The Abortion Debate

[MaggieB]

Oh BOY do I think I''m going to end up regretting this, but Pricescopers seem to really want to talk about abortion, so I thought that it deserved its own thread.

As someone who has spent the last thirteen or so years debating both sides of the abortion issue with friends, I have become greatly frustrated by our inability to move beyond namecalling and sloganeering. Whatever ground I have gained on either side has been gained by first being able to see the very legitimate point of view of the other person. Where I have not gained ground is by arguing - ABORTION IS MURDER, or MY BODY, MY CHOICE. I would love to know how people have formed their opinions and on what information they base their opinion. But I would like to keep this thread respectful. If I say things below that sound at first inflammatory, keep reading. I am honestly admitting feelings that I have held at times, and not judgments against people.

I''ll state right off the bat that I''m pro-choice. But I''ll also admit I have my reservations. I have had many, many life events over the years that have seriously affected the way that I view abortion.

I''ll try to keep this brief, but I, like many other PS posters, have an extremely conservative Christian background - so, first opinion was indoctrinated - abortion is murder. However, I also grew up in a poor, lower class neighborhood of latchkey kids (meaning - kids who came home to empty houses, working parents provided little supervision). A whole heck of a lot of these kids got pregnant, many of whom were my friends. These young girls would have no parental support, no support from the father, they were afraid, and abortion seemed like the natural solution. I personally know girls who ended up getting scholarships, going to college, and breaking out of their cycle of poverty after they chose an abortion. And I personally know girls that kept their babies, went on welfare as teens, and are still on some sort of assistance twenty years later. Abortion seemed to me by my late teens to be an unfortunate thing to have to go through, but the obvious solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Then I found out at age 23 that I had a condition that would make it extremely difficult to have my own baby. I had one ovary removed at 24, and I spent 25 to 30 going $100,000 into debt having every infertility treatment known to man. I had multiple miscarriages, and even worse - a missed miscarriage. My baby died but wouldn''t leave my body, so I had to go have it surgically removed. I call these my "return to conservativism years" I was ANGRY at all the women who aborted their babies. Why wouldn''t they just let me have them????

However, at the same time that I''m thinking - because it benefits my argument - all you people getting abortions are bad because you are killing a life, I''m losing babies left and right. It made me start seriously questioning, are these actually lives? And - if you believe in a supreme being - is He/Her really putting a soul into every fetus that I''ve lost in the bathroom? Outside of the fact that to ME, they very much represented the potential life of the child I want, is it logical to think that they are really lives? And - if up to 30 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage, how much value could a supreme being possibly put into the embryo at such an early stage of development?

And then, I DID finally get pregnant, didn''t miscarry, got to see the 6 week bean with a heart beat, and got a totally different perspective again.

There''s more, but I think I have said enough to make the case that I can respect all of your points of view. I think that most arguments about abortion boil down to ethical or legal. I''ve decided for myself that I don''t want the government to legislate my morality, no matter how badly I at one point wanted just one of those aborted babies. I would greatly like it if we could move the national conversation beyond slogans and do things that WOULD benefit parents who want to adopt, help reduce abortions by eliminating the stigma for unwed teenage girls, have programs that encourage adoption, publicize the fact that there are many different options available for young women these days, including open adoption that would allow for the mother to have varying levels of presence in their baby''s life. (On a side note, I would also like to completely overhaul the foster care system that lets children grow up in a parentless limbo indefinitely.)

But that said, I want to encourage these women, not remove their choice. And to me, that is what the pro-life/pro-choice debate boils down to.

 

[Lauren8211]

Thanks for starting this thread. I hope it remains civil.

I'll start out by saying I'm pro-choice. I've never waivered in this. I firmly believe that the government should stay out of our personal decisions. Morality is subjective, and I don't want morals pushed on me by others. Especially when they're religiously based ( I do realize that some pro-lifers are not religious), since we have the freedom in America to be whatever religion we choose, or to not have a religion at all.

Secondly, I'd like to say that people don't enjoy abortions. Of course, there are some people who might (i guess?

