I’ll be quite frank; These are my views on abortion. They aren’t “right”, they aren’t “wrong”, but they’re mine none the less.
I am not pro-life. I don’t believe in completely outlawing abortion, and I don’t believe in the radicals that firebomb abortion clinics. I don’t believe in denying birth control or keeping people in the dark about it.
I am neither pro-choice. I don’t believe that you should be able to walk into a clinic and commit infantcide without evaluations. I don’t believe that it’s completely “your body, your choice”; you’re forgetting the other half that made it.
I stand somewhere in the “anti-choice” section by default.
I might get a lot of flak for this, but most women who get abortions are selfish. Children concieved from rape, incest, or the child could potentially kill the mother that are aborted are less that what, 10%?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Almost half of the abortions the past few years were due to not using any form of birthcontrol. You would think that their parents, or even the schools, would drill it into their heads that if you’re going to sleep around, at least be smart about it. The other half were from using birth control…poked holes in condoms? Unsafe foreplay? what? I’d like to at least know what that section is about.
Secondly, apparently less than 0.5% of the abortions were the husbands or boyfriends asking them to have one, and another 0.5% for rape. Apparently men aren’t the savage brutes we all thought they were! /sarcam.
The two biggies for abortion?
Can’t afford the baby and Unready.
Maybe if you were “unready” you could possibly keep your legs closed? Just a thought? If you can’t afford a kid, I hope to god you can afford a pack of birth control pills and a few sets of condoms.
You can justify these things in certain situations, such as carrying the child to term might kill the both of you, or that the child will be born with severe defects, physically and mentally. But it is selfish when you do it because you “want a little girl” and not the 4th little boy; It’s selfish when you knowingly try to get pregnate to “save” a relationship and then fall back on abortion for your mistakes. Or even worse, willingly poking holes in condoms to try to trap a girlfriend into a relationship or “forgetting” to take your pills to trap your boyfriend.
I really do not think kindly of people who had abortions for selfish reasons like that. Deal with the thought of the consequences before you open your legs, because you’re literally killing something that inconviences you.
To fix this, I think you’d need to have
a) a Psychiatric evaluation
b) a Doctor’s evaluation
c) Signed papers from the other half of the relationship
It’s not fair to expect your boyfriend to agree with you on it. It’s not fair to do it anyways if he objects. You slept with him, you deal with him and try to find a way to come to a compromise, even if it’s him raising the child as a single father.
There is always precautions, and I’d wish people would start taking them.
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 2, 2007 at 3:36 am
Bruce
Abortion numbers are far too high…
Over 3,500 per day / Over 1.3 million per year in America alone.
50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.
A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.
And 2% had medical reasons.
That means a staggering 98% of unwanted pregnancies may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.
There are an estimated 34 million women in need of contraceptive services in America — those who are not sterilized, pregnant or trying to conceive.
34 million…if the pill is 99% effective that means 1% of 34mill = 340,000 + 26,000 for the 2% = 366,000…………….
366,000 abortions per year..Doesn’t that sound better than 1.3 million…
And it could be even less, some of the implants are 99.9% effective….
0.1% of 34mill = 34,000 + 26,000 for the 2% = 60,000………WOW……..
1.3 million per year or 60,000 per year….
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET AN IMPLANT (in arm)
THAT IS SAFE, 99.9% EFFECTIVE AND LASTS FOR THREE YEARS?
Implanon is new to the US but has been widely used in Aus for about five years.
The only bad report iv’e heard is if your a smoker you can’t use them due to increased risk of cardiovascular conditions.
Good incentive to give the cigs a miss…………
(not hard to work out which one I’d rather give up.)
Any way my daughter has one, and no problems, no pills to remember,and she is protected from unwanted pregnancies for three years.
(in fact our GP told my daughter they were 100% effective but they’ve left a 0.1% margin for error in case)
But wait, how do we get them all to use birth control, many I’ve encountered spit chips at the mere mention of the idea.
I know their are a number of people who can’t use birth control for one reason or another.
