Learning from multiple abortions

[Aella]

Abortion is a medical procedure, and like any medical procedure, it has risks. I wouldn't want to have one if I could avoid it, because I'm not eager to put my body through it-of course, I'd be willing to put it through pregnancy even less, so I'd still have one if I got pregnant. I just think it's sensible from a purely health point of view to try to avoid things getting to that point.

[Charlotte]

This is an extremely interesting & provocative post. I've thought the same thing, about how people say it's murder, but it's ok here or there.

I thought the same about the op. Personally i'm for abortion on demand and without apology but i didn't agree with what the op said. Abortion is killing, yes. It stops the development of a z/e/f which is life in it's most rudimentary form (which is relevant as in the clash of rights you have grown woman, contributor to society versus a conglomeration of cells - at least in the first trimester of pregnancy, anyway). This isn't murder. Murder is a legal label. It is defined entirely by the law, thus if the law says it isn't murder, it isn't murder. Ironically enough even if the fetus was granted personhood an abortion would still not be considered murder as the right to bodily integrity outweighs the right to life. No person can be forced to parasitically sustain another life form off their own body, regardless of situation or circumstance.

Or the reverse - that it's NOT murder, but it's bad, and you shouldn't do it, or at most only once.

To be honest i believe abortion is amoral, it's - whether it's 'good' or 'bad' is entirely relative and depends on personal opinion.

believe that abortion is the killing of human life, yet I can't bring myself to demand that it be illegal. I guess I just think that some things are worse than death, but then again, who is to say? Many people are born into terrible, adverse circumstances but ultimately live happy lives. I don't suppose that I'll ever stop second-guessing myself on this topic.

Who is to say? The woman carryng the pregnancy. Ultimately it's her decision to make. Women will continue to have abortions regardless of whether they're legal or not. Look at Latin America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3194680.stm

and another good link:

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l10/l10chap1_2.shtml

I'm emphasising this as it's the reality of illegal abortion. That and abandoned newborns, newborns killed, and born deformed (as in Romania under Ceausescu) after unsuccessful abortion attempts.

By the way, hope you don't think i'm 'attacking' you at all - i just picked your post as it addressed the points i wanted to make.

[crumpet]

Lobelia:
Thank you for the very thoughtful and respectful response you wrote to my post. I prefer that opposing opinions on issues be dealt with that way and you were extremely articulate about it.

That said, I also feel that abortion is a private issue even though I wholeheartedly support the legalization of it. I also would not ask someone about their history with it. I've also never thought to ask someone if they ever gave a baby up for adoption, or if they have ever had a miscarriage. I do not believe that a desire for privacy=shame. I've always been diligent about birth control becasue I never wanted to face that decision, not the emotional or physical components of it. When I was a teen, I knew how hard my mom worked as a single mother and I could have never put her through that. I actually share the frustrations that many of you have about repeat abortions. Just because I think it's none of my business how many someone has, it is very trying to hear a good friend (an RN no less) who is in her thirties talk about her second abortion after she had said how much she hated the whole experience of the first one. Her initial rationale (for the first abortion) was that since she'd had a lot of unprotected sex and never gotten pregnant she didn't think that she could. That is just plain idiotic and a medical professional of all people should know better. The second time she'd had sex with a new boyfriend and didn't use protection (no pill OR condom) and was very upset to learn she was pregnant. I mean, goddamn!! It's not like you didn't know fully well you could get pregnant this time and you hated the experience the first time so what the hell is going on in your head?? And this is a friend who thinks it is just soooo trashy to be able to hear other people having sex in another room. Maybe it is, but who is she to talk? How many stds has she exposed herself to all these times?

[AliceInWonderland]

Originally Posted by Sojiita

married and then pregnant..

or so she wants you all to believe ....

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I
Look at Latin America.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3194680.stm

and another good link:
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l10/l10chap1_2.shtml

omg that link about unsafe abortions was downright sickening! those poor women AFter reading that; I feel so lucky and grateful to have safe access to abortion if and when I need it.

