It's killing. A baby. And if you're the one having the abortion, it's you who are killing your baby.
I'm not trying to be shocking here, actually. It is what it is. The child you conceived is living inside you, and you are doing what you can to make it not live. That's killing, a gerund we use typically when we talk about the deliberately caused death of living things with faces. We have shrouded abortion in so much nice-y nice language over the years, and the media has done everything it can to make anti-abortion people (which is what I am - anti-abortion - I have no problem with that label and do not see it as negative) seem like complete nutjobs, that people have mentally downgraded this type of killing to something vaguer and more benign.
An unplanned, unwanted child in utero is a fetus. A planned or unplanned, wanted child is a baby and gets a pregnancy countdown widget like this:
And we have lived for decades now mentally shifting between "fetus" and "baby" depending on the circumstances, getting more and more comfortable with this verbal game of Spare the Feelings of (Mostly) Promiscuous Women. Because being politically correct and supporting "choice" is more important than live babies.
While it is true that not all women who have abortions are unmarried, the vast majority of them are and the majority of them never have been. And the vast, vast, vast, vast majority are not having abortions because they were raped, molested by a family member, or their lives are in serious physical jeopardy. Abortion is the ultimate backup plan for promiscuity.
It is no coincidence that abortion "rights" were demanded and given closely following the release of the birth control pill (in itself, the 1st barrier to chaste behavior down) and the Sexual Revolution (2nd). If you can have sex without the fear of pregnancy or social stigma, you're going to need a backup plan. Because sometimes birth control fails, and, more importantly, plenty of women will fail to use it correctly or use it at all. Some of them won't use it because they are broke or don't like the physical side effects. Some of them won't use it because they can't think beyond the short term. And some of them won't use it because they think a baby will get them a husband, a boyfriend, or love. So, it's obvious, given all this planned and unplanned user error, that abortion is that necessary third step to make sure women can have all the sex they want with anyone they want and never have to have a child. Unless they want one. Then they can make that sexy stranger guy cough up child support for the next 18 years. No reproductive freedom for him! But I digress.
I've been anti-abortion for a long, long time. I've prayed the rosary and done novenas for babies in danger. I've given money to Right to Life. I've prayed and demonstrated before clinics. This was an issue that really mattered to me long before I found out that I couldn't have a baby and had to grapple with dearth of adoptable children - the reality of all those millions of mothers choosing to kill their babies rather than birth them and then place them for adoption. Having thought and read about this issue, sometimes very deeply, I've concluded that the only "moral" justification for abortion is if you believe that humans do not have souls and are of only ephemeral value or no value at all. The attempts to determine life or humanity such as brain activity or viability outside the womb are distractions. If humans have souls and have value, then they have value from the moment they exist. And if humans are inherently valuable, we should protect them, even the smallest, most vulnerable ones. Especially the smallest, most vulnerable ones. However, if they do not have souls or value, then babies in utero are equivalent to the small saplings that grow up in inconvenient places every spring and can therefore be rooted out with the same lack of qualm. Following that logic, though, all of us older trees should be cut down when we stop being useful or stop bearing fruit. Do we want to think that way?
The New York Times has a piece today entitled "Lawmakers in Many States Pushing for Abortion Curbs." Reading this made me happy. Not because I think we are looking at the end of abortion or even a significant elimination of most abortions. As long as we allow and encourage young women to be promiscuous, we will have abortion, and even if we were to outlaw surgical abortion (which we won't), there will still be pills to take the morning after or later on. No, it made me happy because this year is bound to be a nail-biter for the kind of woman who thinks killing her own baby should be a right and protests loud and long for it. For those nervous ladies, I have this advice: you can always not have sex. I've heard tell that works amazingly well to keep the babies away.
11 hours ago
I used to go to this jazz bar, because I had a crush on a waitress there. One night I was there, I was sitting at the bar and the singer (a woman) had come over to talk to the bartender (also a woman) and a waitress.
ReplyDeleteThe conversation revealed the woman I had a crush on had left, to be a cook on a yacht. The bartender or the waitress commented "She never got over the abortion" to which the singer replied "I never got over mine."
Good post! I tackled this subject myself recently, over at The Spearhead.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this post. Incredible writing. You have a gift.
ReplyDeletegameforomegas, what a story. Feels like I was there, listening.
Official Generation X Slogan - I survived the Abortion Holocaust
ReplyDelete"I once told my college students: "I don't know what your personal politics are, but when you get home tonight, thank your mother for being pro-life." The first time I said it, just ad-libbing to be amusing, I was taken aback by the stunned looks on the faces of some of the young women in class. I got the impression they had never quite personalized it that way. Maybe they were girls who had already had abortions, and suddenly realized they had snuffed out a little life that could have been their own. I don't know."
I think the important thing to tell women is:
ReplyDeleteA.Adoption is real! White babies will be adopted almost immediately. Are you really so shallow that you would rather kill your baby than walk around with a belly for a few months?
This is a winner. And the fact that every single anti-abortionist... and that would include you grerp... doesn't start with this is kinda odd. And I mean kinda odd in a saying not so nice things about you way.
B.If you think your problems will end when you get that abortion.... the chance for infertility is high and you will never recover emotionally. And never is a very long time.
I was 43 when I became pregnant, on the pill, which I used for reasons other than birth control, but used correctly, after battling infertility for years. My firstborn son is the result of IUI. I lost 2 babies along the way. My "bonus" daughter would not be here if I listened to my doctors and some of my family (including my husband) and friends. I had severe preeclampsia with my son and with my age, the odds were that I might stroke out with my this, my last pregnancy. That would leave my son without a mother and my husband without a wife. A very real possibility. I am prochoice. And I chose to continue the pregnancy, with all the scary uncertainty and inconvenience to everyone (being hospitalized on bedrest for 8 weeks due to preeclampsia again)for my own personal reasons. But would I force another woman to continue a pregnancy in those circumstances? No. If the child would be born severely disabled and unadoptable? (And minority babies are not adopted immediately, nlike perfect white babies) No. Would any of you? And to ensure that a woman in those circumstances will have a choice, we must leave this decision of abortion, as ugly as it is, between a woman and her doctor.
ReplyDeleteElinor
"you can always not have sex."
ReplyDeleteOh, come on, that's not a real choice, grerp.
/sarc
Elinor's self-serving comment is meant to obscure the fact that she's rolling the dice with her baby's health by getting knocked up at age 43.
ReplyDeleteA culture that accepts the wholesale killing of its own offspring is doomed.
ReplyDelete"knocked up?" That's not showing much respect for marriage and motherhood, Wapiti! Elinor was a MARRIED woman, using birth control and it failed (if I read her letter correctly). She didn't abort; had the baby and thankfully, everything turned out well.
ReplyDeleteAre married people just supposed to stop having sex when they reach the age of 35 or so? Think many married men agree with your sentiments?