), but the vast majority of women who have to make this decision don't take it lightly. It's an emotional process. It's obviously not an easy decision to make, but the women who do it feel like they're making the best choice, and shouldn't be judged for that.

I realize that it must be overwhelmingly frustrating for women trying to get pregant to hear about women who have had an abortion, but I just can't see how that should require women to have babies. You can't require women to produce for you. Women are people too, and they're not meant for breeding. If a woman gets pregnant, it's HER decision to keep, abort, or adopt. People do a lot of frustrating things in this world, but I can't force them to benefit me.

It's unfortunate that there are repeat aborters, but like anything else in this world, some people abuse the system, and others respect it. That doesn't give us the right to take the option away. The best we can do is to try and steer people to use contraceptive, educate them, and provide them access to the tools they need, even if some slip through the cracks.

 

[purrfectpear]

I am absolutely pro-choice. I''ve always used birth control yet I''ve fallen in the 1% of failures more than once.

At 21 I became pregnant as a result of a broken condom. I had an abortion and had an IUD inserted. At 28 I became pregnant in spite of the IUD and had another abortion, the IUD removed AND discovered a cyst which had to be removed. No more IUD''s and the gyn recommended a diaphragm. At 29 I became pregnant although using a diaphragm as directed. I was older, ready to accept the responsibility of child rearing and could financially afford to have a child. I had my wonderful son.

I did not find abortion to be traumatic or painful. It was an out patient procedure and I was home within hours. For me the decision was not a difficult one, since if I had intended to become pregnant I wouldn''t have been on birth control to begin with. I''ve never questioned my decisions, nor have I ever experienced any feelings of regret. Abortion is simply a backup for a failure of birth control method.

 

[Anna0499]

I am curious about the argument that the "government should stay out of it." That sentiment is often also expressed in regards to government and religion and it''s all interrelated. However, if the government is to truly "stay out of it" wouldn''t that include not providing federal funding abortions? I realize there are people who cannot afford abortions and whom may be denied access to them if there is no federal subsidy in place, but isn''t that counterintuitive to the government staying out of it? I am not trying to argue the morality/policy of it - save it for another time - I am just interested in your viewpoints.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/17/2008 12:06:41 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
I am curious about the argument that the ''government should stay out of it.'' That sentiment is often also expressed in regards to government and religion and it''s all interrelated. However, if the government is to truly ''stay out of it'' wouldn''t that include not providing federal funding abortions? I realize there are people who cannot afford abortions and whom may be denied access to them if there is no federal subsidy in place, but isn''t that counterintuitive to the government staying out of it? I am not trying to argue the morality/policy of it - save it for another time - I am just interested in your viewpoints.

I feel that government should stay out of personal decisions only. A physical abortion is a medical procedure, not a decision, like the decision whether or not to have one. So to me, if rich women can have access to this procedure, then disadvantaged women should have the same opportunities.

Government should stay out of decisions. Government funding should be available for medical procedures.

And to be fair, I''m not "for abortions" I just think that right should never be denied. I am firm supporter of government funding for contraceptives and thorough sexual education. If they put more emphasis on that, hopefully we can eradicate the need for so many abortions.

Did that answer your question?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/17/2008 12:12:01 PM
Author: elledizzy5

I feel that government should stay out of personal decisions only. A physical abortion is a medical procedure, not a decision, like the decision whether or not to have one. So to me, if rich women can have access to this procedure, then disadvantaged women should have the same opportunities.

Government should stay out of decisions. Government funding should be available for medical procedures.

And to be fair, I'm not 'for abortions' I just think that right should never be denied. I am firm supporter of government funding for contraceptives and thorough sexual education. If they put more emphasis on that, hopefully we can eradicate the need for so many abortions.

Did that answer your question?

So would you agree that there should be federal funding for ALL medical procedures? What about other surgeries?

