convenient as it is now. Look at Amsterdam. Did making smoking pot legal reduce usage? Absolutely NOT! In fact, people come from all over to smoke pot there.
I think this is slightly different, though, smoking pot is, to my understanding, pleaseurable to an extent and probably thought of as 'cool'. No one can say that the emotions or the physical feelings associated with abortion are pleasurable for anyone involved in the scenario. So smoking pot is not necessarily a good analogy



As my genetics counselor friend has told me, you can NEVER predict what people will do, or what you yourself will do, when faced with that kind of situation.

Whatever side of the abortion issue you are on, we all need to approach it with some humility.

:yeahthat: I so agree. I am humbled and proud of all the prolifers on this board who are so vocal and impassioned in their advocacy of a little being that has no voice of its own. And by the pro-choice people who are so vocal in their advocacy of women in horrible circumstances. A society is only as strong as its weakest members and all of us here are, to my mind, trying to advocate for who we believe are the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society, which to me is awesome and very awe-inspiring

Nicsmom
02-09-2009, 10:12 AM
Yes, and kids have sex in high school in France, with their parents' permission. I doubt you mean to advocate that we all follow that French model.

And kids have sex in high school in the U.S (and probably everywhere) EVEN IF they do not have their parents' permission. I do not think that France's model is so much about giving the kids permission to have sex, but recognizing that it is very likely they will have sex and it is best if they are educated about the consequences.

mamicka
02-09-2009, 11:04 AM
I'm strongly pro-life & agree with most of what has been said so far in that vain.

As I read through this thread, I'm just struck by what I see as a great tragedy - that abortion is so accepted & commonplace (yes, I know many people in various walks of life who have had at least one). That people are allowed to kill their children & most of society says "that's there choice, its none of my business". I happen to think it *is* my business that babies are murdered because, in many cases, they were inconvenient.

As an aside, I have been sexually abused/assualted & was lucky to not have gotten pregnant as a result, so I'm not "living in a bubble" or oblivious to all the unfortunate ways that women find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

Gena
02-09-2009, 01:01 PM
I am the poster with the horrible family situation with the baby with lethal birth defects and relative with existing reproductive issues who would be risking her chance of ever having a child to carry her current baby to term. As I mentioned earlier, life, terminating a pregnancy is not so black and white.

My sincere condolenses to your family member for her loss.


My best friend is a genetics counselor. She has seen MANY strongly pro-life clients . . . who decided to get an abortion when confronted with a disabled child or Downs syndrome child. They told her they would previously never have considered an abortion, had protested abortion, did not know how they would live with themselves. But they terminated the pregnancy. We have known a few lifelong, very religious Catholics who got abortions under tough circumstances - - or got abortions for their teenage daughters.

These people felt just the same way as the pro-life folks that have posted here. As my genetics counselor friend has told me, you can NEVER predict what people will do, or what you yourself will do, when faced with that kind of situation.

Whatever side of the abortion issue you are on, we all need to approach it with some humility.

There are many pro-life families who choose to continue their pregnancies even with a poor or fatal prenatal diagnosis. This is also a difficult desicion, in part because there are so many people who pressure the family to terminate the pregnancy.

When I was pregnant, an early ultrasound revealed a fetal abnormality (cystic hygroma) that could be "incompatable with life". We were told there was a good chance the baby would not live past the second trimester. The doctors repeatedly encouraged us to do genetic testing and consider termination. We agreed to level II ultrasounds, but not genetic testing and repeated stated that we would not consider termination. My husband and I said to each other, "This is when we have to live our beliefs and not just talk about them." Luckily, we were eventually referred to the perinatologist at the Catholic hospital; he respected our beliefs and did not push for procedures we did not want. Until we saw that particular doctor we were under a lot of pressure to consider termination. I can understand how during such an emotional, stressful time pro-life families can succumb to this pressure and be dissuaded away from their beliefs. It's tragic that there is so little support for families in these situations.

We were lucky that our son's CH resolved and he was born healthy, but I do have great sympathy for families who are not so lucky. During that difficult time in the pregnancy I found this website: http://www.benotafraid.net/
It is full of inspirational stories of families who choose to continue their pragnancies despite poor prenatal diagnoses. Their stories show amazing strength and can teach powerful lessons about the value of even the shortest life.

himom
02-09-2009, 02:40 PM
That is just it. The sense of that fetuses are babies before birth is NOT common; it is a matter of great debate as to when life begins. But that really misses my point, which is that it does NOT matter when we agree that life begins. I think that if a woman wants to abort at 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks, 33 weeks, 38 weeks, that is her decision and should be her choice.

The best argument I ever read about abortion was that the rights of a fetus should not trump the rights of the mother. And since none of us can say what the fetus would want, it's not our job to advocate for "those innocent unborn babies" at the expense of the mother's rights.

The problem with rights of mother vs rights of unborn baby lies in the rights themselves. In the case of abortion, it is the right of the baby to be alive vs. the right of the mother to *fill in the blank*. Only in the rare cases where the mom's life is endangered are these rights anything close to equal.
Equal rights is one of the biggest issues we fight for in our society -- why can't we remember that these babies deserve it just as much as their mothers do?

The argument that "none of us can say what the fetus could want" is fallacious, particularly if you apply it to any other situations wherein we "can't say what the person would want." In these awful situations where babies are killed or tortured, and we make sure the parents go to jail...what would happen if we let them off because we can't say what the baby would want?

Do you know that this exact argument is one of the most common used by pedophiles and other child sex abusers? They argue that we can't know what the raped baby could want....how to we know they didn't ENJOY getting abused, etc.

The argument that we shouldn't protect the innocent because we don't know what they're thinking is just wrong.

As for your first paragraph....So a woman at 38 weeks who is stabbed in the abdomen and loses her baby has the right to sue the attacker for wrongful death, etc, for taking the life of her child. Look at all of us here -- PG moms are just that...MOMS. We get fetal monitors, buy strollers, research SIDS, agonize over phalates, buys cute little outfits, etc. Because as far as we're concerned, the lumpy, wiggling belly we've got isn't just a a bodily function like gas...it's our baby.

In our society, if that same Mom decides to abort 38 weeks, it's up to her. However, if she goes into labor the day before the abortion, and baby moves out, she isn't allowed to go smother the baby in his little cradle. Why does a journey of a few inches down a birth canal suddenly terminate her right to kill the baby? I'd submit that it's because she shouldn't have had the right in the first place -- baby two minutes before birth is the same child as she is two minutes after birth.

deborah_r
02-09-2009, 02:55 PM
Can someone clear something up for me? I thought it *is* illegal to have an abortion after the first (or was it 2nd) trimester? Am I totally confused here?

I assumed that an abortion could be done later for medical reasons (like baby would not be viable) but I didn't think you could just go to Planned Parenthood in your 3rd trimester and get an abortion.

himom
02-09-2009, 03:01 PM
And as someone who is firmly pro-choice, I don't know *any* pro-choice people who think abortions are "just fine" and "it's all good".

I do. A few women, and a lot of men.

stella
02-09-2009, 03:03 PM
Can someone clear something up for me? I thought it *is* illegal to have an abortion after the first (or was it 2nd) trimester? Am I totally confused here?

I assumed that an abortion could be done later for medical reasons (like baby would not be viable) but I didn't think you could just go to Planned Parenthood in your 3rd trimester and get an abortion.