Birth control does fail; even natural family planning methods will fail; you can't predict ovulation with 100% certainty. Maybe we could at least have some respect for MARRIED women who continue with the pregnancy (esp. when they are put at risk themselves) rather than abort if we want to say we are pro-life?
Hi Katz,and thanks. No, you read that correctly. I was 43 when my husband "knocked me up," (ha! hadn't heard that one in years)and I was on birth control. Don't know what more I could have done other than abstain from sex, which neither my husband nor I would have agreed to do. I just put my story out there to give another side to the story, the non-promiscuous, endangering mother's life story, that is not just an excuse to allow women the choice to have abortions on demand, but as a scary dilemma that happens in real life to real people.
ReplyDeleteElinor
I don't know what an Elusive Wapiti is, but if you are a woman, would you be willing to risk your life to give birth to a child? If you're a man, would you be willing to risk your wife's life? And if you are a parent, would you be willing to risk your daughter's life in this situation or would you want her to have the option of an abortion?
ReplyDeleteElinor
Katz,
ReplyDeleteTake a breath and calm down.
While I initially misread Elinor's post--I initially thought that she was one of those career chicks who put childbirth on hold until they can't stand the ticking of their biological clocks. I reserve special contempt for those women, which is why I came out swinging as I did.
That doesn't take away from the fact that conceiving a child at that advanced age has very elevated risks of malformation and the like.
I am married, practice birth control, to include NFP. I am aware of what the failure rates are, particularly with "typical" use.
And no, I don't expect married folks over 35 to stop having sex. See above, and don't be obtuse.
Elinor,
While I can appreciate what you claim to have done, I think it is a very false dilemma that you are presenting us with.
Rarely is the choice either/or, very little in medicine is 100% surety. And I speak from my own personal experience on this very issue.
As far as risk, I know risk very well, and am quite acquainted with her. So don't assume that I don't. I risk my life every day earning a living for my family. As does every other employed man out there, some more than others. How does it feel to benefit from the risk your husband bears in your stead? How does it feel to know that you benefit from your husband slowly killing himself, bit by bit?
All this discussion about an infintesimal minority of cases where the mother's life is *genuinely* at risk merely provides cover for sloppy self-serving immoral thinking about murdering the innocent. Not saying you're doing that on purpose, but that is the net effect.
And a 'wapiti' is entirely googleable.
I believe Elusive Elk answered your questions, Elinor, by saying:
ReplyDeleteYes, Yes, Yes, and No. Personally, I don't want to "benefit" by my own husband slowly killing himself just by being employed; so I too, am employed. Neither one of us defies death on a daily basis, unless you consider driving to work dangerous, which it might be.
"That doesn't take away from the fact that conceiving a child at that advanced age has very elevated risks of malformation and the like."
ReplyDeleteThat is no excuse for not having children, EW.
The risks are also increased if one is an habitual drinker, takes drugs, is obese or leads an unhealthy lifestyle which includes junk food.
The average age of menopause is 51 years of age.
If God had not meant women to have children at 40 then menopause would occur much earlier.
My own cousin (whose first husband died) remarried some years later and had two healthy children. The first at 38 and the second at 42.. She herself was a healthy person who exercised daily, cooked and refrained from indulging in junk food.
In any case I think that a couple who fall in love and marry should be open to the possibility of children at any age.
My own mother-in-law had a downs syndrome baby at the age of 35.(she is much loved by the whole family btw)
As a Catholic I believe that marriage is both for unitive and procreative purposes, and, that children are a gift from God.
I understand that you have a diffeent view and accept and respect that.
Comments such as these are judgemental and unhelpful, however.
"Elinor's self-serving comment is meant to obscure the fact that she's rolling the dice with her baby's health by getting knocked up at age 43."
It also detracts from the main argument(I was annoyed at your presumptions and felt compelled to comment)
What is concerning is as grerp says, the complacency and widespread acceptance of abortion.
Abortion is murder, under any circumstances.
When I was 16 weeks pregnant with my second child a routine scan showed that my baby had a neural tube defect (anencephally) and would die at birth or shortly after..
I refused to kill my own child even though I knew she was (so very sadly) going to die. I prayed to Our Lady to sustain me, and to help me to endure this pain and suffering for the sake of Our Lord who died for me.
It was she that gave me the grace (AND MY HUSBAND) through God to endure the unbearable..I could not have done it without her ..I am weak..
Our baby was stillborn, and baptised by the Catholic nurse in attendance.
Our blue eyed baby girl Mary Rose(named after the Blessed Virgin Mary) is in heaven.
God gives life only he can take it away.
God's will be done.
Grerp, abortion in this country is a tragedy. When I was in high school we had debates in government class. I will never forget speaking out against abortion there. I felt like I had ratted out the mob. No worries though, it was a quick way to weed out the girls I wouldn't care to get to know any better anyway.
ReplyDelete@ Elinor,
ReplyDeleteRe-reading your initial comment again, I don't know how I interpreted your comment as I did. In retrospect, I clearly jumped to conclusions based on limited and wrongly interpreted information.
Sorry for attributing to you a position that you were not taking.
@EW - I appreciate that. I was hoping you had misunderstood what I was trying to say.
ReplyDelete@ Everyone else who wants an embryo or fetus to be considered a person who can be "murdered." Are you willing to extend *all* of the rights guaranteed to a person to an embryo or fetus? Should they get a social security number upon conception? Should they get welfare benefits in the womb equal to born people? Should every miscarriage be investigated criminally to see if the death was accidental or the result of murder? Already on the books in some states, a parent may sue another driver if their driving causes the death of a *viable* fetus. Should this be changed to include embryos?
Embryos and non-viable fetuses are not people, they are potential people that cannot exist separately from their mother's womb. Yes, abortion is misused by some, and no reasonable woman would use it as a form of birth control, or choose it lightly. And unreasonable women will not listen to reason. But it is sometimes medically necessary. Just like some murders of living people are judged to be "justifiable." And outlawing abortion will not eradicate it.
I really cannot see how you take away the choice from some women, while allowing it for others. I chose to take the medical risk, but I would do everything in my power to make sure my daughter would not have to, if she so chose. And let God judge.
Elinor
While I also find current complacency about abortion to be disturbing, I think this assessment of the issue is disappointingly glib.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why pro-life people lump all abortion into one category and then slap it with the label of "murder" any more than I understand why pro-choicers insist on demonizing anyone who speaks out against abortion as a religious bigot out to return us to the dark ages.
Does abortion at any stage really constitute murder? Are we really killing a human being with a soul at ANY stage? What evidence is there, biblical or otherwise, to suggest that a fertilized egg should have the same legal or moral status as any other human being when it doesn't even have a nervous system or any form of consciousness?
Do we even have an established, working definition of "human being"? Abortion is killing at any stage, yes. But you need some kind of additional backing if you want to call it murder, because that is a term we reserve for the killing of human beings.