But is that true for all types of birth control, their are many different types to choose from, surely one to suite most every-one.
I would suggest that the number of people that can’t use any of them at all would be very small but many use this as their reason.
If only people would choose to use birth control,
They wouldn’t have to make another choice……..
http://www.sexual-health-resource.org/hormonal_birth_control.htm
Cash payments for using birth control…………..
http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/02/project-preventionthe-road-as-opposed.html
March 2, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Davout
Hi K,
“…..you’re forgetting the other half that made it”
Bravo. It’s a pleasure to see a woman who argues against ‘woman’s body, woman’s right’.
What is your stance on birth control methods that are abortifacients? Also, do you see evidence for life beginning at conception? I personally haven’t seen any scientific evidence pinpointing a specific time weeks after conception that says ‘that’s when life begins, therefore one can abort a fetus/embryo before this time’.
I disagree with you on abortion wrt severe mental defects (it presumes that babies born with such defects cannot recover). Also, Down’s Syndrome babies are aborted to the tune of 91-93%, even though these babies can grow up to be relatively functional human beings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down’s_syndrome
I agree with you on abortion to save the mother’s life but only if every effort has been made to save the baby.
BTW IMO you should not define yourself as ‘anti-choice’ but ‘pro-life’, because anti-choice is the feminists’ choice of word to pigeonhole those disputing their views on abortion. ‘Pro-life’ puts the burden of proof on feminists to show they are not pro-death. ‘Anti-choice’ puts the burden of proof on its advocates to show that they are not ‘against women’s choices’. You can win both lines of argument, but the route to victory is shorter starting from a ‘pro-life’ stance.
P.S.: Care to do a link exchange?
March 2, 2007 at 4:15 pm
K.
Bruce- Those are some pretty disturbing facts when you put it into those terms. I think people spit chips at the thought because it’s a “it would never happen to me!” That’s pretty much what a lot of people here say in our health classes and such. The presumption is everyone is a virgin/barren or can take care of themself, when really it’s the exact opposite P: It’s a little disturbing.
Davout- My mother always taught me to only sleep with me that I think would be good fathers in case I got pregnate. I think it’s a good mantra to have.
I’m not too pleased with birth control abortifacients. Since the Morning After pill really doesn’t kill, but instead supresses ovulation (which means it tries to prevent it), I can support it. It prevents abortion.
However, actual hormonal abortions? Should be sold in the clinic after you sign papers and recognize it as an abortion (the termination of a fetus-child growing inside you).
With the severe mental defects, I meant more along the types of people who cannot take care of themselves, or that they are so mentally or physically deformed that they cannot have any type of happy life. I don’t believe that you should subject a child to that.
Unfortunately, with the anti-choice and pro-life deal, both are seen as fanatical where I live. As well, the shorter path may not be the one that makes the most impact
Would love to do a link exchange! Thanks for asking (adding you now)
March 2, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Bruce
I am an athiest, and a 98 % pro-lifer.
Largely pro-life due to my belief that life for “me” began at conception, that was the start of my existance, that was my own personal “big bang” (pardon the pun).
Three weeks after conception my heart started to beat.
First brain waves were recorded at six weeks after conception.
Seen sucking my thumb at seven weeks after conception.
You see, although moments after conception I was no more than a clump of cells, that clump of cells was me, I might have had a lot of growing to do but that clump of cells was me just the same.
I am glad I was left unhindered, to develope further,
safe inside my mothers womb until I was born.
They are our equil, no more or no less.
March 2, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Fred X
My stance:
Abortion should only ever be used to save the life of the mother or if the child will suffer through severe abnormalities
And by severe- I mean that the baby will be in pain and the chances of its survival are nil
In regards to when a child develops- I would say that at the moment of the sperm meeting the egg- that’s where it all begins for me
And if we ever give in to the idea that ‘rape’ is grounds for abortion- then we run the risk of seeing overly-inflated figures where women simply state this so they can get one done
They have the choice now- but remember- they can ALSO get it done on demand
If we took away any other reason EXCEPT for saving the mothers life or ‘rape’- then this would only INFLATE the false noting of ‘rape’ as a ‘legitimate’ reason for termination
Trust me- this WOULD happen and we could even trace back the records to show how the incidence of stating ‘rape’ was when abortion WAS readily available- to when it ISN’T
Those are my thoughts here
March 2, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Davout
Thanks for the link, K.