I *believe* that the states make the laws on when abortions can be performed, so I doubt it is uniform. But in general, I think that these late-term abortions are done as medically necessary procedures - not because of inconvenience to the mother.

mamicka
02-09-2009, 03:05 PM
I do. A few women, and a lot of men.

Yup. Same here.

Ceepa
02-09-2009, 03:06 PM
Although "unconstitutional" to ban late-term abortion, 36 states have. So how does this work into the pro-choicers reasoning about a woman having supreme rights over what she can do with her body/fetus and when?

egoldber
02-09-2009, 03:07 PM
I don't know of any state where it is legal to walk in and get an abortion at 38 weeks of a perfectly healthy fetus. The cutoff varies by state. Some are none after the first tri. In many states the cut off is 22/23 weeks. Some have later dates when the fetus is not viable.

I had a friend who had a baby diagnosed with anencephaly at her "20 week ultrasound". only it was done at 21 weeks, so by the time she had the diagnosis confirmed, she was no longer able to terminate in many states. She had to travel across the country to find a facility where they would terminate.

I am not sure how it works when it is for the health of the mother, for example,

- mother is eclamptic
- mother is diagnosed with cancer

When the baby is of viability age, you deliver the baby early and let the NICU do their thing. When the baby is not near viability, then it's a hard decision to be made.

Ceepa
02-09-2009, 03:08 PM
Although "unconstitutional" to ban late-term abortion, 36 states have. So how does this work into the pro-choicers reasoning about a woman having supreme rights over what she can do with her body/fetus and when?

I know at least two pp have said a woman should have the right to abort at 38 weeks.

1964pandora
02-09-2009, 03:33 PM
I am the poster with the horrible family situation with the baby with lethal birth defects and relative with existing reproductive issues who would be risking her chance of ever having a child to carry her current baby to term. As I mentioned earlier, life, terminating a pregnancy is not so black and white.

My best friend is a genetics counselor. She has seen MANY strongly pro-life clients . . . who decided to get an abortion when confronted with a disabled child or Downs syndrome child. They told her they would previously never have considered an abortion, had protested abortion, did not know how they would live with themselves. But they terminated the pregnancy. We have known a few lifelong, very religious Catholics who got abortions under tough circumstances - - or got abortions for their teenage daughters.

These people felt just the same way as the pro-life folks that have posted here. As my genetics counselor friend has told me, you can NEVER predict what people will do, or what you yourself will do, when faced with that kind of situation.

Whatever side of the abortion issue you are on, we all need to approach it with some humility.

Actually, I am quite certain that I CAN predict what I and my pro-life friends would do in the situation you've described. Aborting a baby with abnormalities that are incompatible with life wouldn't be something I would ever consider. That would be the furthest thing from my mind, actually. There are all kinds of situations I've never been in, but that doesn't mean I can't predict my behavior with any degree of certainty.

As someone pointed out, Be Not Afraid is a great resource for information about how many, many women choose to carry babies that are not going to live outside the womb. Since I'm generally pretty pro-active, I found that website and read through it during my pregnancies so I would have the resources I would need in case something like this ever happened to me. I found it very comforting and reassuring to know that women can and do continue pregnancies that have abnormalities incompatible with human life and so many report that they are so glad they did. I know that that sounds completely crazy to some people, but reading even ONE story on Be Not Afraid might change your perspective.

niccig
02-09-2009, 03:41 PM
I know at least two pp have said a woman should have the right to abort at 38 weeks.

And many that will disagree. I think that's something that both sides do, put everyone that is Pro-choice or Pro-Life into one monolithic group that agrees with every Pro-choice or Pro-life statement

I've got friends that are Pro-choice and we have different reasons and what we feel should be the cut-off for the option.

Just because 2 people believe the right at 38 weeks, doesn't mean everyone does.

lizajane
02-09-2009, 03:57 PM
I know at least two pp have said a woman should have the right to abort at 38 weeks.

i am confused.

would be it POSSIBLE to "abort" at 38 weeks? i mean, if you took out a 38 week baby... wouldn't you have to DO something to ends his/her life? there is no reason a 38 week baby could not leave the womb and breath, eat, urinate... with only the assistance of someone holding a bottle of breastmilk or formula.

i am sure there are 38 week babies who have trouble breathing. but for the vast majority? 37 week is full term. my son was born at 38 weeks and required no intervention. (well, 38 weeks 6 days. so more like 39.)

this is why, in my personal opinion, there is a vast difference in the "life" of an 8 week embryo and a 38 week fetus.

himom
02-09-2009, 05:00 PM
I am not against contraception at all, but I am of the opinion that once sperm meets egg the horse is out of the barn, so to speak. Once that happens, a new living creature exists, with it's own DNA, a plan laid out for a unique set of fingerprints, etc. So I personally am not comfortable with any method of birth control that prevents implantation, etc.

"Birth control" is an all-encompassing term that includes everything from condoms to abortion. All things that prevent birth. Contraception is usually defined as something that prevents fertilization.

So yes, many religious groups are against "birth control," but mostly they are only agains abortafacients, not against barrier methods, etc.

I can't speak about the Catholic church because I don't know much about it.

stella
02-09-2009, 05:02 PM
i am confused.

would be it POSSIBLE to "abort" at 38 weeks? i mean, if you took out a 38 week baby... wouldn't you have to DO something to ends his/her life? there is no reason a 38 week baby could not leave the womb and breath, eat, urinate... with only the assistance of someone holding a bottle of breastmilk or formula.

i am sure there are 38 week babies who have trouble breathing. but for the vast majority? 37 week is full term. my son was born at 38 weeks and required no intervention. (well, 38 weeks 6 days. so more like 39.)

this is why, in my personal opinion, there is a vast difference in the "life" of an 8 week embryo and a 38 week fetus.

I do not think it possible to terminate a pregnancy at 38 weeks. I can't see a situation where it would be encouraged or performed. From my reading, the issue still turns on viability (which I realize is getting earlier all the time); second trimester abortions are performed in only a few states; and I have seen no information on 3rd trimester abortions.

himom
02-09-2009, 05:09 PM
i am confused.

would be it POSSIBLE to "abort" at 38 weeks? i mean, if you took out a 38 week baby... wouldn't you have to DO something to ends his/her life? there is no reason a 38 week baby could not leave the womb and breath, eat, urinate... with only the assistance of someone holding a bottle of breastmilk or formula.

Well, look at what they did with that 23 week old baby, who apparently (according to the autopsy) was breathing on her own before they put her in a biohazard bag and threw her in the trash.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJYykrsdytHiypY5WXf0A7AAY5MAD965JKE00

I'm linking it again so you can see what I'm talking about and also because I really do want to know what people think about this -- I don't think there have been any pro-choice comments??

stella
02-09-2009, 05:10 PM
Well, look at what they did with that 23 week old baby, who apparently (according to the autopsy) was breathing on her own before they put her in a biohazard bag and threw her in the trash.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJYykrsdytHiypY5WXf0A7AAY5MAD965JKE00

I'm linking it again so you can see what I'm talking about and also because I really do want to know what people think about this -- I don't think there have been any pro-choice comments??