These are questions that need to be answered if calls to ban abortion are to be taken seriously. And pro-life people don't seem to be doing much to answer these questions. They are mostly just preaching to the choir and using emotionally charged language to do so.
The "how would you like it if your mother had aborted you" bit seems ridiculous to me. I was very nearly aborted. My mother was an unmarried teen when she got pregnant and everyone in the family wanted her to get an abortion. However, I don't sit around thinking about how tragic it would have been if she had. My ego is not so large that I believe the world would be drastically affected had I never grown up in it.
Again, arguments like this seem to me to be too emotionally charged. They obscure the issue and encourage group-think on both sides. No one who calls themselves pro-life wants to speak out against someone who insists we stop murdering babies, and no one who is pro-choice wants to speak out against someone who insists that being against abortion means being against reproductive rights, even if both sides are offering mostly rhetoric and refusing to back up their claims.
Elinor - I've heard all these arguments before and many more. Abortion is killing. When we kill a viable-outside-the-womb person we have to make a case with all sorts of proof for why we had a compelling reason to kill - whether self defense, war, accidental death, whatever.
ReplyDeleteIf women had to prove to an objective body that they had a legitimate reason to kill their babies, 99.99999% of abortions would not be allowed. In the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of cases, abortion is backup birth control, full stop.
Fetuses are people in a lesser stage of development, just as infants and children are. Infants can't care for themselves, yet we consider them fully human and worthy of protection. The difference between an infant and a baby in utero is often just geographical. Especially when we are talking about last trimester babies - which in my state are still fully killable until their entire bodies pass outside the vulva.
Doctors have an obligation to try and save mother and child. In most problem pregnancies mothers are put on bed rest because they want to save the baby. If they do not rest, they will miscarry. There is no reason that a doctor could not perform an emergency C-section if the mother's life were in serious danger. That would give both mother and child a fighting chance. But these arguments are not about giving children chances. They are about giving women a pass.
Abortion was allowed to be legalized because of the argument you are presenting. Most people then could never have conceived of what abortion would become and for what use. It is true that perhaps thousands of women's lives have been saved because of abortion, but 50 million babies have died. We are overdue for another cost/benefit analysis here.
I am years late with this response, but I wanted to point out that many non-western societies have at one time or another not considered pre-speech infants to be human at all, and what we would consider infantacide was a commonly practiced form of post-birth abortion. How we view these issues is very fluid, very cultural, and very personal. Sweeping statements will not win many people over, only changing overall human perceptions will.
DeleteAs it so happens, I don't perceive a foetus as a baby. I've had an abortion (in the context of a monogamous relationship without the money to support an extra mouth, and while using birth control), and I can assure you I didn't birth a baby. I passed a clump of cells smaller than my little finger, without eyes, ears, rms or legs. Nothing anybody tells me will convince me that it's the same as a child now that I've seen both. But it's your business what you try to persuade others to do, so by all means keep equating the two in ignorant people's minds. It's your best chance at success, and I wish you well in it.
Rachel, 99.99999%? Really? Statistics? And you didn't answer my other questions about whether it was your child/niece whose life was in danger or if we should give SS#s to fetuses as real people. But you know the answer - because non-viable fetuses and embryos are not people. Infants survive outside of their mothers' bodies, fetuses and embryos cannot. Would this board you'd want women to appear before be full of people who think like you or me? What would we end up with - more bureaucracy, more unadoptable children on the public dole - I thought you were against all this?
ReplyDeleteAbortions are not going away. They were here when they were illegal and are here to stay. Maybe a better route than talking about 50 million "babies" being murdered would be to try to make adoption an easier, better option. And you demean women by discounting that "perhaps thousands of women's lives have been saved because of abortion," and that a cost/benefit analysis should be done. Those women have worth. They are unequivocally people, unlike the "babies" you think have more worth.
Elinor
Elinor, I didn't answer because the whole thing is red herring. If you put the word babies into quotation marks, then I really have nothing to say to you about this issue. You will never, never change my mind on the value or humanity of pre-born babies, and I know I will never change yours. We are at an impasse.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least you called them pre-born babies instead of babies. I put the word babies in quotation marks to differentiate your use of the word from mine. And those questions weren't meant to be red herrings. I was really wondering if your mind was open enough about the subject to consider and then discuss the personal ramifications of your stance. Apparently, it isn't. And that's fine. But you can't expect not to hear from the other side when you post your stance on a public blog.
ReplyDeleteElinor
Elinor - many churches, including my own, support pregnancy resource centers that include adoption services as well as services to help women who choose to keep their babies.
ReplyDelete- Hearth
Well, I like answering red herrings, so meh, I'll go for it.
ReplyDeleteBackground: I'm anti-abortion, except in the tiny fraction of exceptions (mother's life, etc. etc.). Moderate libertarian (welfare acceptable in certain situations, etc.). Christian, but don't attend church for a variety of reasons I don't feel like discussing here.
There are already substantial legal differences in the way our government treats minors - people under the age of 18. Same with laws concerning invalids of all types. No reason most of those could not be applied, perhaps with some modifications, to a fetus. Passing through a vulva or being pulled squealing from a surgical cut is hardly the be-all and end-all of life's definition.
Besides, the legal issues are secondary to the moral issues - you and most pro-choice folk like to use legal arguments as a smokescreen. Morally speaking, only a science-fetishist would think a functioning nervous system is a requirement for a soul (an atheist would simply ignore the idea of a soul). The idea of an arbitrary line at three months, or six months, where a soul magically appears in a functioning nervous system is ridiculous. Even it there is such a line, pro-choice folks are deliberately trying to draw that line in the way most convenient for *themselves*, not in any meaningful way. Hence the battle over the narrowing gap between minimum age of viability and maximum age of safe abortion.
I could apply my own standards to my family, easy. I know because I've seen how my family handles it. We had one relative whose life was endangered by the pregnancy, and was forced to terminate it - rare, but possible. A tragedy, but fine by me - either one died, or both, according to the doctors. I still have that relative. I view it as morally the same as a mercy kill in harsh conditions - injured member of an expedition being left behind so the others can get to safety. Sad, but it's life.
If a sister, cousin or niece were to get herself knocked up? The family would take care of her and her kid (legally, she has the right to abort, but if there was no abortion, it's effectively the same as if there had been no choice). Have not done it, but we've discussed it, same as a number of other potential events. It's life.
My own question would be on whether Elinor, or any other pro-choicer, would consider the mother's will to determine the child's humanity. I apologize in advance if this is graphic, but abortion tends to be. That is, if a mother is one month pregnant, knows about the pregnancy, and intends to keep it, is punching her in the stomach any different from ordinary assult? What if she intended to abort it the next day? What if she didn't know about it? What if her assailant *did* know about it, and was trying to induce miscarriage?