ETA: Not trying to be argumentative, just getting clarification on the argument.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/17/2008 12:16:11 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/17/2008 12:12:01 PM
Author: elledizzy5

I feel that government should stay out of personal decisions only. A physical abortion is a medical procedure, not a decision, like the decision whether or not to have one. So to me, if rich women can have access to this procedure, then disadvantaged women should have the same opportunities.

Government should stay out of decisions. Government funding should be available for medical procedures.

And to be fair, I''m not ''for abortions'' I just think that right should never be denied. I am firm supporter of government funding for contraceptives and thorough sexual education. If they put more emphasis on that, hopefully we can eradicate the need for so many abortions.

Did that answer your question?

So would you agree that there should be federal funding for ALL medical procedures?

Absolutely. I would love it if this country had socialized medicine.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/17/2008 12:16:53 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 10/17/2008 12:16:11 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/17/2008 12:12:01 PM
Author: elledizzy5

I feel that government should stay out of personal decisions only. A physical abortion is a medical procedure, not a decision, like the decision whether or not to have one. So to me, if rich women can have access to this procedure, then disadvantaged women should have the same opportunities.

Government should stay out of decisions. Government funding should be available for medical procedures.

And to be fair, I'm not 'for abortions' I just think that right should never be denied. I am firm supporter of government funding for contraceptives and thorough sexual education. If they put more emphasis on that, hopefully we can eradicate the need for so many abortions.

Did that answer your question?

So would you agree that there should be federal funding for ALL medical procedures?

Absolutely. I would love it if this country had socialized medicine.

I see - do you think most people feel this way but are just afraid to say it? I would like to add, though, that socialized medicine is a myth in today's world.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/17/2008 12:18:15 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/17/2008 12:16:53 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 10/17/2008 12:16:11 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/17/2008 12:12:01 PM
Author: elledizzy5

I feel that government should stay out of personal decisions only. A physical abortion is a medical procedure, not a decision, like the decision whether or not to have one. So to me, if rich women can have access to this procedure, then disadvantaged women should have the same opportunities.

Government should stay out of decisions. Government funding should be available for medical procedures.

And to be fair, I''m not ''for abortions'' I just think that right should never be denied. I am firm supporter of government funding for contraceptives and thorough sexual education. If they put more emphasis on that, hopefully we can eradicate the need for so many abortions.

Did that answer your question?

So would you agree that there should be federal funding for ALL medical procedures?

Absolutely. I would love it if this country had socialized medicine.

I see - do you think most people feel this way but are just afraid to say it?

Most people in my circle agree with me and speak openly about it, but I live in a VERY liberal area.

I think people are scared of the term socialism, and so socialized medicine is scary, but I support it. I would have no problem with tax hikes (I KNOW a lot people will disagree with that

) if they helped more people have their basic needs met.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/17/2008 12:23:02 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Most people in my circle agree with me and speak openly about it, but I live in a VERY liberal area.

I think people are scared of the term socialism, and so socialized medicine is scary, but I support it. I would have no problem with tax hikes (I KNOW a lot people will disagree with that

) if they helped more people have their basic needs met.

Very interesting - I believe you live in Ann Arbor, correct? I do recall it being quite liberal whenever I visited during my Big Ten travel days. I agree that people are afraid of the term "socialism" but the reality is that no country in the world has truly socialized medicine at this time. They employ socialist principles, as Obama''s plan would, but it is full socialism in its execution. I know that Warren Buffett is buying up Wellpoint, so perhaps he is in cahoots with with Obama''s people to use Wellpoint to initiate Obama''s plan. Sorry if this is off topic Maggie!

 

[E B]

I posted this in the Palin thread, but I''ll post it again as it pretty clearly states what I believe.

The problem with the "don''t want a baby, don''t be irresponsible" argument is that contraceptives fail. All the time. The pill fails, condoms fail, even IUDs fail. Mistakes are made, and pregnancy occurs. Calling someone who has taken the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy "irresponsible" isn''t fair, and in my opinion, it isn''t fair to force her to carry a child to term because the contraceptive failed. In my opinion, it isn''t fair to force a woman to carry a child for any reason, though I agree that at a certain point, past the age of viability, it isn''t fair to abort (unless of course, the mother''s life is in danger or the child has severe birth defects). Pregnancy is a long and often dangerous process, one that no woman should be forced to go through.