Here's a pro-choice comment: I think it's hideous. I remain pro-choice.

egoldber
02-09-2009, 05:15 PM
:yeahthat:

mamicka
02-09-2009, 05:18 PM
Well, look at what they did with that 23 week old baby, who apparently (according to the autopsy) was breathing on her own before they put her in a biohazard bag and threw her in the trash.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJYykrsdytHiypY5WXf0A7AAY5MAD965JKE00

I'm linking it again so you can see what I'm talking about and also because I really do want to know what people think about this -- I don't think there have been any pro-choice comments??

OK, I'm not pro-choice but I just read it (against my better judgement) & I can't not comment. I'm seriously trying not to loose my lunch & fighting back tears at the same time. That poor baby was murdered. Choice my a$$. There is so much else I want to say but I can't find ways to say it that would be within the rules here.

niccig
02-09-2009, 05:20 PM
OK, I'm not pro-choice but I just read it (against my better judgement) & I can't not comment. I'm seriously trying not to loose my lunch & fighting back tears at the same time. That poor baby was murdered. Choice my a$$. There is so much else I want to say but I can't find ways to say it that would be within the rules here.

I'm pro-choice and I agree with everything you said about this.

o_mom
02-09-2009, 05:25 PM
I do not think it possible to terminate a pregnancy at 38 weeks. I can't see a situation where it would be encouraged or performed. From my reading, the issue still turns on viability (which I realize is getting earlier all the time); second trimester abortions are performed in only a few states; and I have seen no information on 3rd trimester abortions.

From the brief reading I did, only 0.4% of abortions are post-viability and though nobody can say for certain, it appears that most or all are done to preserve the life or health of the mother.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html

LarsMal
02-09-2009, 05:25 PM
I'm pro-choice and I agree with everything you said about this.

Me too. I didn't read that before, and I am completely disgusted. If it turns out that baby was alive and they did that, they should all be charged with a crime.

stella
02-09-2009, 05:28 PM
Me too. I didn't read that before, and I am completely disgusted. If it turns out that baby was alive and they did that, they should all be charged with a crime.

Should the baby's mother be charged with a crime?

mamicka
02-09-2009, 05:30 PM
I'm still shaking from reading that story.

I found this to be a good review of what's allowed state by state. I think you'd have to look deeper into the specifics for each state to see exactly how each law was written & how they define "health" of the mother, etc.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

LarsMal
02-09-2009, 05:30 PM
Should the baby's mother be charged with a crime?

No, I meant the people who worked there.

o_mom
02-09-2009, 05:30 PM
i am confused.

would be it POSSIBLE to "abort" at 38 weeks? i mean, if you took out a 38 week baby... wouldn't you have to DO something to ends his/her life? there is no reason a 38 week baby could not leave the womb and breath, eat, urinate... with only the assistance of someone holding a bottle of breastmilk or formula.

i am sure there are 38 week babies who have trouble breathing. but for the vast majority? 37 week is full term. my son was born at 38 weeks and required no intervention. (well, 38 weeks 6 days. so more like 39.)

this is why, in my personal opinion, there is a vast difference in the "life" of an 8 week embryo and a 38 week fetus.


For a healthy 38 wk fetus, yes. For one with ancephaly or other terminal birth defects, no. I really do not believe at all that there are huge numbers of, if any at all, post-viability abortions of healthy fetuses.

srhs
02-09-2009, 05:44 PM
I'm just now entering this discussion but regarding viability, you can read about Dr Tiller in KS. While KS law requires a late-term abortion can be performed only when "a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman," his videos offer late-term for reasons of "financial or occupational hardship." He also loosely uses "depression" as a medical reason. I am NOT discounting depression as a serious condition but am rather alleging he is loosely applying it.

He also ignores the law that requires him to report suspected abuse of minors and indicates he has patients as young as 9 but doesn't report. Yes, you could argue investigation might cause abuse to worsen, but at what point do we expect people to merely follow the law? We don't give teachers a pass when they are mandated reporters and don't report their suspicions.

I personally take issue with these practices. Yes, I'm a pro-lifer, so I would.

I just wanted to throw him out there, though, as many have questioned the rules and availability of lateterm abortions. In 1995, Tiller said "We have some experience with late terminations... about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."

I've seen interviews with former patients with gruesome stories that I won't retell but trump those cited in this thread and read those with former employees regarding falsifying records, specifically claiming they were supposed to tell patients they determine age by doing their own ultrasound not by last period and then telling them head measures younger, etc.

Ceepa
02-09-2009, 07:11 PM
i am confused.

would be it POSSIBLE to "abort" at 38 weeks? i mean, if you took out a 38 week baby... wouldn't you have to DO something to ends his/her life? there is no reason a 38 week baby could not leave the womb and breath, eat, urinate... with only the assistance of someone holding a bottle of breastmilk or formula.

....this is why, in my personal opinion, there is a vast difference in the "life" of an 8 week embryo and a 38 week fetus.

This was my clumsy point. If those who support abortion make the argument that no government can dictate, "You, woman, must carry and bear this child" then it would follow that a woman could change her mind at any point during the pregnancy and abort her baby. I'm just trying to understand where the line is - when eliminating the developing baby is unconscionable.

Yes, a pp wrote 38 weeks. But she is consistent in her argument.

Everyone seems to get hung up on the legality of it. "I will not take away a woman's right to choose." "Keep your laws off my body." Fine. This argument could be made to satisfy many. But I'm afraid people don't think past this.

I wish every person would stop and really consider in depth where they stand and why. When does the idea of eliminating the fetus become unthinkable? OK, a lot of people don't believe a cluster of four cells is a person. Or eight. Or 16. What about when the heart starts beating? What about when the baby is viable?

I guess my point is that aside from aforementioned cases of rape, incest, life endangerment, severe developmental abnormality, maybe a girl or woman would stop and consider really who is inside that womb and choose a different path regardless of gestational age.

vludmilla
02-09-2009, 08:01 PM
Should the baby's mother be charged with a crime?

No, at least not according to my reading of the article. Although she wanted an abortion, she did NOT want her baby killed after it was born. As I understood it, she herself is very angry with the clinic and doctor.

vludmilla
02-09-2009, 08:04 PM
Here's a pro-choice comment: I think it's hideous. I remain pro-choice.

Indeed, it was hideous but it does not change my pro-choice stance either. The post birth killing that seemed to occur was AGAINST the mother's wishes. This seems to be a case of a highly unethical and marginally competent doctor performing abortions and that does not change the fact that most abortions are safe and early-term.

lizajane
02-09-2009, 08:42 PM
Well, look at what they did with that 23 week old baby, who apparently (according to the autopsy) was breathing on her own before they put her in a biohazard bag and threw her in the trash.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJYykrsdytHiypY5WXf0A7AAY5MAD965JKE00

I'm linking it again so you can see what I'm talking about and also because I really do want to know what people think about this -- I don't think there have been any pro-choice comments??

i'm sorry, but i won't read the link. i have obsessive tendancies and i can't risk putting the story into my head.

i am pro choice, but i do not believe 23 weeks is acceptable. frankly, i think anything past 6 weeks, for example not as an absolute, is unacceptable. even more, i think that the "morning after pill" is the most appropriate way to prevent a pregnancy in a case in which conception may have occured in a violent encounter.

i think the law should prevent abortion beyond certain number of (very early) weeks. i agree that abortion is not birth control for the irresponsible, but is instead a medical procedure to be used in dire circumstances- like rape of a 13 year old by her own family member.

i think we need to find ways to 1) educate all women about abstinence, birth control, safety in dangerous environments and 2) provide a way for women and girls who have been attacked to get medical and emotional treatment easily and privately so that these attacks are not only reported, but with enough time to use less invasive morning after pills instead of taking an implanted embryo from the uterus.