The example above is part of my problem with pro-choicers, apart from the whole baby-killing thing. Every normal person would react with disgust to the thought of attacking a pregnant woman, but if the fetus is not human, what's the difference? Still assault, still a crime, still morally wrong, but would it be any different than if she weren't pregnant?
I would object to any moral system that allows one person to arbitrarily determine whether or not another is human. We don't even declare condemned criminals on death row to be inhuman (not legally anyway). Any sane person should agree with that point, if nothing else I've said.
Bob, would object to any moral system that allows one person to arbitrarily determine whether or not another is human.
ReplyDeleteScientific fact: any living organism with the DNA of a human is a living human. This means an unborn human is still a human. And the only way to not be "arbitrary" when talking about abortion is to ban it from conception on. The idea of exceptions, which you subscribe to, is indeed arbitrary.
@Bob
ReplyDelete"Every normal person would react with disgust to the thought of attacking a pregnant woman, but if the fetus is not human, what's the difference?"
One difference is that the woman herself is in a heightened state of vulnerability. Another is that if she is far enough along to be visibly pregnant, most people will assume that she is becoming attached to the pregnancy, regardless of whether or not it is viable yet. Destroying it when the woman doesn't want it destroyed is an act of malice. You can be malicious without being a murderer.
Another is that aborting a pregnancy is not an act of assault. Punching a woman in the stomach is much more distasteful to us because civilized people generally frown upon attacking others, especially people weaker than the attacker.
Once again, our feelings do not determine reality. The fact that people find punching pregnant women disgusting does not mean that abortion is murder. There are plenty of other reasons to find that even more disgusting than assault on a non-pregnant woman.
"I would object to any moral system that allows one person to arbitrarily determine whether or not another is human. We don't even declare condemned criminals on death row to be inhuman (not legally anyway). Any sane person should agree with that point, if nothing else I've said."
I do agree with this. However, there is nothing arbitrary about saying "this is a mass of cells that does not have a nervous system or any kind of consciousness. It bears no biological resemblance to a baby with the exception of its genetic makeup. Therefore it is not a baby." That is not arbitrary. That is not based on feelings.
When someone says that humanity begins at conception, that is arbitrary. Or at least I believe that it is, because I have yet to see a cognizant argument for that position that was not based on either emotional appeals or poorly interpreted Bible verses.
I had a perfectly healthy baby at 37 years of age. My last two pregnancies (both past age 35) were indeed complicated and I don't think I want to do it again. We have decided to gratefully focus on the 5 children we have.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there was a time, before the pill was at women's fingertips, that women had babies until the Lord closed their wombs. My grandmother-in-law was 42 when she had the last of her 10 children, all of whom were perfectly developed, healthy children. I'm not sure how we came to believe that 35 is the kiss of death for procreation.
First, we let the culture convince us to delay childbearing until it is more difficult to conceive for the first time. Of course, for those "unfortunate" women who find themselves pregnant before that magical moment when the stars of education, career and marriage to a sucker align perfectly, there's always abortion. Then, we're told that despite the fact that we've waited until 31 to start having babies, we need to stop before we turn 35 because we may be burdened with a less than perfect child if we don't. Incredible!
How is the west supposed to survive going forward? We won't. We're too selfish and stupid.
Grerp, this was an excellent post. I agree with it 100%. Thanks for sharing your wonderful insights.
Thanks, Terry, mdavid, Dr. Deezee, and everyone. Obviously, I have strong feelings about this. I will say this about maternal attachment - it doesn't have to take long. I had one pregnancy. I miscarried about this time of year 8 years ago after five years of trying to get pregnant. I was seven weeks along, but I'd only know a couple of days. In that couple of days, I got on prenatal vitamins, broke out my baby name books, and told everyone I knew. Then I lost the baby. It was so awful; I grieved so hard. Just writing about it now, nearly a decade later, makes me cry. I named my baby Elena Vanessa, and I hope someday to know her in heaven. There is not a day that goes by that I don't think what it would be like to have another child. The hardest part for me about facing forty was coming to terms with the fact that there would almost definitely not be a surprise baby. I've never used birth control, and I still half-hoped through all my thirties to pull a baby out of the, er, bag. Never happened. And despite being told twice we had been chosen as adoptive parents, those hopes fell through too.
ReplyDeleteMy son was an unwanted pregnancy and an abandoned baby. I am very, very blessed that his birth mother made the decision to give him life, and not to kill him in utero. It was definitely within her power and the most likely decision. We - my husband and I, his 4 grandparents, his aunt and uncles and cousins - all are grateful that she did not.
This is a very difficult subject for me right now because my baby somehow died inside my body after 36 weeks of everything being normal and fine. I gave birth to a stillborn baby last Wednesday.
ReplyDeletePrior to this, I've had an ectopic pregnancy, and a spontaneous miscarriage before the second trimester. Although I have never had an "elective" abortion, I wonder how women who have had one feel.
I am sorry to hear about your miscarriage grerp. I am terrified of having another one after my previous experiences. My husband and I both want children, and we are both still relatively young (I'm 27). But there is always that chance it would never happen.
You can read more of my story on my blog. We are still reeling from it, and I just want to say I completely understand how you feel, and then some, because I did get to hold my baby.
Oh, Hope. I'm so very sorry for your loss. That is terrible, terrible news. I will keep you and your husband in my prayers. I'm truly sorry.
ReplyDeletegrerp I saw this on Drudge today:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/4qj2q3w
"35% of US Women will have an abortion by age 45"
Jesus. And 93 percent were for "social reasons." Less than 1% were cases of health/underage/rape/incest. And frankly that is probably high, it's fairly easy to class depression or whatever as "health reasons."
I am so sorry, Hope. And grerp, I spent a long five years in the infertility wilderness myself. I had 5 miscarriages (in one case I lost twins at 9 and 13 weeks).
What my experience taught me -- and I think you know from a "two-week-wait" grerp -- is that I was wrong, wrong, wrong to think I really had control over certain things. So much of what we think we control is just an illusion. All the ART things we did, all that we tried, all the docs we saw, and we still lost nonviable babies over and over, or just didn't get PG. Anyway.
Grep your advice about how the best way to not get pregnant is to not have sex is great advice! I think it's delightful that you apparently live in a world where women are never raped or coerced into having sex. What a delightful world that would be.
ReplyDeleteAs for the gen-x who apparently survived the abortion Holocaust perhaps their parents were pro-choice and CHOSE to have them?
Because almost all abortions are the result of rape or incest!
ReplyDeleteRight, Ms. Jess.
Love those red herrings!
@Terry
ReplyDeleteYour glibness really is astonishing.
You do believe that society would benefit if more people shared your views about abortion? Why not support them then with some semblance of reasoning?
The fact that very few abortions are a result of rape or incest is completely irrelevant if one is suggesting that abortion is wrong under ALL circumstances. Suggesting that there are circumstances under which a woman might choose to abort for reasons other than "back up birth control" is not a red herring, even if those circumstances are rare. Especially since so many pro-lifers are suggesting that abortion be banned under ALL circumstances save absolute medical necessity.