I hear conservatives say "abortion shouldn''t be used as birth control," but I assume the number of women who actually do this is incredibly small. Having an abortion is painful and incredibly traumatic, I imagine, and I doubt many women would rather have multiple abortions than use contraceptives. If anyone is able to find stats on this, I''d be interested to see them.

What it comes down to for me is this: I respect a woman''s bodily integrity above ''potential life.'' Forcing a woman to carry a child she does not want to carry is a dangerous and unfair breech of the rights a woman has over her own body. It quite simply reduces her to an incubator for someone else''s cause.

What we (as women, especially) should be fighting for is a) more information available to teens prevent unwanted pregnancies and b) better support for women who choose to keep the child.

 

[MaggieB]

Date: 10/17/2008 12:40:03 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 10/17/2008 12:23:02 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Most people in my circle agree with me and speak openly about it, but I live in a VERY liberal area.

I think people are scared of the term socialism, and so socialized medicine is scary, but I support it. I would have no problem with tax hikes (I KNOW a lot people will disagree with that

) if they helped more people have their basic needs met.

Very interesting - I believe you live in Ann Arbor, correct? I do recall it being quite liberal whenever I visited during my Big Ten travel days. I agree that people are afraid of the term ''socialism'' but the reality is that no country in the world has truly socialized medicine at this time. They employ socialist principles, as Obama''s plan would, but it is full socialism in its execution. I know that Warren Buffett is buying up Wellpoint, so perhaps he is in cahoots with with Obama''s people to use Wellpoint to initiate Obama''s plan. Sorry if this is off topic Maggie!

You don''t have to apologize to me, Indy. As long as you are respectful, which I''ve not personally known you to be otherwise, I don''t have any issue with your input on this thread. However, this conversation is kind of reinforcing what I consider to be the problem with the abortion debate. I don''t feel like people generally talk about their REAL issue with abortion. You are now talking about socialized medicine. Does that mean that you are fine with women''s right to abort as long as it isn''t subsidized by the government?

 

[MaggieB]

I want to clear up something about my original post. While I do have religious beliefs, I don''t consider them central to the legal debate about abortion. However, since every single personal conversation I''ve had with someone who is pro-life has been talking about their assertion that abortion is playing God, or a sin, or some other moral/ethical judgment, I thought I would share some of the ethical and moral dilemmas I have considered.

However, I agree with subsequent posters that we each make our own decisions about what is "moral." I''d be interested in knowing if people who find abortion immoral also consider it immoral to pass a homeless man on the street. Or to allow a person to die because they can''t afford healthcare. I don''t believe that any one person has a monopoly on what it means to respect life.

 

[dragonfly411]

I''ll also start by saying I am pro choice. I think there are many circumstances in which an abortion might be a plausible choice. I don''t believe in forcing someone to raise a baby if they do not have the financial means to care for that child PERIOD. I also don''t believe in forcing someone who has been raped to carry a child begotten from being raped. In the case of contraceptives not working, that is something that is unavoidable, and the parents should not be punished for that.
I for one do think that the government needs to remove themselves from the decisions we make. It is my choice in that matter, and in the matter of owning a gun, and in the matter of playing music in my back yard if I want. I don''t think the government and religion should be "interrelated" as someone mentioned earlier, government here is supposed to be removed from religion, that is why we have the freedom OF religion.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/17/2008 12:45:43 PM
Author: MaggieB

You don't have to apologize to me, Indy. As long as you are respectful, which I've not personally known you to be otherwise, I don't have any issue with your input on this thread. However, this conversation is kind of reinforcing what I consider to be the problem with the abortion debate. I don't feel like people generally talk about their REAL issue with abortion. You are now talking about socialized medicine. Does that mean that you are fine with women's right to abort as long as it isn't subsidized by the government?