(i tired to proofread, but i am sick and can't think very well. forgive me.)

lizajane
02-09-2009, 08:46 PM
For a healthy 38 wk fetus, yes. For one with ancephaly or other terminal birth defects, no. I really do not believe at all that there are huge numbers of, if any at all, post-viability abortions of healthy fetuses.

but if one delivers a baby with a terminal birth defect at 38 weeks and chooses not to provide medical intervention, i don't think one would say she had an abortion. but instead, choose a DNR- perhaps even so that her child could die with dignity and begin a pain free eternal life

egoldber
02-09-2009, 08:50 PM
i think the law should prevent abortion beyond certain number of (very early) weeks.

The problem with that is many times people don't realize they are pregnant until they are 8-12 weeks along. (How often has it happened even on these boards? I remember several cases.) And then some states place restrictions, waiting periods, ultrasounds, etc.

lizajane
02-09-2009, 08:55 PM
Everyone seems to get hung up on the legality of it. "I will not take away a woman's right to choose." "Keep your laws off my body." Fine. This argument could be made to satisfy many. But I'm afraid people don't think past this.



no. not everyone. some. i am not hung up on legality. i am hung up on teenage rape victims. and because i can't tell a 30 woman who forgot to bring a condom that she can't have an abortion but a 13 year old rape victim can, i have to say that they both can. but only to provide the opportunity to the rape victim.

i realize some pro-choice advocates disagree. but not everyone. because i am in the pro choice category, but i do not support late term abortions. i do not support a woman's right to be promiscuious and then terminate a 12 week fetus that many families, myself included, would be happy to adopt. i do not think that super early abortion is murder. but i do think that late term is. i just wish there was a way to get ALL victimized women into care IMMEDIATELY so that she can simply use a morning after pill BEFORE implantation and skirt many of the issues discussed here. (exception- the issue of those who feel that life beings the second sperm reaches egg...and it isn't that i disagree. i would NOT use a morning after treatment as a healthy married woman with 2 beautiful healthy children. but i do think it is an acceptable and desirable way to end the fear a victim would have of carrying a pregnancy resulting from violence to term.)

lizajane
02-09-2009, 08:58 PM
The problem with that is many times people don't realize they are pregnant until they are 8-12 weeks along. (How often has it happened even on these boards? I remember several cases.) And then some states place restrictions, waiting periods, ultrasounds, etc.

sadly, that is the reality and that is why i can't say that the law should be 6 weeks. but in a more ideal world, women and girls would get treatment for rape IMMEDIATELY. or at least within the 72 hours needed to use the morning after pill. but that isn't reality, especially for girls who have only had a very few periods and are being consistantly molested by a family member.

stella
02-09-2009, 09:03 PM
I believe that the morning-after pill is offered to all of our sexual assault victims who undergo an exam at the hospital.

o_mom
02-09-2009, 09:03 PM
but if one delivers a baby with a terminal birth defect at 38 weeks and chooses not to provide medical intervention, i don't think one would say she had an abortion. but instead, choose a DNR- perhaps even so that her child could die with dignity and begin a pain free eternal life

However, every situation is different. Some defects are incompatible with vaginal birth. A c/s puts the mother at increased risk with subsequent pregnancies and if she has other medical issues, may not be in her best interest. I just cannot bring myself to say that I know every possible medical situation could be resolved another way and I don't think it fair to ask a woman to sacrifice her health and future children for a baby that cannot be saved.

I'm just saying that a 38-wk abortion is not usually the alternative to a healthy bouncing baby - it is usually a very tough medical decision that a woman and her doctor must make.

vludmilla
02-09-2009, 09:23 PM
I *believe* that the states make the laws on when abortions can be performed, so I doubt it is uniform. But in general, I think that these late-term abortions are done as medically necessary procedures - not because of inconvenience to the mother.

I agree and this is why I find some of the arguments that have been stated here against abortion, a little disingenuous and rather offensive.

Roe v. Wade limits legal abortions to the 24th week of pregnancy, unless the life of the mother is in danger. Therefore, there are very, very few abortions that occur when the infant would be viable on its own.

vludmilla
02-09-2009, 09:27 PM
However, every situation is different. Some defects are incompatible with vaginal birth. A c/s puts the mother at increased risk with subsequent pregnancies and if she has other medical issues, may not be in her best interest. I just cannot bring myself to say that I know every possible medical situation could be resolved another way and I don't think it fair to ask a woman to sacrifice her health and future children for a baby that cannot be saved.

I'm just saying that a 38-wk abortion is not usually the alternative to a healthy bouncing baby - it is usually a very tough medical decision that a woman and her doctor must make.

A very big "yeah that". (I've got to learn to use the smilies.) Abortion is NOT legal at 38 weeks for convenience or any reason other than the health and life of the mother. Abortions beyond 24 weeks are only legal if they are for the LIFE and HEALTH of the mother.

JamiMac
02-09-2009, 09:45 PM
I agree and this is why I find some of the arguments that have been stated here against abortion, a little disingenuous and rather offensive.



Roe v. Wade limits legal abortions to the 24th week of pregnancy, unless the life of the mother is in danger. Therefore, there are very, very few abortions that occur when the infant would be viable on its own.

The PP mentioned "choice" several times and never mentioned necessity.

stella
02-09-2009, 10:09 PM
The PP mentioned "choice" several times and never mentioned necessity.

I don't understand? Do you mean me?

kijip
02-09-2009, 10:30 PM
The PP mentioned "choice" several times and never mentioned necessity.

But an abortion past the 2nd trimester is not legally an purely elective procedure. Not only are such late term procedures extremely rare (thankfully, for the sake of all mothers and families out there!), they can't be done for non-medical reasons. Frankly, I truly doubt the anecdotes I hear about doctors construing anything as a threat to the mother's health as being the norm/widespread and I sincerely doubt that many women who are pregnant past 24 weeks are not planning on having that baby, regardless of their plans post birth (adoption, parenting). Abortion opponents have very effectively clouded the issue in peoples' minds by making out things like "partial birth abortion" to be as commonplace as the morning after pill is or something. They are not, plain and simple.

I know a handful of mothers who had labor induced for medical reasons in the 20-30 week stages and their babies were born still or, as expected, died shortly following birth. In this thread I have read what these women needed to do described as abortion when they all mourned them as deaths. That troubles me, especially when such harsh words are being used to describe these women who all went through heart-wrenching losses of their very much wanted babies.

JamiMac
02-09-2009, 10:33 PM
No, I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about the poster that said it should be a woman's choice at 38 weeks. I was just saying I think that is where some of the disparaging remarks about late-term abortion came from. Sorry, I'm putting kids to bed and running back and forth.

JamiMac
02-09-2009, 10:35 PM
Katie, I totally know what you're saying.

egoldber
02-09-2009, 10:37 PM
That troubles me, especially when such harsh words are being used to describe these women who all went through heart-wrenching losses of their very much wanted babies.