[Lobelia]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Who is to say? The woman carryng the pregnancy. Ultimately it's her decision to make. Women will continue to have abortions regardless of whether they're legal or not. Look at Latin America.

I think you entirely missed my point. I said:

I guess I just think that some things are worse than death, but then again, who is to say?

And I will assert that no, it's not for the woman carrying the pregnancy to say. Very obviously so, because these women are proven wrong thousands of times every single day.

It's tempting to muddy the water between the two issues of "who decides what quality of life is worth living?" and "who decides if a woman must carry a pregnancy?"

I am saying that none of us is qualified to to definitively address the first issue, and the examples that I gave in my post give my rationale for that, but here's another stab at it.

I was one of those babies who "should" have been aborted - there were several good reasons for it, and many would (and DID) argue that I would have a very poor quality of life & wouldn't turn out well. I beg to differ, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to prove them wrong. I am not even a particularly good example. There are children born into the absolute worst of circumstances who ultimately triumph over those circumstances, and bless the world with their lives.

And then we all know people who born into quite favorable circumstances, and yet turned out horribly, and become a burden upon their families and society.

The mothers of all these children could not accurately predict with certainty if their children would have been better off had they had never been born. Ditto for women who have abortions.

We are simply not qualified to determine who is worthy of life, and who would be better off dead, based upon circumstances of birth. Or circumstances of life, for that matter - how many times in history have people been exterminated because others rationalize that they are better off dead because they're mentally ill, retarded or deformed? Who is this person with this wisdom, who precisely and accurately decides which lives are worth living?

As for everything you said about "murder", I'm just not that interested in that aspect of this issue (legal definitions & classifications). Some people want to split hairs and argue for days about when life begins, or when the fetus is granted full "person" status (for example, the same organism inside the womb is NOT a person, yet 30 seconds later it IS a person, worthy of legal protection because it is fully outside the womb), etc., ad nauseum.

As I said, I believe that abortion is the killing of human life, and society's current legal definitions of "murder" and "person" etc. are, in my opinion, of secondary importance to the issue of ethics (NOT to be confused with morality.) However, human life has always been expendable, sometimes to the point of being cheap and disposable. People have always killed people, and they probably always will.

If you were to give me the power to raise all the aborted embryos and fetuses with the wave of my hand, my hypocritical ass wouldn't do it, because I don't even like people all that much and I don't want all those thousands of folks clogging things up even more than they are now. But if you handed me whatever they use to abort fetuses, and told me to abort one, I couldn't.

If you want me, I'll be sewing a big scarlet "H" on all my clothing...

[Mel1973]

Well, I'm with Lobelia... give me an "H" on my sweater too. I've never had to make the choice - although, I did give birth without the benefit of marriage, abortion wasn't something I considered. I wanted my baby and I had him and have never regretted it for a moment. But... I also know someone who aborted a "baby" at about 6 months pregnant. I really don't give a shit when you abort, but by gosh, when this "baby" is my brother's and you wanted that baby, had a baby shower, ultrasound, knew the sex, named the baby - then, fuck you for aborting the baby because you and the sperm donor had a falling out. That's vengeful and what I might consider EVIL.

On a lighter note, I think Paris should have been a blow job...

[Charlotte]

I guess I just think that some things are worse than death, but then again, who is to say?

It was an obscure point. And you're right - who is to say? In the absence of such enlightenment human nature will prevail and women will make their own decisions regarding their own pregnancies. And in my opinion they have every right to do so.

And I will assert that no, it's not for the woman carrying the pregnancy to say. Very obviously so, because these women are proven wrong thousands of times every single day.

'Proven wrong', in what way? I dont think it's up to anyone apart from the pregnant woman to decide whether their abortion is 'right' or 'wrong'.

If you choose to believe that 'it's not for the woman carrying the pregnancy to say' then that's your choice. You are however wrong. As long as abortion is legal it IS up to the pregnant woman. Beyond this is a philosophical quagmire.