That's the thing though - the "REAL issue with abortion" means varying things to different people. Some make distinctions between fetuses/humans, some make arguments for federalism, still others base their beliefs about abortion solely upon religion, and of course, some are a mixture of those arguments and other ones not listed. Those who believe the fetus is a full human have a hard time distinguishing between personal and political beliefs because they see abortion as the permissible killing of humans and feel that it is their "duty" to rail against it. I think that is the major distinction. I am pro-life because of my Catholic faith and belief that fetuses are humans, but I am also knowledgable about the realities of the world and I don't think my views will be put into law through legislation or the judicial system anytime soon, if ever. I don't judge women who get abortions or support abortions, as I think it is hardly ever the first line of defense women use to prevent pregnancy. However, I think late-term/partial birth abortions are wrong. It is true that you never know until you are in that situation, but since I have never been I can only speak about my beliefs presently.

I think the abortion debate gets used by candidates of both sides to instill fear in the American people - I've heard/seen several ads where the possibility of abortion being made illegal is touted as simple and inevitable if McCain is president and, of course, abortion is a hot button issue for both candidates's choices for VP.

My question about whether the government should provide federal funding for ALL medical procedures was because most of the pro-choice advocates I have spoken with have the same arguments are elle - that they are medical decisions between a patient and doctor. I just find it an interesting dynamic that while many want to keep the decision out of the government's hands, once the decision to abort is made then the government pays for it. If people feel that way about abortion procedures then I wondered why we have all the fears about universal health care since under that reasoning, if someone chooses to have any surgery (save maybe purely cosmetic) then the government should pay for it. I don't think that line of logic is wrong per se and I am glad that elle admits to wanting a more socialized-type of medicine since it has been stigmatized.

 

[Haven]

Indy said:
I just find it an interesting dynamic that while many want to keep the decision out of the government''s hands, once the decision to abort is made then the government pays for it.

I''ve been doing some thinking about this, and I have to say that the government currently does not have a say in many decisions people make, yet still pays for the effects of these decisions in other ways.

Example: The government does not regulate what people choose to eat, or their physical lifestyles, yet when Americans develop heart disease, diabetes, and other lifestyle-related illnesses or diseases, the government pays for medical care for those who receive government assistance. Would it be fair for the government to demand that people on assistance maintain a healthy lifestyle so as to avoid the risk of needing lifestyle-related medical assistance? I can''t imagine people would welcome this kind of intervention. I don''t see a big difference between the government staying out of an individual''s decision to have sex, or, say, an individual''s decision to eat fast food and abstain from working out.

Maggie--Your appeal for a logical, rational discussion about this issue is refreshing. I have banned the topic of abortion as a paper topic for my high school students because I have never had a student who was able to separate religious arguments from logical, sound arguments.

 

[luckystar112]

For those who live their lives guided by their religion, it is a sound and logical argument against abortion.

It''s not my argument, but I understand theirs.
I''ve had many teachers scratch abortion off of the topic list, and I''ve had one specifically state that religion could not be used as an argument against abortion in an in-class debate we had. There were many other arguments other than religion.

 

[Haven]

Date: 10/17/2008 2:42:45 PM
Author: luckystar112
For those who live their lives guided by their religion, it is a sound and logical argument against abortion.

It''s not my argument, but I understand theirs.
I''ve had many teachers scratch abortion off of the topic list, and I''ve had one specifically state that religion could not be used as an argument against abortion in an in-class debate we had. There were many other arguments other than religion.

Of course there are arguments other than religion, many have already been stated in this thread. I understand that religion is a sound and logical argument for those who believe in it. However, in a public academic setting, it is not. I teach in a public school, not a private religious institution.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/17/2008 2:49:49 PM
Author: Haven

Date: 10/17/2008 2:42:45 PM
Author: luckystar112
For those who live their lives guided by their religion, it is a sound and logical argument against abortion.

It's not my argument, but I understand theirs.
I've had many teachers scratch abortion off of the topic list, and I've had one specifically state that religion could not be used as an argument against abortion in an in-class debate we had. There were many other arguments other than religion.