Yes. Upthread I mentioned my friend whose baby had anencephaly and had to travel out of state to terminate. The doctor in Kansas is the one she went to. She and her DH still mourn the loss of their first son and he is buried in their family plot here. Because she chose not to carry that baby full term did she love him any less?

himom
02-09-2009, 10:46 PM
Indeed, it was hideous but it does not change my pro-choice stance either. The post birth killing that seemed to occur was AGAINST the mother's wishes.

So if the mother had been upset that the baby was still alive and had approved this, what would that mean? Would it have been her right to actively kill baby? Can we infringe on her right to abortion AFTER the fact? Can she sue the Dr. for failing to kill the baby before it made it's exit? Shouldn't we, as ethical humans, be able to tell her she's a Mom now, and her new choices are adoption or keeping the baby?

I know that's a lot but I guess my point is allowing an abortion at all at this late stage opens up a huge ethical can of worms.

[/QUOTE]This seems to be a case of a highly unethical and marginally competent doctor performing abortions and that does not change the fact that most abortions are safe and early-term.[/QUOTE]

Possibly, but the fact that it's happening at all needs to be addressed. Even 1 out of say, 25,000 is too much. This one we know about. How many other times has it happened when the mother either didn't know, or was too traumatized to mention it, or just decided to look the other way?

himom
02-09-2009, 10:51 PM
(exception- the issue of those who feel that life beings the second sperm reaches egg...and it isn't that i disagree. i would NOT use a morning after treatment as a healthy married woman with 2 beautiful healthy children. but i do think it is an acceptable and desirable way to end the fear a victim would have of carrying a pregnancy resulting from violence to term.)

Isn't there a pill now that prevents fertilization? Plan B, I think it's called. I saw a commercial where it said it didn't prevent implantation, but I never trust anything on tv, so I'd rather look into it more. Anyone know anything about it? If it's true and if it works, that'd be a great compromise.

ast96
02-09-2009, 11:03 PM
Yes, I know about Plan B. I used it.

It's basically a very large dosage of the birth control pill. If you take it within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it induces a period and the lining of the uterus is expelled, thereby greatly reducing the chance that the sexual encounter will result in a pregnancy.

purpleeyes
02-10-2009, 12:01 AM
deleted post

sste
02-10-2009, 01:13 AM
Pandora, what I am saying is that if you haven't faced the situation personally and made a decision, you can't be certain because it hasn't been tested. Like a science experiment - - you have a theory of what you would do but you don't have the evidence. The poster who did face this decision does in fact know for certain what she DID do, but the rest of us can only hope and pray that our circumstances, our resolve, our support system allow us to follow through on our beliefs (no matter what they are).

If you take all the people who would say they would never abort and the number of abortions they do not add up. If you take all the people who say they never abort a down syndrome baby and then all the abortions again the NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP. So either people are lying, which I would like not to believe, or they are mispredicting.

For SIL, it came down to having to carry a baby for FOUR months which she found emotionally devastating and a significant risk for her chances of ever having a child. Not to mention that her health care bills would have sent her literally into bankruptcy. That is alot to give up for the outcome that that baby could live literally a few hours or minutes if it didn't die in utero. Also, the way that baby would die was that it would suffocate to death (which by the way I would not allow to happen to my dog much less my baby). Not one reported case of this genetic mutation where the baby lived. I can't even describe what this ultrasound looked like - - it was life, but the organs, bones, brain, everything were literally missing, in dramatically the wrong places, inside out. It was a baby of course but it was not recognizable as a baby physically.

I can't imagine even the strongest pro-life advocate doesn't see LIFE all around them in that decision - - the baby that would live for minutes, my relative who felt that the four months remaining to term would be a terrible trauma to her own life, one she might not ever recover from, the children that might never be born if she didn't terminated this pregnancy before her remaining fallopian tube, incompetent cervix etc were further compromised (and given that she is in her early forties).

Posters, how can we be sure what we would ourselves do . . . much less what other women, in different circumstances, with different beliefs and different resources SHOULD DO. That is what I mean by humility.

himom
02-10-2009, 01:45 AM
If you take all the people who would say they would never abort and the number of abortions they do not add up. If you take all the people who say they never abort a down syndrome baby and then all the abortions again the NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP. So either people are lying, which I would like not to believe, or they are mispredicting.



Got stats for that? I think you're relying pretty heavily on anecdotal evidence.

I agree that some people would possibly change their minds, but hopefully not as many as you are implying. I'd also think that a person with true convictions on this who did a sudden switch is going to find themselves with some psychological issues (i.e. overwhelming guilt, etc) later on. Again, anecdotal -- I do know one person like this.

mommy111
02-10-2009, 04:48 AM
Pandora, what I am saying is that if you haven't faced the situation personally and made a decision, you can't be certain because it hasn't been tested. Like a science experiment - - you have a theory of what you would do but you don't have the evidence. The poster who did face this decision does in fact know for certain what she DID do, but the rest of us can only hope and pray that our circumstances, our resolve, our support system allow us to follow through on our beliefs (no matter what they are).


For SIL, it came down to having to carry a baby for FOUR months which she found emotionally devastating and a significant risk for her chances of ever having a child. Not to mention that her health care bills would have sent her literally into bankruptcy. That is alot to give up for the outcome that that baby could live literally a few hours or minutes if it didn't die in utero. Also, the way that baby would die was that it would suffocate to death (which by the way I would not allow to happen to my dog much less my baby). Not one reported case of this genetic mutation where the baby lived. I can't even describe what this ultrasound looked like - - it was life, but the organs, bones, brain, everything were literally missing, in dramatically the wrong places, inside out. It was a baby of course but it was not recognizable as a baby physically.

I can't imagine even the strongest pro-life advocate doesn't see LIFE all around them in that decision - - the baby that would live for minutes, my relative who felt that the four months remaining to term would be a terrible trauma to her own life, one she might not ever recover from, the children that might never be born if she didn't terminated this pregnancy before her remaining fallopian tube, incompetent cervix etc were further compromised (and given that she is in her early forties).

Posters, how can we be sure what we would ourselves do . . . much less what other women, in different circumstances, with different beliefs and different resources SHOULD DO. That is what I mean by humility.

:yeahthat:
You said it so much better than I could. Personally, I would not even take the morning after pill because I do believe it is abortion. Legislatively, though, I would never support making abortions completely illegal, not because of the women who use it as a means of birth control but because of the 13 year old who is raped or because of people like your sister in law and the damage that is done psychologically and physically be carrying a non-viable infant to term.

KBecks
02-10-2009, 07:30 AM
That's great, but not all hospitals offer this, i.e. Catholic ones.

A 12 year old girl, raped by her father, could come in and not be provided with this TREATMENT. Shouldn't we have laws to protect this girl?

When I think of laws to protect a 12 year old who was abused by her father, I think of the father being punished and sent to prison for rape.

There are many situations that are terrible and very difficult to witness. I am thinking about a child rape victim who is pregnant. Abortion does not erase the sexual abuse, nor does it necessarily end it. I understand that a pregnant child rape victim's life may be in greater danger and that is a difficult reality to accept also.

Does continuing the pregnancy increase the likelihood of punishment of the rapist?