Grerp,
ReplyDeleteI am adopted and I am against abortion. I find it interesting that none of these pro-abortion people stop and think about just how easy it is to take a life. Walk up to a man and shoot him in the back and leave him defenseless to die is not really that different from walking in to an abortion clinic and killing your defenseless baby.
I find it ironic that none of them speak of the courage,strength and nobility of character it takes to carry a child to term.
In my case, I will never know my birth mother, but given that I was born in 1979 I am amazed and grateful for the strength that she had to have to see me term and put me in a position to succeed in life through adoption. If my conception was the result of a crime (rape or incest which is unlikely) her strength of character and courage is the sole reason I exist. When I was at my weakest she was at her strongest. Ironically, those girls, for they are girls and not women since they are renouncing the arrival into womanhood by terminating there pregancies, are announcing to the world not the feminine strength that makes women unique and admired throughout all of history but rather weakness that destroys life an can never be undone and was always seen as uniquely feminine failure. I wonder what strength and solace these pro abortion women can find in destroying life and prolonging their girlishness? Is there pride to be found in remaining a girl and not becoming a woman?
Anyway,
I thank God every day for the strength that my birth mother had those 9 months in in 1979. I thank God that she was stronger than any selfish social pressure she was under not to have me.
I know I will never meet her or speak to her,
but thank you for giving me life and not being selfish, nor bending to social convention, and in giving me up for adoption just giving me a chance.
Corey
Rhodamine - I certainly know about the two-week wait and the realization that it's all out of your hands and you are at the whim of your own biology. Changed my way of thinking about life in significant ways. I'm sorry you went through this too, and for your losses.
ReplyDeleteCorey - Your birth mother gave you the priceless gift of life, and I'm sure it cost her a great deal emotionally to let you go to another family. It was an act of brave self-denial. God bless her.
The debate will never be resolved because it involves two fundamentally opposed ideas about what it means to be human. You can't bridge that divide judicially or scientifically, or even philosophically. And that's why the debate continues, and will continue to continue, if you will, with the vehemence that it does.
ReplyDeleteI am anti-abortion because to me it is obvious that a "fetus" is a human being. Just to take a personal example, I still remember very well looking at the profile of my son during his ultrasound (which was about 18-19 weeks, I think), and it's the exact same profile he has today -- the same nose, the same curve in his lips, the same subtle overbite of the top of his mouth ... the same person. The idea that this is a mere "fetus" whom a woman can elect to destroy for any reason at all is so morally reprehensible as to shock the conscience, frankly. The gap between this and the pro-abortion position is so fundamentally vast as to be fundamentally unbridgeable.
I'm sorry to hear of the women here who have had such difficulty having children. Hope, you and your family are in our prayers in this difficult time.
I've been thinking about this issue a bit lately and I thought I would weigh in.
ReplyDeleteI can't see the validity in pro-choice arguments after taking the time to really read through them these past few months. In the majority of cases, they seem to follow a sort of disjointed track which I will outline below.
1. Author usually begins by evoking the concept of "personhood" and all of the unique, special qualities this entails. They usually go on to conclude that personhood is something only achieved by humans and that it is invaluable, and cannot be prescribed lightly.
2. Author then proceeds to state why human fetuses are not people. The fact that the fetus doesn't think on a higher human level and/or can't survive outside of the womb is usually the first justification you hear.
3. Author then concludes that, because the fetus lacks human qualities, it cannot really be considered a person. Only "people" can be murdered, and a fetus is not a person. They then go on to state that killing a fetus, therefore, is no worse than killing other lifeforms or destroying other things that are clearly not human. Comparisons I've seen include:
-Advanced robots
-Bacteria
-Frogs
-Chickens and water fowl
-Worms
And the list goes on.
From what I've gathered, most pro-choice arguments tend to rest on the dehumanization of the fetus. That is where most of the justification for abortions stemming from "social reasons"(93% of all abortions according to a link posted above) comes from.
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteBut doesn't a human fetus deserve a little more credit than that? Sure, maybe a human fetus in its early stages of development hasn't evolved many personal qualities just yet. Maybe it can't yet be considered "a person" in the philosophical sense I've become familiar with.
But a human fetus is representative of the foundational stage of all human development. They compare the fetus to all types of other things(worms, shrimp, bacteria, etc) but none of those things have the ability to grow and become those special "persons" they glow about. The human fetus is the one and only seed for personhood and for humanity in general. Worms and robots can't make that claim.
In other words, what I'm trying to say here is that there is clearly an immutable and invaluable link here between the human fetus and the thinking, grown human person, one that is shared by nothing else on earth and one that really can't be ignored. I don't see how it is such a far stretch to claim that a fetus is a form of human life when it is so clearly a crucial and indispensable stage of every human being's development and growth. Is our life cycle really debatable?
Now, I have no delusions of grandeur with this little statement of mine. I won't make the argument for the complete banning of abortion with this argument, nor do I suspect that it will completely change any minds of the pro-choice who may be reading this. This is a complicated issue that can't be completely addressed in one blog comment.
That being said, I will try and pose one question on the basis of this theory: Can't we care just a little more?
As I've outlined above, perhaps a human fetus doesn't have all the qualities of a person yet. But as I've shown, it is clearly linked to humans in a way nothing is. I mean, it basically is the beginning of our life cycle.
Doesn't that count for anything? Shouldn't we at the very least evaluate the callous means with which these fetuses are discarded every day? shouldn't it be worth just a little bit more than a worm or a robot?
Its one thing when I hear people talk about motivations for abortion that stem from potential for death of the mother or something severe like that. But, as has already been shown, most abortions don't occur for those reasons. It isn't uncommon to hear people talking of abortions like they're just no big deal at all, as if they really had just killed a worm, a chicken or worse, a pest/parasite. Have we really gotten to the stage where it is ok to put a human life on the same level as a microscopic disease or a bird? It seems like we have.
I'm not so sure that's good news for humanity. I'm not god and I can't predict the future with certainty, but I can't help but feel that our society has adopted a dangerously nihilistic persona(among other things) that will hurt in the long run.
GRERP:
ReplyDeleteBravo for publishing your views on a (obviously!) controversial topic.
My stance on abortion aside, I believe that promiscuity has become too socially acceptable these days. I learned in health class in middle school that all birth control (save abstinence) has SOME failure rate, so there's always some small chance of pregnancy. If you're having sex, you're taking that risk. The end.
Seems like a lot of young women nowadays view "having a baby" as "my life is over." It's like they must check off everything on their wish list (from career goals to 'having fun') before having a baby. Becoming a parent isn't like becoming a cripple, for goodness sakes! It just means you modify your life a little to accommodate someone else...the same as you do in relationships/marriages.