Of course there are arguments other than religion, many have already been stated in this thread. I understand that religion is a sound and logical argument for those who believe in it. However, in a public academic setting, it is not. I teach in a public school, not a private religious institution.

I'm not trying to give you grief for not allowing the topic of religion in your classroom, Haven. Sorry if you're taking it that way. I was responding to the sentence, "I have banned the topic of abortion as a paper topic for my high school students because I have never had a student who was able to separate religious arguments from logical, sound arguments". I took that to mean that you didn't think that religious arguments were sound or logical, and I was giving my opinion that it is sound and logical for those who live their life by their religion. Also, if that was your opinion, I was not faulting you for it (a lot of people think religion should be left out of it). I was just offering the other side (a side I'm not even on).

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I really think that what littlelysser in another thread resonated with a lot of PSers--I am also pro-life personally, but pro-choice politically.

That being said, I am VERY much against Roe vs. Wade. I think that in general people have a problem making the distinction between Roe v. Wade as a pro-choice issue and Roe v. Wade as a constitutional issue. Even in the last debate I noticed the moderator beginning his question about putting justices on the bench about Roe v. Wade, then switching it to an abortion issue.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 10/17/2008 2:59:43 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

That being said, I am VERY much against Roe vs. Wade. I think that in general people have a problem making the distinction between Roe v. Wade as a pro-choice issue and Roe v. Wade as a constitutional issue. Even in the last debate I noticed the moderator beginning his question about putting justices on the bench about Roe v. Wade, then switching it to an abortion issue.

I think that is because people think the constitutional issue is an "excuse" to justify what they really think is the pro-life agenda.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/17/2008 2:36:51 PM
Author: Haven
Indy said:
I just find it an interesting dynamic that while many want to keep the decision out of the government's hands, once the decision to abort is made then the government pays for it.

I've been doing some thinking about this, and I have to say that the government currently does not have a say in many decisions people make, yet still pays for the effects of these decisions in other ways.

Example: The government does not regulate what people choose to eat, or their physical lifestyles, yet when Americans develop heart disease, diabetes, and other lifestyle-related illnesses or diseases, the government pays for medical care for those who receive government assistance. Would it be fair for the government to demand that people on assistance maintain a healthy lifestyle so as to avoid the risk of needing lifestyle-related medical assistance? I can't imagine people would welcome this kind of intervention. I don't see a big difference between the government staying out of an individual's decision to have sex, or, say, an individual's decision to eat fast food and abstain from working out.

Your given example is the major reason why I think if universal health care has any chance of survival in the US that a lot more money needs to be poured into preventative care. This would include diet, nutrition, smoking cessation, etc. Perhaps contraceptive education would be the parallel in regards to abortion, although my post wasn't about the government staying out of people's sex lives, it was about looking at abortion as a purely medical procedure/decision that the government funds.

ETA: There *are* examples of the government controlling what people eat; i.e. fast food ban in certain municipals.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 10/17/2008 2:59:43 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady
I really think that what littlelysser in another thread resonated with a lot of PSers--I am also pro-life personally, but pro-choice politically.

That being said, I am VERY much against Roe vs. Wade. I think that in general people have a problem making the distinction between Roe v. Wade as a pro-choice issue and Roe v. Wade as a constitutional issue. Even in the last debate I noticed the moderator beginning his question about putting justices on the bench about Roe v. Wade, then switching it to an abortion issue.

I noticed that too...it went from SCOTUS "legislating from the bench" to abortion in about two seconds.

 

[Haven]

Lucky--I didn''t take your response the wrong way at all, no worries. I just wanted to be sure I clarified my original post because I hadn''t realized how it might sound (as if I was saying religion is not a valid reason to believe something) until I read your post. I should have originally said "academically valid" rather than "logical" and "sound". I made the assumption that the distinction was inferred when I should have just made it clear.

Indy--I agree with you about the necessity of preventative care for the success of universal health care situation.
I wish that a fast food ban was enough to keep people from destroying their own health. But it is a start, I suppose.