It's tempting to muddy the water between the two issues of "who decides what quality of life is worth living?" and "who decides if a woman must carry a pregnancy?"

Indeed.

I am saying that none of us is qualified to to definitively address the first issue, and the examples that I gave in my post give my rationale for that, but here's another stab at it.

I disagree. I believe that pregnant women are supremely qualified to make decisions over their own pregnancies.

I was one of those babies who "should" have been aborted - there were several good reasons for it, and many would (and DID) argue that I would have a very poor quality of life & wouldn't turn out well. I beg to differ, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to prove them wrong. I am not even a particularly good example. There are children born into the absolute worst of circumstances who ultimately triumph over those circumstances, and bless the world with their lives.

Sorry, but i don't see how this is at all relevant. For a woman who doesn't want to continue her pregnancy then the here and now is all that matters - not what could be. Ruminating over the prospect of not existing should your mother have made a different choice is pointless. The issue, in my opinion, begins and ends with the woman.

The mothers of all these children could not accurately predict with certainty if their children would have been better off had they had never been born. Ditto for women who have abortions.

Life is not accurate. You simply make the best of what you have. And you make decisions looking at what options are open to you at a particular time. I fail to see the point in what you're saying. Sorry.

We are simply not qualified to determine who is worthy of life, and who would be better off dead, based upon circumstances of birth.

That's an opinion. Why aren't we, exactly? We may not be 'qualified' (does such a qualification even exist?) but we still do it. It may seem repugnant based on our own societal conception of rights (and again, our own sense of entitlement) - but the fact remains that this is an unknown. There is no person that can say we do have the right, and there is no person that can say we don't have the right. We simple 'go with the flow' of history.

Or circumstances of life, for that matter - how many times in history have people been exterminated because others rationalize that they are better off dead because they're mentally ill, retarded or deformed? Who is this person with this wisdom, who precisely and accurately decides which lives are worth living?[

Does there need to be a person with this wisdom? You're talking about general nature now. In human nature/general nature there exists no inherent rights or wrongs. There is only opinion, personal or mass. Humans may have a sense of entitlement but nature itself owes us nothing. It doesn't afford us any rights either - we award those to ourselves. And even then they're fluid. Survival of the fittest etc.

As i said previously- i disagree with you. In my opinion it is entirely up to the woman to make her own choices depending on her own circumstances and her own wishes. This philosophy isn't based in reality either - the fact is that women have been aborting pregnancies for as long as they have been having them, regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. The results of the latter can be seen in the links i provided. Besides, the right to life doesn't outweigh the right to bodily integrity - a woman is no more obligated to provide a womb than she is to provide blood or a spare organ.

As for everything you said about "murder", I'm just not that interested in that aspect of this issue (legal definitions & classifications). Some people want to split hairs and argue for days about when life begins, or when the fetus is granted full "person" status (for example, the same organism inside the womb is NOT a person, yet 30 seconds later it IS a person, worthy of legal protection because it is fully outside the womb), etc., ad nauseum.

Well yes, they are. I'm not one to split hairs however - the legal definition (and killing is defined by the law) is quite clear. As is the definition of person. Neither that nor the argument over when life begins is not, in my opinion, important to the debate. In fact i believe them to be entirely irrelevant. A person cannot be forced to sustain the life of another off their own bodies, regardless of whether it's a fetus/unborn baby, non person, person, retard, or Einstein.

As I said, I believe that abortion is the killing of human life, and society's current legal definitions of "murder" and "person" etc. are, in my opinion, of secondary importance to the issue of ethics (NOT to be confused with morality.) However, human life has always been expendable, sometimes to the point of being cheap and disposable. People have always killed people, and they probably always will.

Indeed. Again, i disagree. If you believe the abortion debate to be an ethical debate then leave legal definitions out of it altogether if you only consider them to be secondary. Terms such as 'murder' and 'person' are legal terms - not moral or ethical terms. Sure, morals and ethics influence the law, but there is a dividing line. If someone was to argue that abortion IS murder then they would, by default, be wrong. If someone is arguing that abortion SHOULD be classed as murder then that is a different thing altogether.