Your mum taught you well but IMO you should take it a step further and avoid pre-marital sex because you can get taken advantage of more easily outside of marriage (protective instincts coming to the fore lol!). One reason why feminism is more prevalent among single mothers is that some of them are extremely resentful from having been screwed over by PUAs.
RU-486, is an indirect abortifacient: The pill dissolves the uterine lining, causing the fertilized egg to be excreted. If conception occurs from the point the sperm fuses with the egg and one assumes life begins at conception, this would come under the label of abortion, because it becomes the equivalent of flushing a baby down the toilet. Even if the fertilized egg wasn’t implanted in the uterine lining, and the RU-486 removed the lining, the zygote gets flushed out minus the lining at some point.
Wrt rape, I agree with Fred’s position. I also don’t think that the rapist should have any parental rights unless the raped parent explicitly wishes it to be so.
Bruce,
As an atheist, can you tell me where the basis of your morality comes from?
I am curious because I have not met one who can give me the answer to this question. Most atheists I know support abortion, so you are a rarity.
March 2, 2007 at 7:15 pm
K.
Fred - As for the rape thing, they’d have to keep the dna as evidence and then charge the woman with infantcide if it turns out it was not rape; a physical examination a few months prior after the rape occured (to ensure actual statistics of rape) along with a police report, and follow up. It seems a bit extreme, but really, this would probably stop alot of the drunken sex if you don’t have abortion to fall back on with shit hits the fan.
I also don’t want women to raise a rapist’s child; but there should be something in place that makes sure that the woman was raped, and that this is for her benefit, not because of a mistake she made with birthcontrol.
Davout- I have been avoiding pre-marital sex
I still haven’t had sex even though almost everyone I know has, are, or planning drunken party nights in order to get laid. But that puts me in a tricky *position* (snerk sorry) when it comes to a) finding someone who will happily wait for marriage near my age and b) find a way of pleasing a guy without being a whore.
If that’s the case with RU-486, then I’d have to sit on the fence. I’d love for people to take birthcontrol along side of using condoms and such, or use birth control pills with an alternative (such as all those fancy jellies etc), but I know people won’t. I don’t think I’d ever use it (as I would be responsible), but I won’t condemn others who do. Now, if the girl repeatively used it, then I’d have to raise an eyebrow at that.
March 2, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Davout
K,
Wrt (b), ask the guy why he is so interested in focusing in on the activity which constitutes less than 1% of married life, rather than the other 99%. Someone once told me: If you can tolerate being stuck in a Greyhound bus for three days with a girl, without having sex, marry her!
As for the peer pressure you are experiencing, it helps to calmly make it clear from the beginning of a relationship where you stand on sex and why.
March 3, 2007 at 8:48 am
feminist_scum
Fred, I agree with you, except I do think women should be able to have abortions if they have been raped. I know women can easily lie, and that’s why I’d only allow it if they can prove rape has taken place.
March 3, 2007 at 8:50 am
feminist_scum
Davout, I am an Atheist as well. We decide for ourselves what our own morality is. I’m not pro choice either.
March 3, 2007 at 5:17 pm
A Feminist's Nightmare
1) Well honestly, I do not believe anyone has to be religious to have decent morals. Religion is mostly irrelevant to a sense of morals, all that is really necessary is a sense of compassion and empathy.
Religions that take themselves too seriously actually get in the way of human compassion. The witch hunts and myriad of religious wars are good examples of that.
2) It is true that abortions are overused as a method of birth-control, but there are still a few cases where it is justified.
As far as downs syndrome goes, as a pregnant couple, our family physician indicated to us that there were very many complications related to having a downs syndrome baby that would make abortion a much more desirable alternative. There is also the fact that many downs syndrome children who are born, tend to die young, and suffer many health problems.