 

[trillionaire]

Maggie, et al...

Thank you for your thoughtful thoughtful post. I would like to echo the last part of your post, though I in no mean as a critique. I, like you, just want to share my experience with the forum.

I work with the child Social Service/legal/foster system, and it is a criminal shame how many young people live lives in limbo and are shuffled from home to home. It is especially difficult for sibling groups, and minorities. I completely understand that many many women experience fertility problems, and my heart goes out to them. I also see the parents that you described earlier, that become young mothers living on assistance, who never quite get their footing, who aren't properly caring for their children, and have them taken while they deal with other pathological issues. It is heartbreaking. Absolutely heart breaking. I watched a mother surrender her parental rights yesterday, and the judge came off the bench to hug her as she cried. It is awful, but everyone is not equipped to raise children. It is not better for the parent or the child. And to be quite frank, you are probably white, and there is a lot of demand for white babies. There is not a high demand for black, biracial, latino or native american babies. These children spend the longest time waiting for adoption, and are more likely to bounce around the system with no permanence. That fact alone makes it difficult for me to feel, based on my personal experiences, that we would be better off not allowing abortions. There are children suffering, and more children suffering will never sound like a better option to me. My deepest wish, regardless of ideology, is that the resources dedicated toward objecting to abortion would be dedicated to uplifting the lives of children in the foster care system. They are here, and they desperately need it. The energy spent on these children who are not here will always strike me as misdirected.

Thank you all for listening.

 

[trillionaire]

please at to my list of kids not being adopted, disabled (physically and mentally) children and babies.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 10/17/2008 4:04:54 PM
Author: trillionaire
Maggie, et al...

Thank you for your thoughtful thoughtful post. I would like to echo the last part of your post, though I in no mean as a critique. I, like you, just want to share my experience with the forum.

I work with the child Social Service/legal/foster system, and it is a criminal shame how many young people live lives in limbo and are shuffled from home to home. It is especially difficult for sibling groups, and minorities. I completely understand that many many women experience fertility problems, and my heart goes out to them. I also see the parents that you described earlier, that become young mothers living on assistance, who never quite get their footing, who aren''t properly caring for their children, and have them taken while they deal with other pathological issues. It is heartbreaking. Absolutely heart breaking. I watched a mother surrender her parental rights yesterday, and the judge came off the bench to hug her as she cried. It is awful, but everyone is not equipped to raise children. It is not better for the parent or the child. And to be quite frank, you are probably white, and there is a lot of demand for white babies. There is not a high demand for black, biracial, latino or native american babies. These children spend the longest time waiting for adoption, and are more likely to bounce around the system with no permanence. That fact alone makes it difficult for me to feel, based on my personal experiences, that we would be better off not allowing abortions. There are children suffering, and more children suffering will never sound like a better option to me. My deepest wish, regardless of ideology, is that the resources dedicated toward objecting to abortion would be dedicated to uplifting the lives of children in the foster care system. They are here, and they desperately need it. The energy spent on these children who are not here will always strike me as misdirected.

Thank you all for listening.

Trillionaire - thanks for posting this. I hope to open my home to these children someday (if I ever get a house). I often view the following website http://adopt.org/servlet/page?_pageid=289&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30. It breaks my heart to know these kids don''t have loving homes of their own.

 

[galeteia]

I debated with myself about posting here. I am deeply angry right now and had been undecided about when or if I would continue posting on PS.

I am angry because I do not want to talk about the extremely personal and painful experiences I have had that I tried to hint at without being put in a position where I had to broadcast very personal things on the internet, where anyone could see them and say whatever they like about it. I am terrified someone I know could see my posts and figure out who I am.

Nonetheless, I want people to understand why it is not always so cut-and-dried as 'abortion should only be available to rape victims because contraception is readily available'. When you talk about statistics and sexual assault and unwanted pregnancies, you are not just talking about statistics. You are talking about me and my life. That thread has made me cry several times since it turned to abortion, and I am angry and crying as I type this. I am not a statistic, I am a person. Sexual assault is not just a number for me. Why do people not consider that perhaps those who are reading their posts are part of the numbers they are bandying around so casually?

