posted on December 7, 2000 12:10:55 AM
In two pages there has been no mention of the father as an element to be considered in choices that ultimately would be a woman's to make. Is there an assumption that a father would be absent prior to a decision to abort a pregnancy?
posted on December 7, 2000 12:22:08 AM
Snowydays-just exactly where do you get your "facts"? Abortions free or at reduced cost? Where? Who's paying for them-it's certainly NOT Medicaid. As a matter of fact, not one penny of your tax dollar subsidizes abortion.
The waiting room story is just that, a story to make your point. What procedure could you only have at a family planning clinic? I'm unaware of any procedures, other than abortion, that you can't obtain elsewhere.Were you scared of being blown up while you were there? Were you called names on your way in? How'd it feel? I'm very familiar with the fear since I work at a family planning clinic. You certainly benefited from a service we offered, shame you choose to trash us afterward. People like you make the risk we take every day just SO WORTH IT. And by the way, the majority of patients are white, 18-24 years old, have made a mistake, and are GREATLY affected by their decision to end the pregnancy. Those facts can be confirmed. And yes, there are some that are indifferent, and those are exactly the ones that SHOULD be there. The ones that don't care and continue with the pregnancy are the ones that keep me up at night.
Just for the record, I hate abortion. But since I don't have an alternative, I keep my mouth shut and settle for the lesser of 2 evils. I hate child abuse worse. It's not about a woman's right to chose, it's about every baby's right to be born to a mother that loves and wants it. We see in the papers what happens when they don't.
posted on December 7, 2000 12:38:31 AM
It was not a family planning clinic, it was a clinic where the Doctor performed abortions and other procedures for a woman, as for what I was doing there? Sorry none of your business whatsoever.
Did you see me trashing clinics, don't think so. Did I not say that abortion was preferably to child abuse? Selective reading on your part.
How dare I? I believe that I can say whatever I want. "People like me?" You know nothing about me.
KRS: I don't really know what to say about that. I would think with the number of young women that are there having abortions that it is a pretty good bet that the fathers were not interested. I believe that there have been cases of the father suing to prevent the mother from ending a pregnancy, but the details are too hazy for me to remember.
posted on December 7, 2000 05:50:05 AM
To answer stusi's original question:
Some believe that abortion is "murder", which Webster's defines as the taking of life "esp. with malice aforethought." If one believes that murder (as opposed to simple "killing" ) is always wrong, I don't see how there could be a "middle ground". It's either wrong, or it isn't. And in that case it certainly can't depend on the circumstances of conception or the viability of the victim, nor can it be a matter of personal choice ("I don't believe in murder, but I can't speak for everybody" ).
If, OTOH, you don't believe that it's "murder," clearly you have the personal-choice argument as an option. I am in this category.
However.
Of the sexually-active women with whom I've been friends in the past 25 years, I know of only four who have had abortions. All were well-educated and middle-income, and had regular GYN visits; yet none of these pregnancies resulted from failed contraception, since these women weren't using any.
One was 19, a virgin, had been dating the man for some time and had anticipated having sex with him, yet never bothered even to buy a 3-pack of condoms.
Another (same age) had been on the Pill, but "it made her fat". She never considered any other birth-control method, despite everything being availble - at no charge and confidentially - at the student health center two blocks away.
The other two were in their mid-30s. During the time I knew them they had multiple abortions - in one case, THREE in nine months.
All 4 women had the education, health and resources to use birth control. All were able to carry each of these pregnancies to term and either raise the child themselves or give it up for adoption. None of them had a second thought about resorting to abortion.
Of the half-dozen low-income, poorly-educated, under-20 women that I personally know who have become pregnant by "surprise," all had access to free contraception. All have had access to sliding-scale-fee abortions. All lived at or near the poverty level before they became pregnant, yet all chose to "keep the baby". And two have made this decision more than once.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 7, 2000 05:50 AM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 05:52:11 AM
I love the disparaging comments ever so subtlely directed towards women:
If you're too stupid to use birth control, you're too stupid to have sex..
If you get pregnant, it's your problem...you deserve what you get............. and on and on.
This whole train of thought totally ignores the fact that NO woman could GET pregnant without the participation of a MAN. What is HIS responsibility in this? Where is his villification when the pregnancy occurs? All the blame, all the responsibility lands on the woman. He becomes the innocent bystander and in many cases joins in the blaming of the woman.
AND
If we really cared about all these "unborn" children, why do we turn around and insist on cutting programs that help babies and children? Oh, you can talk all you want about how the mother better go get a job and quit having kids but the fact remains that America allows 1 in 4 children to live in poverty. I guess it's true that the child must pay for the sins of his mother. You don't really care about the life that child might have, you just want to "punish" the mother for her horrible crime.
There are so many cultural biases that influence our thoughts on this matter. As obsessed as we are by sex here in America, we still have an underlying fear and abhorrence of it; it's somehow BAD. We also still have a problem with female equality whether we admit it or not. So this pregnancy thing brings up a lot of our inate fears; it involves WOMEN and SEX. It's no wonder that it causes us so much consternation.