As far as rape is concerned, one solution is to only allow women who have reported the rape and sought proper medical attention to have an abortion. Therefore, if she just says she was raped, that’s not good enough, she should have to prove by way of a rape kit and medical exam that the baby is against her will. Otherwise, they can bring the baby to term and give it up for adoption.
3) As far as pre-marital sex goes, as someone happily married, realize that the modern institution of marriage is largely just a legal contract, with no real ability to bind anyone to anything. The real bond occurs between two people. My husband and I lived together for three years before we got legally married, and I think that we’re better-off for it. The important thing for us was not the piece of paper (because that’s all it is) but the emotional bond we shared. A successful relationship is built around honesty and trust. Unfortunately, it’s just too easy to betray that trust for too many people. It’s too easy to drop everything during the first fight. Real love takes time, and real love endures. That’s what makes it love.
March 3, 2007 at 10:54 pm
A Feminist's Nightmare
K. by the way, quite a few women/girls seem to regret or are jealous, when I tell them that my husband was my first and last. I usually avoid coming out with that kind of information because it is so abnormal, but I am surprised every time I hear them wishing the same for themselves, especially if they ended up with someone they actually like.
And I mean, let`s face it, it makes the relationship very special, especially when it applies to both partners.
And believe me, it is worth while to wait for the right partner. you`re doing the right thing.
March 5, 2007 at 8:02 am
Rob Fedders
It’s interesting on what people believe about abortion. Pro-deathers are quick to point out that the majority of people are in favour of abortion - but most often fail to show the real survey questions which illustrate that yes, ***most*** agree with abortion in cases of rape etc etc., much as everyone here does, but also that ***most*** are completely opposed to abortion for frivolity/birthcontrol/life-planning etc. - But pro-death reports consistently skewer stats to say the “majority” approve - while really, it the majority only approve for extreme circumstance. The view of the commenters here is by far the view of the majority.
Also, here something interesting from Carey Roberts about how Roe vs. Wade came about - pretty sneaky of the fembots.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040304
“Consider the case of Norma McCorvey. She became pregnant in 1969. In order to get an abortion, she falsely claimed that she had been raped by her boyfriend. Her attorneys did not prevail under Texas law, so they appealed, the case eventually reaching the Supreme Court.
To protect her confidentiality, McCorvey was referred to as Jane Roe. In their famous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled in McCorvey’s favor, establishing abortion as a “fundamental” right for women. But one must wonder, if the Supreme Court had known that the pregnancy was concensual and not the result of rape, would the split decision have gone the other way?”
————————————
And this brings up something in its own right. If abortion were to be legal only in cases of rape etc. - one has to wonder how high that false accusations of rape would soar. I mean there is virtually zero penalty for framing a guy for rape, so this would result in a massive increase of men being falsely imprisoned for rape.
The unborn dead, or thousands upon thousands of falsely accused & imprisoned men.
Wow.
Feminism sucks the life out of society on so many levels it is just inconceivable.
March 5, 2007 at 9:08 am
Rob Fedders
Feminist Nightmare,
You said: “Well honestly, I do not believe anyone has to be religious to have decent morals. Religion is mostly irrelevant to a sense of morals, all that is really necessary is a sense of compassion and empathy.
Religions that take themselves too seriously actually get in the way of human compassion. The witch hunts and myriad of religious wars are good examples of that.”
—-
I have been contemplating tackling this very situation on my blog. I am a non-religious person who very much believes that society will collapse with religion. In fact, there is no society that has ever existed in history that did not have a religion affiliated with it. Communist countries abolish religion, but comparatively, they have yet to prove their endurance, and they basically just took over a religious country and then made religion illegal.
The first thing that must be established is that we are supposed to have separation of Church AND State - not Church from State. All of the bad things that people say about religion in regard to the past blatantly ignores this - and it makes sense, for it is the “party line” which has been propagandized at people for decades now with the specific intention of discrediting religion.