These are conditions where there is little good outcome. I can hope that the best outcome of the pregnancy of a raped child is a jailed rapist and a safe child and baby. I realize that would not always happen. Yet abortion does not solve the abuse, and it could be viewed as part of the abuse. It is also an extremely difficult situation for a vulnerable child to decide whether or not to abort, especially when outside influences may persuade or pressure that choice.

Life can be horrid and it sucks. There are sometimes no good answers.

KBecks
02-10-2009, 07:37 AM
I do. A few women, and a lot of men.

Some men view abortion as a financial move to protect themselves from child support, and will encourage a pregnant partner to abort for their own self-interest. Some parents teach their sons that this is an appropriate action.

himom
02-10-2009, 08:44 AM
It's basically a very large dosage of the birth control pill. If you take it within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it induces a period and the lining of the uterus is expelled, thereby greatly reducing the chance that the sexual encounter will result in a pregnancy.

Ok, in that case it's designed to prevent implantation, in which case it wouldn't be a compromise for me. Thanks for the info!

o_mom
02-10-2009, 08:51 AM
Got stats for that? I think you're relying pretty heavily on anecdotal evidence.

I agree that some people would possibly change their minds, but hopefully not as many as you are implying. I'd also think that a person with true convictions on this who did a sudden switch is going to find themselves with some psychological issues (i.e. overwhelming guilt, etc) later on. Again, anecdotal -- I do know one person like this.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/65500197/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Termination rates are 90%+ for prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. I would be surprised if 90% of any group of women would admit this is the route they would choose.

himom
02-10-2009, 08:58 AM
A 12 year old girl, raped by her father, could come in and not be provided with this TREATMENT. Shouldn't we have laws to protect this girl?

We do have laws to protect her. Her father broke them.

You imply that an individual or a group (i.e. Catholic hospitals) should be forced, by law, to do something which is morally repugnant to them. Whether you agree or not, some people hold the very strong belief that the morning after pill=abortion and abortion=murder. I think they have the right to not participate in said pill/abortion/murder if they happen to hold that belief.

I know some people will argue that "that's their job." I disagree. As an example, think of a prison doctor who is against capital punishment being forced to give an inmate a lethal injection. Essentially you are making this doctor, in his own opinion, murder another human being. It's a violation of HIS rights and it just doesn't fly. The doctor became a doctor to save lives, not take them. .

Many of those hospitals and their employees feel the same way.

o_mom
02-10-2009, 09:01 AM
I am not against contraception at all, but I am of the opinion that once sperm meets egg the horse is out of the barn, so to speak. Once that happens, a new living creature exists, with it's own DNA, a plan laid out for a unique set of fingerprints, etc. So I personally am not comfortable with any method of birth control that prevents implantation, etc.

"Birth control" is an all-encompassing term that includes everything from condoms to abortion. All things that prevent birth. Contraception is usually defined as something that prevents fertilization.

So yes, many religious groups are against "birth control," but mostly they are only agains abortafacients, not against barrier methods, etc.

I can't speak about the Catholic church because I don't know much about it.


Well, with this view, you have pretty much elimintated anything that a woman can use on her own. The pill, IUD, nuvaring, etc. are all contraception that work by possibly preventing implantation. With those eliminated, you basically leave condoms, diaphragm (sp?), NFP, and sterilization. All except sterilization have a high failure rate, which seems to be contradictive to your desire to lower abortion rates.

himom
02-10-2009, 09:03 AM
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/65500197/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Termination rates are 90%+ for prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. I would be surprised if 90% of any group of women would admit this is the route they would choose.

Okay, but what I was asking was how many of those women were actively pro-life before the diagnosis. People are only guessing and making suppositions regarding how many of the 90% were adamantly pro-life before the diagnosis.

o_mom
02-10-2009, 09:08 AM
Okay, but what I was asking was how many of those women were actively pro-life before the diagnosis. People are only guessing and making suppositions regarding how many of the 90% were adamantly pro-life before the diagnosis.


As I said there - I doubt you would poll any group of people and have 90% say they would abort for DS. However, once the diagnosis is made, they do. When the question of prenatal screening comes up here, certainly more than 10% of people say they would never terminate based on the results.

himom
02-10-2009, 09:22 AM
Well, with this view, you have pretty much elimintated anything that a woman can use on her own. The pill, IUD, nuvaring, etc. are all contraception that work by possibly preventing implantation. With those eliminated, you basically leave condoms, diaphragm (sp?), NFP, and sterilization. All except sterilization have a high failure rate, which seems to be contradictive to your desire to lower abortion rates.

Condoms have a high rate of failure? Then why the heck are we passing them out left and right and encouraging teenagers to use them? :banghead:

And yes, as I stated earlier, I don't know the exact second when life begins, so I'm not going to err on the liberal side. I'm going to err on the side of caution. So when sperm meets egg, to me, that's life. All the things that prevent implantation are not options for me.

So barrier methods are the way to go. My desire is not just to lower abortion rates. My desire is to encourage people to consider the humanity and the potential and the "soul" (for lack of a better word) of every unborn child, instead of blowing them off in favor of whatever the mother involved chooses to do.

Not everyone does that, I know. Few people here seem to take that stance. But there are those who do and I'd just like to see them try to see two individuals with rights instead of just one.

KBecks
02-10-2009, 09:28 AM
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/65500197/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Termination rates are 90%+ for prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. I would be surprised if 90% of any group of women would admit this is the route they would choose.

It doesn't matter what people say, it matters what they do. The question is, is it acceptable for babies to be terminated because of Down Syndrome? Our society seems to say yes, it is OK to eliminate a Down Syndrome child in utero.

I disagree with that, and do not think special needs are a justified reason for termination. The area is gray, and I see point in the case made by the person who shared the experience of a non-viable pregnancy. But to terminate a viable Down Syndrome child? Society accepts that. I think it is worth questioning what we are doing if we say it's OK to terminate. Why would we judge a child with Down Syndrome less deserving of life? And who are we to judge that?

ETA: Does anyone feel it is acceptable that 90% of fetal babies identified with Down Syndrome are aborted?

Is the screening 100% accurate now? I'm going to say with an amniocentesis, yes it is, but I am not familiar with the technology.

KBecks
02-10-2009, 09:29 AM
Condoms have a high rate of failure? Then why the heck are we passing them out left and right and encouraging teenagers to use them? :banghead:



:yeahthat::bighand::bighand::bighand:

o_mom
02-10-2009, 09:43 AM
It doesn't matter what people say, it matters what they do. The question is, is it acceptable for babies to be terminated because of Down Syndrome? Our society seems to say yes, it is OK to eliminate a Down Syndrome child in utero.

I disagree with that, and do not think special needs are a justified reason for termination. The area is gray, and I see point in the case made by the person who shared the experience of a non-viable pregnancy. But to terminate a viable Down Syndrome child? Society accepts that. I think it is worth questioning what we are doing if we say it's OK to terminate. Why would we judge a child with Down Syndrome less deserving of life? And who are we to judge that?



That was not my point. A PP had said that many people say that they would never terminate for A, B, or C, but when it comes down to it many do anyway. She was saying that it is easy to say that, but that she for one, would not make such a claim or presume to know what she would do in that situation (apologies to the PP if this is not correct - it is how I read it). This was simply a statistic to back that up, since someone asked for it.

himom
02-10-2009, 09:48 AM
That was not my point. A PP had said that many people say that they would never terminate for A, B, or C, but when it comes down to it many do anyway. She was saying that it is easy to say that, but that she for one, would not make such a claim or presume to know what she would do in that situation (apologies to the PP if this is not correct - it is how I read it). This was simply a statistic to back that up, since someone asked for it.