The tough part of the abortion debate is that everyone's working with different definitions: When does "life" begin? Is the stage of zygote or embryo or fetus a "baby human"? It's one thing to say "I had the embryo removed," because we get embryos in the eggs we eat for breakfast. No big deal, right? But it's entirely another to say "I killed the baby."
Athlone -- great post! Well considered and well written. Bravo.
ReplyDeleteJ -- the terminology to me is quite telling. I have never once heard a pregnant woman say "I felt the fetus kicking in me yesterday night". Nope. When she says that, it's "the baby", regardless of the number of weeks of gestation. But when she wants to abort, it's "just a fetus". To me, this is indicative of women being given the right to play God -- to determine what is a human baby and what isn't, based on whether they want it or not.
Athlone - I agree with Novaseeker - yours was a great comment. In my opinion, it's always best to err on the side of caution, and I agree that it would behoove all of us to care more.
ReplyDeleteJ - I agree; having a baby is not an end, but having one on your own without a fully involved and invested father is the beginning of a long hard slog for everyone involved. Which is why I would always encourage adoption for women with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.
I would love to see more pro-life people support adoption and support it a more valuble option for women in crisis pregnancies. Or adopt the one of the thousands of children in foster care.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'd love to mock all the pitifully weak pro choice women who have some absurd need to actually grieve after experiencing a miscarriage. Yeah you want to be a mother, but its not as if you've actually lost something, is a simple clump of cells really worth shedding tears over? Really! To mourn the loss of a life makes sense, but to expect across the board sympathy simply because a woman's ambitions were not fulfilled, that equals nothing more than flagrant female attention whoring. Its pretty damn simple, women who miscarry wouldn't feel a deep, gut wrenching pain unless they had experienced a true loss. And if they did experience such pain over a clump of cells she is weak and narcissistic, all that took place was a temporary interruption of her maternal ambitions. So please give a hearty "man up" to all the cry baby pro choice miscarriage sufferers.
ReplyDeletePersonally what I find more disturbing than anything is to actually come across mothers, even mothers who've actually lost pregnancies defend abortion. Is it some residual White Knightism that lead me to believe that women would be against abortion due to an ingrained, biological urge to protect and nurture their children? I guess so.
Grerp how old was your son when you adopted him?
ReplyDeleteAnon thank you for reminding me once again that pro-lifers only car about people who are inside a womb.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else laugh at the irony of Rhodamine posting how few abortions are due to rape/incest/coerced sex, and then MS Jess posts mocking Grerp's idea that women be more careful with their sexual activity by invoking rape?
ReplyDeleteAbortion horror show in Philly, here. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/live-and-die-philadelphia_537628.html?nopager=1
Elinor, if you are still here, or any other supporter of abortion: please address the ongoing series of videos coming out of Virginia, New Jersey and other places.
ReplyDeleteIn these videos, we see a man posing as a pimp accompanied by a young woman. He states to the Planned Parenthood worker or workers that he is a pimp, that he has underage girls prostituting for him, and that he needs the services of Planned Parenthood including abortions.
In every case so far, the Planned Parenthood worker has assured the man posing as a pimp of privacy, that girls as young as 13 can obtain abortions with essentially no questions asked. He asks how soon after an abortion his "girls" can go back to their "work", and in one case a Planned Parenthood worker suggests that it shouldn't be too long.
We have a series of videos of a Federally funded organization condoning, and even offering to actively assist, the prostitution of women as well as girls under the age of consent (as well as sex slavery, since the alleged pimp claims to have girls from Thailand working for him). I respectfully submit that this level of corruption is very likely the norm for Planned Parenthood. I further submit that given the corrupting nature of the abortion business, it should be no surprise that Planned Parenthood is corruptable, and indeed corrupt.
Do any of the supporters of abortion have anything to say about this, or about the millions of dollars that doctor in Philadelphia made killing babies?
Here is my meme, if it pleases anyone to use it feel free. No attribution is necessary.
"PP" stands for "Planned Pimping", and nothing more.
@Mister-Y
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Planned Parenthood suffers from a great deal of corruption and stupidity, as does just about any large-scale human organization.
The video is highly disturbing, and obviously no one can legitimately argue that such corruption and idiocy is acceptable, regardless of their stance on abortion.
However, I have always wondered what on earth the legitimacy of PP as an organization has to do with the ethicality of abortion.
The fact remains that you are still ranting on about "killing babies" and largely preaching to the choir. You are assuming that a pregnancy at any stage is a baby. Pro-choicers disagree with this assumption, and pointing out the corruption of one pro-abortion organization does not constitute evidence for your overall stance on abortion.
You seem to be tacitly assuming that if one is pro-choice, one is required to account for the actions of any pro-choice body or individual. This is ridiculous.
By that same logic, I could ask you to address the murders of abortion clinic doctors and other acts of domestic terrorism, simply because these acts were committed by people who share your stance on abortion.
It is true that Planned Parenthood suffers from a great deal of corruption and stupidity, as does just about any large-scale human organization.
ReplyDeleteReally? Planned Pimphood is a business. It happens to be a corrupt one. So you would assert that pimping underaged girls is common, within the business community? I do not think so.
However, I have always wondered what on earth the legitimacy of PP as an organization has to do with the ethicality of abortion.
The fact of the matter is, the abortion business is inherently corrupting, because abortion destroys a unique human being at some stage of life. You can't be in the business of ripping baby parts out of a woman's womb without it coming to affect your ethics -- and yes, Elinor, that is what a D&C abortion involves, ripping a living, pain-feeling person into bits, and then re-assembling them on a tray to make sure all the pieces were removed.
So it should be, again, no surprise that Planned Pimphood is corrupt because it is in a corrupt business.
The fact remains that you are still ranting on about "killing babies" and largely preaching to the choir.
The genetic code of what you no doubt prefer to think of as an "undifferentiated blob of cells" is unique, and uniquely human. And so, it is indeed a human being from the moment of conception.
You are assuming that a pregnancy at any stage is a baby.
It has a unique, one of a kind, combination of human DNA. Left alone, it will in time breath, move and eventually think on its own. What is it, then?
Pro-choicers disagree with this assumption, and pointing out the corruption of one pro-abortion organization does not constitute evidence for your overall stance on abortion.
The business -and it's a business, complete with sales of "leftover parts" for profit - of abortion is inherently corrupting. This corruption and criminal behavior of Planned Pimphood is merely part of the larger corruption resulting from the business of abortion.
You seem to be tacitly assuming that if one is pro-choice, one is required to account for the actions of any pro-choice body or individual. This is ridiculous.
So you do have some limits? You do agree that pimping 13 year old girls is wrong? Is that true? Can you say it?
By that same logic, I could ask you to address the murders of abortion clinic doctors and other acts of domestic terrorism, simply because these acts were committed by people who share your stance on abortion.
Every pro-life person and organization that I know of has condemned without hesitation those criminal acts.