If you have a look throughout history, you will notice that all of those “evils” were actually when the State and Church were one. It matters not whether the Church takes over the State or the State takes over the Church. The fact of the matter is that when the State controls both the law and people’s morals, BAD things happen. In fact, it might be more accurate to blame the State for all of those past evils rather than religion. Currently the Middle East does not have separation of Church and State - and this is the mess you get, always! Keeping the two separate makes two unrelated spheres which counter eachother and provide for a multi-leveled free society that does not go batshit insane. One controls laws, one controls morals - mixing the two is deadly.
What we have now is not separation of Church and State. The State usurped the power of marriage, which is 100% an institution of religion, and the State pushing for Atheism is also not a separation, but rather a State religion. Atheism is a form of religion. The State punishing ministers for preaching against homosexuality is not separation of Church and State either. This argument goes both ways - but just like how most people are duped to believe feminism = equality between the sexes (not gender - gender describes vocabulary), so one must realize that the populace has been propagandized to believe that all of the evils in history are the fault of religion - while ignoring that the State controlled the religion and used it for its own purposes. Propaganda via sleight of hand.
The reason why the far left & the Marxofeminists etc. are so determined to get rid of religion is because religion MASSIVELY counters the dialectic which they so desperately need in order pass their agendas - and in fact, even to continue to exist. ALL Marxism, Psychology, Sociology & Feminism arrived after Hegel came up with the philosophy “the truth is relative” in the 1800’s.
That may seem insignificant, but it is not. It is massively important. Being able to identify the truth as anything you wish it to be or can argue it to be, should be limited because that can lead to very dangerous situations for ALL of humanity. The Bible (& all religions) focus on the very black and white that God exists, God is more powerful, etc etc etc. This pins humanity to certain anchor point, if you will. Society can stray, but the Bible cannot be rewritten nor edited, therefore it “loosely” sets society in the right general direction. It may bump along the walls like a drunken sailor at times, but it more or less goes in the right direction.
Without acknowledging that some things are “black and white, right and wrong” mankind can convince himself of anything over time. Even that killing unborn babies is perfectly normal and something to celebrated as a human advancement. Why not euthenasia, too? Do you want me to argue, using the truth is relative, why you should be put to sleep when you turn 65? It’s really not that hard. But, if you believe that some things are right or wrong without question, however, it then gets pretty hard.
Imagine how off the wall things could go over a century, or two, or three. Mankind might not even be recognizeable to us. The scenarios for pure evil are endless.
Makes you wonder why the far-left in California (?) is trying to ban the US Constitution from being taught in schools, doesn’t it? They argue that it references God and therefore it does not respect separation of Church “from” State. This is creeping up fast, everyone should watch out.
They need those documents to be gone to implement the changes they want. Thus the push for a “living constitution” which the Founding Fathers had absolutely zero intention of providing - in fact, quite the opposite.
It is interesting, on my above theory to notice the differences between the US Bill of Rights and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the USA, people are granted “inalienable rights” FROM GOD. God is absolute, rights are absolute. It is pinned solidly to this base.
Here in Canada, our Charter of Rights was written a couple of decades ago by a Prime Minister who was a Marxist admirer, and now it makes sense to me why the Charter is written how it is. It is set up to allow for the dialectic arguments of Hegel & Marx, which allow it to be “living,” which really means that the people who control it can make whatever they want out of it for whatever agenda they wish to push. It is also presided over by judges who are not responsible to the electorate in any way and is specifically designed to over-rule the majority will of the people. Therefore, here in Canada we get stupid things like our first 3-parent family, due to gay marriage - and this will most certainly lead to polygamous marriage, just like what is starting to happen in Scandinavia who also have such wishy washy Hegelian Dialectic “Truth is Relative” BS all through their system.
Interesting to note is that because of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights which are based in black & white/right & wrong, the US is still FAR less feminized than most other western countries.