In the case of abortion it makes sense to legalise it as the negative effects of making it illegal far outweigh (in terms of human suffering and death) any positive effects (if any) a ban might have.

If you were to give me the power to raise all the aborted embryos and fetuses with the wave of my hand, my hypocritical ass wouldn't do it, because I don't even like people all that much and I don't want all those thousands of folks clogging things up even more than they are now. But if you handed me whatever they use to abort fetuses, and told me to abort one, I couldn't.

Well that's your perogative.

[crumpet]

Neither that nor the argument over when life begins is not, in my opinion, important to the debate. In fact i believe them to be entirely irrelevant. A person cannot be forced to sustain the life of another off their own bodies, regardless of whether it's a fetus/unborn baby, non person, person, retard, or Einstein.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. That has been my belief all along,too. It absolutely scares the bejeezus out of me when I hear people say things like, "Once a woman is pregnant it is not her body anymore, it belongs to the baaayyyybeee" or the morons who try to say that the potential human in a woman's abdomen is her equal and has as much rights as she does. Equating women with fetuses is so demeaning to women as though they are nothing more that walking incubators. I agree 100% that no one should be made to allow something else to live off of her body and that she should have to suffer all the potential risks that go along with being pregnant because some zygote wants to grow up. It's also a silly argument to say that if my mother had an abortion I wouldn't be here. No shit! It's not like I'd know any difference or be suffering for it so why is that even mentioned? Yes, I do still think it would have been her right. Worse are the so-called Christians who don't like my view on abortion and out of anger tell me that I should have been aborted. While we're on this topic I'd also like to point out my disgust at the WHO who is suggesting all childbearing aged women act as though they are pre-pregnant. Great. So now adult women shouldn't drink, smoke, skydive or otherwise do anything that you shouldn't do while pregnant because after all, we're all just potential baby carriers and people who don't even exist yet should be more important to us than our own lives. Fuck you WHO!!! Same goes for docs who don't want to give women certain meds that we may needs (acutane is one example) because gawd forbid we get knocked up and then the bayyyybee might be damaged. Yeah, fuck what I need.

It makes me so angry because I am an intelligent, high functioning adult and I'm sick of being treated like a broodmare. Women don't like being sex objects but to me being treated like a flesh and blood incubator is every bit as demeaning and insulting.

[Grimmlok]

Again, I repeat that the unexplored niche market of Abortion Showers has yet to be tapped..

I wonder if it would be proper to get a clown for one, like birthdays..

[moncherie]

I have a coworker, who is in her mid-twenties and has had 8 abortions. How's that for insanity?

[Grimmlok]

That's a little excessive. Has she never heard of a condom before?

I can imagine how many STD's she has.

[Mel1973]

Originally Posted by moncherie

I have a coworker, who is in her mid-twenties and has had 8 abortions. How's that for insanity?

Well, now that's just a lot. She must be fairly intelligent
obviously looooves to do some fucking too. 8 is too many - the fact that she tells people she had 8 is also indicative of a high iq - she should stop fucking altogether because 8 unwanted pregnancies = at least 8 hosings with strange jism and who knows what the fuck she has - it also indicates that she isn't smart enough to be contributing to the gene pool (not enough chlorine for her kind)????? DEESCUSTING (as my son would say).

[Lobelia]

Charlotte, I am not even going to read all that bullshit. Why the fuck are you trying to pick an argument with me? You obviously are either not reading my posts well or they're over your head. I never said abortion should be illegal! Get off my fucking back!

[Grimmlok]

Uh, you should read it. She's just responding to your posts. There's nothing mean in them.

[Lobelia]

Uh, I wasn't talking to you.

I guess I should be flattered that someone wants to take my post & dissect it into pieces and then blather on about how they completely miss my point, AGAIN AND AGAIN, OVER AND OVER, but I'm not.