Now again I ask you: do you condemn the pimping of girls, or not?
Well?
@ Mister_Y
ReplyDelete"Really? Planned Pimphood is a business. It happens to be a corrupt one. So you would assert that pimping underaged girls is common, within the business community? I do not think so."
I would assert that corruption is common, which it is. I never claimed that pimping is common within the business community. Besides, this is not about Planned Parenthood pimping underage girls. This is about several Planned Parenthood employees not having the sense or the decency to report such activity. There is a difference there, and it is rather disingenuous of you to equate those situations.
"The fact of the matter is, the abortion business is inherently corrupting, because abortion destroys a unique human being at some stage of life. You can't be in the business of ripping baby parts out of a woman's womb without it coming to affect your ethics -- and yes, Elinor, that is what a D&C abortion involves, ripping a living, pain-feeling person into bits, and then re-assembling them on a tray to make sure all the pieces were removed."
You are simply re-stating your claim that abortion "destroys a unique human being". The key word here is "human being". That the organism is unique cannot be contested. That the organism is human cannot be contested. That the organism in question deserves status as a human being can be and is contested.
Not all abortions entail destroying a "pain-feeling" person. Early stage abortions involve the destruction of an organism that does not even have a nervous system. I have never spoken in support of late stage abortions, I have simply asked pro-lifers to support their claim that humanity begins at conception, and that therefore abortion at any stage constitutes first-degree murder.
I am not Elinor.
"The genetic code of what you no doubt prefer to think of as an "undifferentiated blob of cells" is unique, and uniquely human. And so, it is indeed a human being from the moment of conception."
The fact that the organism possess a unique and human genetic code does not necessarily mean that it possesses any of the other qualities we typically associate with humanity.
Please explain to me how destroying a zygote or an embryo is ethically equivalent to killing a fetus or a baby with limbs, a face, and a nervous system that renders it conscious of pain.
@ Mister_Y
ReplyDelete"It has a unique, one of a kind, combination of human DNA. Left alone, it will in time breath, move and eventually think on its own. What is it, then?"
A zygote? An embryo? How old is it? A pregnancy moves through stages. You are asserting that it is a baby at any stage, and that killing it at any stage is murder. That is a claim. Please support it.
"The business -and it's a business, complete with sales of "leftover parts" for profit - of abortion is inherently corrupting. This corruption and criminal behavior of Planned Pimphood is merely part of the larger corruption resulting from the business of abortion."
I don't know enough about the "abortion business" to evaluate the claims you're making. However, I do know enough about logic to know that the corruption of the people or organizations who support a given practice is not necessarily an indication that the practice itself is immoral. That has been my whole point, and you don't seem to be refuting it so much as dancing around it and re-stating your original claim.
"So you do have some limits? You do agree that pimping 13 year old girls is wrong? Is that true? Can you say it?"
You are again confusing the issues. Planned Parenthood is not pimping underage girls. However, I do believe that it's wrong to do so, and it should be obvious from my previous post. I did already say that "The video is highly disturbing, and obviously no one can legitimately argue that such corruption and idiocy is acceptable, regardless of their stance on abortion."
"Every pro-life person and organization that I know of has condemned without hesitation those criminal acts.
Now again I ask you: do you condemn the pimping of girls, or not?
Well?"
There are still quite a few pro-life people who disagree with you, which is my point. Should you be required to defend the actions of all pro-lifers, even if they are radically different from yours, in order to be consistent? Of course not. But you seem to think that pro-choicers are required to do this whenever some pro-choice individual or organization does something corrupt and/or remarkably stupid.
Again, I do condemn the pimping of underage girls, and I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who don't, regardless of their stance on abortion. Even if there were a lot of pro-choice advocates who supported pimping underage girls, this wouldn't constitute evidence that abortion is murder, or even that abortion at any stage is wrong or should be illegal.
@ Mister_Y:
ReplyDeleteAccording to this article, Planned Parenthood did in fact report this illicit activity, and one of the clinic managers was fired for her actions:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41382676/ns/us_news-life/
Planned Parenthood has also publicly condemned these actions.
What are your thoughts about this?
Given that I used to be an avid reader of Jezebel I want to comment some things.
ReplyDeleteFirst pro-choisers say that they agree with abortion because its not a baby, but in reality is the right of the mother they are protecting. When discussing late term abortions (or the clinic where the doctor that performed infanticide by killing perfectly viable babies) I will say 75% if then were horrified by the conditions this women had to seek the abortion no the babies getting killed and at that point they were babies on all sense of the word). So I will say that pro-choicers consider humanity to be granted only by the woman no matter the stage so if the woman wants the baby is a baby worth of life from conception because is wanted if the woman doesn't want the baby then is not worth it no matter how late in term is. Their philosophy is "her body her choice".
That being said I do believe that killing a life inside of you because you rather have money or a career or because you cannot help to bang every loser on your sight and want sex but no the consequences if biology does what is designed to do is morally wrong, we cannot cheat biology, sex is not pleasurable for no good reason, its pleasurable as an incentive to reproduction thus trying to get one and avoid the other is not always going to end up well and if you are woman or man enough to have sex you should have it when you are woman or man enough to face the consequences. Abortion is the easy way out and the fast solution, I didn't had sex till I knew that if I were to become pregnant I will have means to take care of the baby and I think that every human has the capacity of no to have sex till they are 100% ready of the consequences (with pregnancy being only one) its not that hard, humanity did it for millenia and no one died of abstinence, now dead from sex consequences there are tons of books about it.
That being said I don't believe on imposing my morals on other people. Everyone will face the consequences of their actions and even though I wouldn't be friends with a woman that is banging around gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion or a man that is banging around get a woman pregnant and disappears or force her to abort. I wouldn't want to be the one forcing a poor kid to be raised by her, sadly I do believe some of this kids are better on in heaven that being the offspring of this "modern women" and God will deal with them on due time. I don't think God wants us to take his place as judges and punishers. I think he is taking notes of everyone in his/her own. Salvation is personal so us Damnation, IMO.
Second Elinor if you were really committed about not having a risky pregnancy your husband could had gotten a vasectomy and/or you an hysterectomy, you didn't, you gambled with your reproductive system and you were lucky to have a healthy baby, but you acted irresponsibility using a method that was no 100% sure don't talk about responsibility. Unless you though your birth control was 100% perfect (which will make you an ignorant) you knew the risk and took it.
S.R.
@ S.R.
ReplyDeleteVasectomies do not always take. With either surgery, there are potential complications, some of them are severe. (e.g. lifelong pain).
Things are, as usual, not that simple. Your accusations of irresponsibility are therefore misplaced. You do not have enough information to draw any conclusions. You are simply making assumptions.
Calling abortion "the easy way out and a fast solution" is ignorant. Many women struggle with the issue of abortion. Not all women who decide to get abortions take doing so lightly, as you seem to be assuming.