Interestingly, the US Birthrate is still “survivable” at 2.1/couple, while Canada is 1.5/couple (dying) while even more feminized countries like Spain who can interpret their “laws” to mean anything (like making it illegal for men not to do 50% of housework), has only a 1.1/couple birthrate and is already lost to the hoards of immigrants from 3rd world nations they need to import for the workforce, just to keep the GDP high enough to pay the debt. They are toast.
There is far more to the religious argument than meets the eye. But rest assured, society will not be better if the Left has their way with religion. Btw, what the Left wants IS to control religion.
At any rate. I should have posted this on my blog, because I yammered on and on, didn’t I? Oh well, it helped me work it out.
March 5, 2007 at 12:15 pm
A Canadian Liberal Against Feminism
And that’s exactly why the femifascists will never win, because they made it impossible for themselves to win. Religious truth was always relative, and it still is, it really just depends on who you ask.
You see, religion is anything that we want it to be, and it always has been. All religion is man’s attempt to prove himself smarter than God, and is truly foolish. Even Islam is not actually submission to God, but another attempt at dominating God. True submission must be the acceptance that one simply cannot know the unknowable, and cannot dominate the indomitable.
Anyway, the femifascists can never fully dominate religion, since every person’s religious experience can be infinitely variable. Since religion is whatever people want it to be, you can make a religion which eschews all definitions of the family, and is pro-abortion etc. But you can make an equally (actually at this point, more powerful) religion which is against all that. At present it’s called Evangelical Christianity. You see, religion is God’s tool (or maybe humanity’s tool) for making sure that no one will ever be dominant enough to destroy ourselves. By always fracturing no one is every big enough to pose any real risk to everybody. Yes, there’s always risk to a few people, but you’ll never be able to mess up all the people. How elegant, and intricate, yet surprisingly simple.
There’s hope yet.
March 5, 2007 at 3:43 pm
K.
Sorry I haven’t been able to reply, it’s crunch week in college!
Davout- Good idea, I’ll have to start using greyhound buses more often!
femnightmare - no one needs religion to have morals, but it ’s much easier to have them if it’s a shared belief (humans are unfortunately herd animals too!)
Rob- your comment is absolutely the best read I’ve had all day. I very much agree, and I’ve been seeing how the fem’s are starting to change the laws to their own will because it was not set in stone (everyone has the freedom to - but where do their fist end and our nose begins?)
I’ll try to post some more soon.
March 5, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Davout
K,
Let me know which one you’re getting on ;-)!
Rob,
Nice post. The Tories are doing well in the polls. Hope that trend continues cos the Libs want to bring back the SOW.
ACLAF,
I’m not clear on why you say that religion is anything one wants it to be and that religion is an attempt by man to prove he is smarter than God. It is possible to for the state to manipulate religion ala Henry VIII/ Holy Roman Empire/Aurangzeb etc. but I think the basic premise of every religion involves adherence to certain ideals, some of which are common to other religions. The differences in religion tend to be a reflection of ethnicity. The more a state interferes, the more corrupt a religion becomes (I’m with Rob on this).
Wrt religion allegedly causing the majority of wars, check out these two posts by Vox Day:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/11/mailvox-in-defense-of-sam-harris.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/11/mailvox-of-war-and-warfare.html
Based on the evidence at hand, he finds that only 53 out of 489 wars (~11%) had religious causes. Thus, religion cannot be said to be a primary cause of war. Another source he links to mentions only 4 out of 22 of the worst conflicts have been motivated by religion.
FS,
You confirmed my belief that atheism is rooted in moral relativism, which I disagree with. Nevertheless, I am glad that both Bruce and yourself are anti-abortion for the most part.
March 6, 2007 at 8:24 am
siberianow
Kara,
Just as a piece of advice from one blogger to another, I think that you should have a recent comments section like GL and I have so that people can be aware of all the comments being made on your various threads.
–Luke Skywalker
March 7, 2007 at 2:45 am
A Canadian Liberal Against Feminism
Davout, that is complex and lengthy enough to merit its own post. Watch for it, it is coming.
March 7, 2007 at 10:32 pm
bignasty
http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_066083832.html
Check this story out, just saw it on the local news.