Okay, and my point is that the statistic you provided does not back it up. It provides the number of terminations only. It does not provide the number of people who said they wouldn't terminate who went ahead and did. All we have is that "you doubt" that more than 10% would have said they wouldn't terminate. I'm not saying your flat out wrong, I'm just saying you haven't provided proof -- just conjecture.

KBecks
02-10-2009, 09:49 AM
O Mom, I wasn't responding directly, but trying to get to the point -- whether termination is something society should support or not (regardless of legal permission).

o_mom
02-10-2009, 10:04 AM
Condoms have a high rate of failure? Then why the heck are we passing them out left and right and encouraging teenagers to use them? :banghead:

And yes, as I stated earlier, I don't know the exact second when life begins, so I'm not going to err on the liberal side. I'm going to err on the side of caution. So when sperm meets egg, to me, that's life. All the things that prevent implantation are not options for me.

Condoms are better than nothing if they choose to have sex. They also lower STD transmission. So, if they are not OK for you, what about for other people? If abortion should be illegal at any age of gestation, then doesn't it follow that these forms of BC should also be illegal?



So barrier methods are the way to go. My desire is not just to lower abortion rates. My desire is to encourage people to consider the humanity and the potential and the "soul" (for lack of a better word) of every unborn child, instead of blowing them off in favor of whatever the mother involved chooses to do.

Not everyone does that, I know. Few people here seem to take that stance. But there are those who do and I'd just like to see them try to see two individuals with rights instead of just one.

I do see your point. Really, I do. I just cannot find a way to put it into law without some serious unintended consequences. I personally don't think that elective 38 wk abortions should be allowed (that's elective as in purely, "I changed my mind", not elective as in I'm choosing this vs. some equally horrible alternative) - apparently SCOUS agrees with me. However, treating the fetus as a separate individual with separate rights ignores that they are not separate. It also leads to places WRT a woman's right to have autonomy over her body and make her own medical decisions that I cannot support.

purpleeyes
02-10-2009, 10:11 AM
deleted post

o_mom
02-10-2009, 10:19 AM
Okay, and my point is that the statistic you provided does not back it up. It provides the number of terminations only. It does not provide the number of people who said they wouldn't terminate who went ahead and did. All we have is that "you doubt" that more than 10% would have said they wouldn't terminate. I'm not saying your flat out wrong, I'm just saying you haven't provided proof -- just conjecture.


You have not have proof either, but yet you claimed that the PPs position is "antecdotal". It is very easy to sit back and say "I would never..." when you have never had to make that decision.

ETA: Not scientific, but here ya go: http://www.cafemom.com/group/416/boards/read/6902893/Down_Syndrome_Diagnosis_would_you_terminate_Poll_a dded

84% say they WOULD NOT terminate for DS


http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/09/who_would_abort_a_defective_fe.php

This one the highest for any subgroup was never more than 60% would terminate.

egoldber
02-10-2009, 10:29 AM
You have not have proof either, but yet you claimed that the PPs position is "antecdotal". It is very easy to sit back and say "I would never..." when you have never had to make that decision.

Yes. When you are facing the REALITY, not just the theory, of the impact of raising a special needs child AND knowing that you will probably need to support that child, at least in some capacity, until the day you DIE and then probably still need to provide for that child after your death....it's a very different thing IMO. There are impacts to your life, your mental and physical health, and your other children, if you have any. It may impact your ability to even have another child.

Some people can know that and still choose to have and raise that child. Apparently most people choose not to do that.

stella
02-10-2009, 10:37 AM
:yeahthat::bighand::bighand::bighand:

I think we're passing out condoms and encouraging teens to use them to prevent STDs, unwanted pregnancies and ultimately, abortions. Which we all agree is a terrible method of "birth control." I would far rather see the use of condoms than abortions.

mamicka
02-10-2009, 10:58 AM
So because her father broke the law, she should suffer the consequences?!?! Personally, I find that unbelievably flippant attitude morally repugnant.

Does she not suffer the consequences of her father's actions if she gets an abortion? How does that remove the consequences?

Re: the 90% of Downs babies being aborted. I have always found that shocking. Is society really OK with this attitude towards life? A life that might not be perfect isn't worth living? A life that might not meet the standards of "normal" isn't worth living? I'm just glad that nobody could tell when I was in utero that I'd be obese as an adult & might occasionally yell at my children. I might not be here.

KBecks
02-10-2009, 11:00 AM
I think we're passing out condoms and encouraging teens to use them to prevent STDs, unwanted pregnancies and ultimately, abortions. Which we all agree is a terrible method of "birth control." I would far rather see the use of condoms than abortions.

I completely agree with you. At the same time, we need to be realistic that condom use is not foolproof. Giving out condoms is not solving the problem, given the rate of unplanned pregnancies. I think condoms are very available to kids, are they not?

I am not against condoms, but the problem is that condoms are not really working. There has to be more done to help prevent pregnancies.

The problem with condoms and handing out birth control is that it implies that sex is going to be safe and without consequences, when the reality is that unplanned pregnancies and STD transmissions very much happen, and birth control is not 100% effective.

I think that birth control needs to be made available. But I'm thinking that it needs to be paired with a strong abstinence message. And perhaps that confuses the heck out of kids, I dont' know.

egoldber
02-10-2009, 11:06 AM
but the problem is that condoms are not really working

I'm wondering where the data is on this? Condoms are among the least effective methods of contraception (14% actual pregnancy rate, used long term), but they are VERY effective when used properly (3% actual pregnancy rate, used long term). But at worst case, that is still an 86% effective rate.

http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

Since we're talking anecdotes....condoms are the only method DH and I use and we have never had an unintended pregnancy in almost 8 years of condom use.

And I'm really wondering where people think kids are getting condoms handed out like candy?

egoldber
02-10-2009, 11:07 AM
But I'm thinking that it needs to be paired with a strong abstinence message. And perhaps that confuses the heck out of kids, I dont' know.

On the contrary. This is shown to be the MOST effective way to prevent unintended teen pregnancies. The message that it is OK to wait PAIRED with information about how to prevent pregnancy works. The more children know about sex, pregnancy and contraception the LESS likely they are to have sex and to get pregnant.

o_mom
02-10-2009, 11:12 AM
I completely agree with you. At the same time, we need to be realistic that condom use is not foolproof. Giving out condoms is not solving the problem, given the rate of unplanned pregnancies. I think condoms are very available to kids, are they not?

I am not against condoms, but the problem is that condoms are not really working. There has to be more done to help prevent pregnancies.

The problem with condoms and handing out birth control is that it implies that sex is going to be safe and without consequences, when the reality is that unplanned pregnancies and STD transmissions very much happen, and birth control is not 100% effective.

I think that birth control needs to be made available. But I'm thinking that it needs to be paired with a strong abstinence message. And perhaps that confuses the heck out of kids, I dont' know.

This is why comprehensive sex education is so important. Kids who know the ins and outs of reproduction, birth control, emotional issues, etc. are more likely to make good choices - a PP talked about this. The problem is when all that is presented is abstinence or a half hearted "if you must, use a condom". That doesn't help kids to understand the emotional side of sex, why it can have lasting effects, etc.