When I was 17, just an innocent, vulnerable girl, I dated someone a few years older than me. He was a pre-physical violence abuser with a Svengali complex. He wanted me to marry him and have his babies. I wanted to go to university and have a career. So he sabotaged the protection as means to force me to marry him. When it happened, I was overwhelmed and not able to think clearly. I attempted to induce miscarriage while he attempted to stop me. Giving the child up for adoption would have been a war. He intended to use the child as a means to control me and control my life.

It was not until much later when the crisis was resolved that I put things together and realized he'd sabotaged the contraceptives deliberately. It's considered assault if the victim was too drunk to realize what was going on, I see this the same way. I consented to safe sex, I did not consent to unsafe sex.

So at the time, it might have looked like 'irresponsible people have an oops'. By some arguments put forth in the other thread, I should not have been allowed a choice.

As it happens, despite his attempt to prevent miscarriage I was successful and did not require a surgical abortion. Years later, I am still filled with rage towards him and am horrified at what my life would be right now if I did not have freedom of choice. It has profoundly affected my view of marriage and children.

Years later, I was assaulted while passed out. The pain woke me up and I was able to fend off my attacker. I escaped without any STDs or a pregnancy. Others I know, who were victims of alcohol-induced date rape, were not so lucky. If I had gotten pregnant, very few people would have blamed me for choosing not to bear my rapist's child. But that experience was much less traumatic and damaging for me. It was an act of opportunity, not an attempt to violate my entire life and who I am as a person.

So when people bandy about statistics and try to split hairs, remember that things are not always neatly black-and-white while you use them to support your arguments, and the people you are casually arguing about are people. Maybe even people who are members of this forum.



I have tried not to let 'the internet' bother me, but this was too much.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 10/17/2008 6:11:56 PM
Author: Galateia
I debated with myself about posting here. I am deeply angry right now and had been undecided about when or if I would continue posting on PS.


I am angry because I do not want to talk about the extremely personal and painful experiences I have had that I tried to hint at without being put in a position where I had to broadcast very personal things on the internet, where anyone could see them and say whatever they like about it. I am terrified someone I know could see my posts and figure out who I am.

.....

So when people bandy about statistics and try to split hairs, remember that things are not always neatly black-and-white while you use them to support your arguments, and the people you are casually arguing about are people. Maybe even people who are members of this forum.

I have tried not to let 'the internet' bother me, but this was too much.

I respect so much that you shared your story. I learn so much from these threads, even though there are quite a few people who I think make horrifying assumptions and attacks on others. But it's worth it to me, to read those rare, meaningful and enlightening posts, like yours.

I also have a friend who was date raped. She decided to have the kid, but she ended up having to move to another state and change the child's name to avoid the father. Life is not black and white. Thank you again for your story.

And I really hope that you chose to stay on PS!

 

[MaggieB]

Galateia, I too am very sorry about your awful experiences. I am not attaching my post to your thread because I don''t want what I am saying to be directed at you, and I hope that it is not perceived as such.

I have read a few different posts that have left me with the impression of - I don''t exactly know how to put this - people feeling like they have to justify the reasons that a woman chooses to have an abortion. Politically, this is a slippery slope. It either is a woman''s choice or it is not. If it is her choice, what difference does it make why? She doesn''t need to justify her reasons to you - a total stranger. As purrfect pear (I think) said, it wasn''t the right time in her life to have a child, and she chose not to. If you decided to judge her morally for that decision, it is of course your right, and it is my guess that she doesn''t care. (Very sorry to speak for you purrfect, it is of course only a guess.)

I guess what bothers me is that this one particular issue has become something like a scarlet letter for our generation. There are so very many issues that one could be considered "immoral" for, and I don''t see any of those offenders being so relentlessly scorned.

don''t want to take away from things you have gone through at all. I would just also like to add