Apparently this woman found a deeper well than babydaddy…
March 8, 2007 at 12:40 am
A Feminist's Nightmare
Holly crap, that woman is insane, poor kid.
She fucking stupid and lazy. If she really couldn’t take care of that child why didn’t she give it for abortion???? gee she should be jailed and the poor kid taken away, it’s gonna ruin her whole life now. poor thing.
March 8, 2007 at 9:31 am
feminist_scum
I think you meant adoption, AFN. And I was thinking the exact same thing. I’m sure there are plenty of other people who would love to have the child.
March 8, 2007 at 12:34 pm
A Feminist's Nightmare
oops, i must have been sleeping…. yes the little girl should have been given for adoption instead….. and yes I believe you are right many people would have love to adopt a baby, especially if they can’t have one of their own.
March 8, 2007 at 2:38 pm
bignasty
You are both right. I’m sleeping too, because I didn’t think of that point until later…
Eventually that sweet, beautiful baby will find out that her mother tried to kill her and then, despite Mom’s best efforts, she pushed her way into this world anyway, and the beast who tried to make sure she never took her first breath decided to raise her.
And not only that, file a lawsuit about it so that the world would know all about it.
That’s what I don’t get about abortion. People who would rather end the life of their child then go through the pain of seperation by adoption.
At probably 28 days after conception, we saw an ultrasound of my daughter. It was so exciting to see her little heartbeat.
That very same baby is sleeping in her room right now. The very same one. Not some other strange ball of tissue growing in my body that is an inconvienience and I want to get rid of.
March 12, 2007 at 2:59 pm
mikeray
lovesfool, you are very right.
Can I say ‘pro-life in the form of pro-choice’ ?
Where pro-choice means a woman has ‘a choice to become pregnant’. (Any form of birth-control, or even abstinence…
Abortions are harmful to a woman’s body and mind and should only be chosen in extreme cases as you mentioned - rape, incest, health problems for mother or to-be-born baby…
‘My body, my choice’ - Fine, but it’s not a choice to play with your body.
A couple, both man and woman, should be accountable. Children are precious.
Encourage birthcontrol, not abortions.
(from India)
March 14, 2007 at 1:40 am
Anon
Came across 2 debating articles for men’s and women’s rights in reproduction
A woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy is not the same as a man’s choice to financially opt out of fatherhood.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/39420/
It’s wrong to force pregnancy on an unwilling mother; but it’s equally wrong to do so to an unwilling father.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/39716/
March 24, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Craig
From the Atlantic Monthly:
Eugenics in the Womb
How widespread is the practice of prenatal eugenics—that is, the use of abortion to eliminate fetuses that have genetic abnormalities? A new paper offers some speculation. The data are far from comprehensive, but it’s possible to make estimates—for instance, that nearly 30 percent of the roughly 6,150 Down syndrome fetuses that are conceived in the United States every year end up being aborted. The numbers from studies conducted overseas are higher, ranging from 32 percent in Western Australia to more than 80 percent in Taiwan and Paris. Down syndrome fetuses are not the only ones being selectively aborted: Data from Europe for 1995–1999 suggest that roughly 40 percent of fetuses with any of 11 congenital disorders were aborted in that period, and a study of the G8 industrialized countries found that anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000 fetuses on course to suffer from birth defects were aborted in 2002. In the long run, the author suggests, prenatal screenings will grow more comprehensive and may eventually cover “all known disease genes,” making it possible for parents to abort a fetus with, say, “a 68% probability of developing breast cancer by the age of 80.” Given the “invasive” nature of amniocentesis and abortion, however, a more popular option might be in vitro fertilization, or IVF, which would be accompanied by “preimplantation genetic diagnosis” to screen out disorders. Of course, “nature has contrived a cheap, easy and enjoyable way to conceive a child,” the author allows, and “IVF is none of these things.” But the “clear economic benefits,” if nothing else, guarantee that neo-eugenics, in one form or another, will continue to spread.
—“The Future of Neo-Eugenics,” Armand Marie Leroi, EMBO reports