I am astounded by the double-think that many pro-lifers seem to suffer from when it comes to abortion. One minute they will point out the numerous physiological and psychological difficulties that many women face after aborting. The next they call abortion "an easy solution."
I am sure there are women out there who take abortion lightly, and this is certainly wrong. However, there are also women, like Elinor, who legitimately struggle with it for valid reasons.
Again. Vasectomy and Histerectomy are widespread surgeries if the man was too scared to do it, she could had gotten an histerectomy and no more issues with it. So is not that complicated, they made a choice to use a non 100% method and they paid for it, that is life.
ReplyDeleteI never said that abortion has psychological issues I know plenty of women that have had more than one abortion and they don't regret it so I think it depends on the woman, in fact I know one that got a late term one because she was carrying a boy and her husband and her fought and she wanted to hurt him, because they only had girls at that point.
Again check out Jezebel they had a whole thread dedicated to talking about their abortions and they said that pro-lifers lie about being something that will damage them and most of them are happy about it and not think about it twice except to tell the story to their friends.In fact many of them express that if a minor they know nothing about ask them to help to get an abortion (because minors usually need an adult to take the procedure) whether by posing as their guardian or raising money,they will help them no question asked, so for them being pregnant is more traumatized and problematic than having an abortion. You cannot have it both ways you know?
S.R.
@ S.R.
ReplyDeleteThey are very common surgeries, yes. However, this doesn't mean that there are not complications. Like it or not, an abortion, especially an early stage one, is less invasive than a hysterectomy.
If you believe that abortion at any stage is murder, of course you would never prefer abortion to some other option. Of course, that is exactly the point of contention.
As I said in my previous post, I am sure there are many women who take abortion lightly. This does not mean there aren't any women who struggle with the decision, or who suffer after getting abortions. This isn't about "having it both ways". It's about understanding that the people who disagree with you cannot all be lumped into one category and labeled as irresponsible and/or callous.
Like I said I think abortion is morally wrong, but I wouldn't stop anyone from getting one, neither I support making it illegal. The point is that Elinor is trying to play the victim if she believed that the surgery to make sure she never had to deal with the abortion was not an option then obviously she is already supporting abortion, if she said I had an abortion because I believe is my right as a woman it would be a different story. Real pro-lifers take the safest route to never had to be on the position to have to make an abortion.
ReplyDeleteI would say you are doing to same just on the other way around, thinking that because I find it morally wrong I believe that there no women that might had no other choice to abort. I do, rape and incest victims, but if the idea that you can have sex and be accidentally pregnant is not part of your mind when you choose to have an active sex life (again having sex is a choice no one is forced to it unless you are raped) you are very naive about birth control.
You really think that a woman that gets an unwanted pregnancy from wanted sex is taking the responsible route by getting an abortion? She is taking a choice that will make sure that she will have no to give up anything. Abortion allows to woman to continue with her life as she planned,thus is only responsible to herself and her personal dreams, but if someone decides to have a couple of extra drinks and ends up having an accident and hit someone no one thinks the responsible thing is to run and pretend it never happened isn't? The difference here is that hit and run affects a person with the ability to speak and demand rights and abortion can be kept quiet and private, so no pesky things as rights for the victim.
Again I support women right's to abort, but I don't think very much of women (or men) that want a free out of jail card out of life's inconveniences specially when they had ways to avoid them completely.
S.R.
I never said that you didn't believe there are no women who are forced to abort. I said that you seem to believe everyone who aborts when they could have prevented their pregnancy, presumably through either total abstinence or invasive surgery, is irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you believe that abortion is the destruction of a human being, seeing it as irresponsible to abort under any circumstances in which you could have prevented your pregnancy makes sense. However, if you believe that, it doesn't make any sense to have exceptions for women who are raped or who are the victims of incest. Surely even in those cases murdering an innocent human being is not justifiable.
If abortion is not murder, and if one can get an early stage abortion without killing a human being, it seems highly responsible to get an abortion if you are unable to care for another child, or if the pregnancy is likely to be high risk.
You still seem to be assuming that a voluntarily sexually active woman who chooses to get an abortion must be doing it for entirely selfish reasons, and this is not always true. Although you are right in saying that the number of women who take abortion lightly is disconcertingly large.
First I need to mention that not all pro-choice believe that a fetus its not a human some of them do believe that a fetus is a human but that we as society allow murder under certain circumstances, like self defense, euthanasia or war.
ReplyDeleteI never mentioned the word murder. Is morally wrong because you are ending a life that you willingly created doing an willing act that unless you are six know is part of the risks. The involuntary creation of life when you are forced to have sex or like you said the woman is at risk is different. In the first case the woman didn't participated on an act just out of her heart's content neither she take all the steps logically needed to be part of it so of course she couldn't prevent it and on she didn't make the pregnancy a risk so is like saying that a person that deliberately murder someone deserve the same sentence that a person that does it by accident or by self defense. There is a huge difference when you have the power to choose that when you don't have it, IMO. There were no just one act but several calculated steps that allow a grown woman to have sex and to take precautions. All birth control methods specify clearly that if not used 100% clearly they have a chance to fail.
Of course I will say there are women out there that could justify socially and morally an abortion, but as off now the way the system works is to make it private, personal and guiltless: to use pretty words, to not let women see how horrible is to look at a "fetus" being made into pieces because its distressful to look at. I will say that if abortion is totally morally right they shouldn't be so careful with how is done and how it looks like shouldn't it? So I think the whole think is designed to make women to indeed take it lightly and to be more and more willing to go through it even if they could had done a lot more to prevent to be on that situation. Many of them present themselves as victim of society and biology but they never claimed that they are victims of their own actions and that is pretty much the issue. If every woman looking for an abortion have to present a case to a professional to show that she indeed is not getting and abortion because she enjoys having sex but she doesn't enjoy taking all precautions needed neither prepare herself to assume the consequences if those precautions don't work I can tell you that a big percentage of this women wouldn't ever do anything that places them on the way of abortion ever. But as off now the system is waaay to easy to abuse so they do.
I will repeat again I'm not against legal abortions, but I'm not naive,women are no saints just because they have a vagina.
S.R.
As an anti-abortion person, I think that the debate about abortion and the debate about promiscuity should be kept as far apart as possible. There are many people out there who think that the "real agenda" is to control women's sexuality rather than being concerned with the babies first and foremost. Talking about promiscuity plays up to that prejudice.
ReplyDeleteIt's also worth pointing out that it would be a far better use of time to try to eliminate the conditions that create demand for abortions. Simply outlawing abortion will increase the demand for illegal abortion, which is a bad thing.
Abortion is popular because motherhood is seen as too expensive, inconvenient, etc. Having a child must be made more affordable in terms of health insurance, childcare and myriad other costs.
If only the people in America most against abortion were not the same people in favour of doing nothing against the prohibitive cost of motherhood, some real progress could be made on this issue.