As far as condoms being available - I can't speak for schools now, but I never saw one passed out at school when I was there. They were available if you had the money to buy them AND if you were brave enough to go into the pharmacy and pay for them.

KBecks
02-10-2009, 11:34 AM
As far as condoms being available - I can't speak for schools now, but I never saw one passed out at school when I was there. They were available if you had the money to buy them AND if you were brave enough to go into the pharmacy and pay for them.

I don't mean to make you feel old, but how long has it been since you were in school? It's been 20 years and I know schools are very different now than they were when I was there. I'd appreciate information on the availability of condoms in middle and high schools. I think that every school nurse has them, and the shame has been largely removed from asking for them.

fivi2
02-10-2009, 11:43 AM
I don't mean to make you feel old, but how long has it been since you were in school? It's been 20 years and I know schools are very different now than they were when I was there. I'd appreciate information on the availability of condoms in middle and high schools. I think that every school nurse has them, and the shame has been largely removed from asking for them.

I don't have your answers, but I wonder how someone would remove the shame from an adolescent approaching an adult authority figure for anything, especially something related to sex? Not that they should be ashamed.

Also, it doesn't matter how widely available condoms are if they aren't being used. or are being used incorrectly because someone wasn't taught how.

egoldber
02-10-2009, 11:43 AM
Condom availability in high schools is VERY controversial. I would seriously doubt they are available in more than half of all high schools. I couldn't find stats in a quick Google search though.

I did find this which was interesting. It compares condom use rates and teen sex rates in NYC public schools (where condoms are available) vs Chicago Public Schools (where condoms are not available).

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsschcon.htm

egoldber
02-10-2009, 11:44 AM
To the PP point, here is an excerpt from what I linked:


A 1996 survey conducted by high school peer educators examined the accessibility of family planning methods in drug and convenience stores in Washington, D.C. and found that:

* Condoms were behind the counter in 83 percent of all convenience stores and 15 percent of drug stores.
* Only 33 percent of the stores had signs clearly marking where the contraceptives were located.
* Adolescent females asking for help in locating and/or purchasing condoms encountered resistance or condemnation from clerks 27 percent of the time, compared to 10 percent for male teens.9

o_mom
02-10-2009, 11:57 AM
I don't mean to make you feel old, but how long has it been since you were in school? It's been 20 years and I know schools are very different now than they were when I was there. I'd appreciate information on the availability of condoms in middle and high schools. I think that every school nurse has them, and the shame has been largely removed from asking for them.

From this article: http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/SHPPS/2006/factsheets/pdf/FS_STDPrevention_SHPPS2006.pdf

"0.6% of middle schools and 4.5% of high schools made condoms available to students."

crayonblue
02-10-2009, 12:07 PM
Yes. When you are facing the REALITY, not just the theory, of the impact of raising a special needs child AND knowing that you will probably need to support that child, at least in some capacity, until the day you DIE and then probably still need to provide for that child after your death....it's a very different thing IMO. There are impacts to your life, your mental and physical health, and your other children, if you have any. It may impact your ability to even have another child.

Some people can know that and still choose to have and raise that child. Apparently most people choose not to do that.

I am turning purple from this. Beth, I have no idea if you agree with what you are saying or are merely trying to put yourself in others' shoes. So, I am not addressing you specifically.

I have a special needs brother who is the BEST kid ever. He has more friends than most of us could ever dream of. He is the kindest person I know. The 90% who abort DS kids (or in my brother's case, a genetic defect that causes physical and mental impairment) are missing out on a lot. Yes, a lot of difficulties but they are also missing out on THE GREATEST GIFT OF THEIR LIVES.

Signing off and not reading anymore. Lana, sister to an amazing brother and mom to a precious, precious child.

egoldber
02-10-2009, 12:10 PM
Lana, all I am trying to say is that many people are not emotionally, financially, physically, mentally equipped to live their lives that way. Some people are. Many are not. Being honest with yourself and your abilities is a good thing IMO. And I don't think many people are honest with themselves until they actually have to make a decision.

I'm very sorry if you found what I had to say hurtful.

gatorsmom
02-10-2009, 12:31 PM
Lana, all I am trying to say is that many people are not emotionally, financially, physically, mentally equipped to live their lives that way. Some people are. Many are not. Being honest with yourself and your abilities is a good thing IMO. And I don't think many people are honest with themselves until they actually have to make a decision.

I'm very sorry if you found what I had to say hurtful.

But, how many of us were absolutely certain that we would be good mothers before we had children? I can't raise my hand. My point is, few of us really know how equiped we'll be to handle a situation until we are in it. And until we live in a culture that values ALL life no matter how "abnormal" it may be, people will continue to see abortion of less-than-perfect babies as acceptable.

ETA: and as I"ve said before, this is a slippery slope we are on because it's not a far jump to thinking that other handicapped or "abnormal" humans shouldn't be allowed to live.

kijip
02-10-2009, 01:15 PM
When I think of laws to protect a 12 year old who was abused by her father, I think of the father being punished and sent to prison for rape.

There are many situations that are terrible and very difficult to witness. I am thinking about a child rape victim who is pregnant. Abortion does not erase the sexual abuse, nor does it necessarily end it. I understand that a pregnant child rape victim's life may be in greater danger and that is a difficult reality to accept also.

Life can be horrid and it sucks.

There is a big difference between witnessing or contemplating a terrible situation and having lived it.

I could never, ever look at a 12 year old pregnant after suffering the trauma I have suffered around the same age (11) and tell her any variation of "Life can be horrid and it sucks" or that her desire for an abortion does not help her in some way or any rationalization of "2 wrongs don't make a right" etc. Because I know that for me it would have been the only option, and I know that after giving birth to my own kids- rape victims suffer birth trauma even years later, with lovingly and consensually conceived pregnancies. I am in a research project on it now.

There is nothing acceptable about deciding what is best for a 12 year old victim of rape for her. She has lived a grown up problem and she deserves to, of her own mind, decide what she can and can not handle AND if completing a pregnancy will end her life. In my situation, I know that it would have. As stated here before, it is a miracle that I finished high school and college, got married and have 2 kids and a happy life after what I experienced. I don't see that having happened if I had to deliver a baby later that year. Believe me my middle school and high school year were bad enough already from dealing with the rapes.

And I managed to write that without calling anyone evil or other names. :)

FWIW, criminal justice laws rarely protect older girls raped by family, as often times there is little to no evidence of the abuse by the time to girl speaks up. I believe the laws must protect girls from the ramifications and consequences of the rapist's actions in whatever little way they can, because the situation is not terrible to imagine, it is impossible to imagine.

kijip
02-10-2009, 01:21 PM
But, how many of us were absolutely certain that we would be good mothers before we had children? I can't raise my hand. My point is, few of us really know how equiped we'll be to handle a situation until we are in it. And until we live in a culture that values ALL life no matter how "abnormal" it may be, people will continue to see abortion of less-than-perfect babies as acceptable.



I agree. I will say that abortions in cases of things like down's syndrome are not something that I personally feel is acceptable. My own brother has a physical disability. But I don't see how to legislate my beliefs on this for others, given the severity of the consequences of outlawing abortions wholesale.