Lastly, did you ever see those commercials where they show a smiling, cooing baby and then you hear a voiceover saying, "Life, what a beautiful Choice?" That commercial makes me ill. As if every baby "saved" from abortion will be born into a loving, welcoming home and have a wonderful life. Facts are that, more likely than not, that child will be born into poverty and pain. Is that what we want for that child? If every child is a gift, why aren't we putting our money where our mouth is and making sure that all children are properly nourished and educated and supported? Why should a child unlucky enough to be born to a "bad" mother not be as deserving of a decent life as my own child is?
OK, I ramble on. I just have a problem with how children are viewed and treated in our country. We do a lot of talking.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:35:47 AMThis whole train of thought totally ignores the fact that NO woman could GET pregnant without the participation of a MAN. What is HIS responsibility in this? Where is his villification when the pregnancy occurs? All the blame, all the responsibility lands on the woman.
I am reminded of a birth-control education meeting I once attended, at which this very question was raised. The moderator posed an interesting question in reply, asking those responding "yes" to raise their hands: If contraception were entirely the man's responsibility, how many women would trust their partners to use it?
No hands went up.
You might argue that the "division of responsibility" in sex/pregnancy/childbirth isn't "fair" - and I might agree. However, unless the species is in for some rapid physiological evolution, I don't see that changing. The point is that since the woman is the one who gets pregnant, it's in her own best interests to do all SHE can to ensure she doesn't get pregnant unless and until she chooses to. The women I enumerated above didn't take the merest step even to protect themselves from STDs, let alone a pregnancy they didn't want.
I'd also suggest that your linking the availability of child-oriented social programs to the availability of abortion is without merit. The women I know - and I knew them all well enough to ask them - didn't make their choice to abort or carry to term based on social support systems, government programs, absence or presence of the father, finances or, from what they told me, what they thought would be best for the baby. As in their choice not to use contraception, they chose what they did purely because it was what they wanted to do.
I'm not saying their choices were morally right or wrong. I am pointing out, however, that the choices these women did make were not based on any of the variables you suggest.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:39:57 AMrawbunzel I believe you have mentioned the best 'middle of the ground' solution yet. The morning after pill. You also mentioned that partial birth abortions are rarely done....they are done more than most people are aware they are. The doctors doing these procedures don't make the numbers public knowledge.
IMLDS2 - We were tricked into believing it wouldn't be used for birth control, yet it is." Agreed...it has been my experience, this is the case. Then you said, "...too many abortions would make women sterile. That's a myth. Studies by the lg. HMO I worked for shows that it causes no such problems.
snowydays...."partial abortion is outright murder." I agree. Too many women waiting way too long in their pregnancies to make the decision to abort.
KRS "In what circumstances is that allowed? (Partial birth abortions). Upon the mother's request, and a doctor who is willing to do the procedure.
Julesy On the cost of birth control. The HMO I worked for charged only $1.00 - $5.00 for a one month supply. Also, you said...."nothing pleasant about abortion....to suggest women have them nonchalanty is naive. That was not my experience....many returned time and time again. It was no big deal for them. Agreed, it really bothered a few, but they seemed to be in the minority.
Pareau You are correct, the pill, Norplant and Depo shots are abortifacients. (Although I wouldn't have used that word. - cause I don't use BIG words) hehe But pregnancy can occur, it is just aborted when the monthly period occurs.
mymissou My experiences working in a family planning clinic at a major No. Ca. HMO differ quite a bit from yours. Medical patients did have their abortions with us, and they were paid for by Federal funds. So were aerospace employee's abortions. Although that was an on-again, off-again type of thing.
It was also my experience that abortion is being used for birth control. Many repeaters and when we spoke to them about using birth control I was surprised at how many said they didn't want to cause it made them gain weight. When asked if they wanted to see a life-sized scaled chart, to see the size their personal fetus was, they declined.
Many Chinese and women from India use abortions when their ultra sounds show they are carrying a female fetus.
I would never have been able to have an abortion myself. But I always believed in an individual woman's right to do what she decided. But working at the family planning clinic (there was no family planning, they stickly did abortions) really opened by eyes to the many abuses that go on.
posted on December 7, 2000 06:45:59 AMWe do a lot of talking
Oh yes. I have worked as an RN in high risk maternal-child health for 20 years. Over these 2 decades, I have watched the dwindling of available and affordable health care services to lower middle class and poor women. 5 minute exams because of high patient volume and low reimbursement are unacceptable. Transport of high risk moms in labor because of lack of insurance is unacceptable. Transport of unstable premies because of lack of insurance is unacceptable.
How many of you have made follow up visits to families living in cars, or looked for their box?
I could rant on and on, but I won't.
posted on December 7, 2000 07:01:41 AM
I've not read all the posts...just wanted to weigh in with my opinion.
Abortion is murder. From the moment of conception, that baby is a living soul.
In the very rare cases of the protection of the life of the mother, I understand why some would choose abortion. I myself never could.
It's wrong...just plain wrong.
I have no support nor sympathy for the lunatic fringe that bombs clinics or shoots doctors. Those people are not a true example of the Pro Life Movement.
I find it hard to believe that the women you knew didn't make their choice to abort... based on social support sytems, absence or presence of father, ...or finances
You make it sound as if they gave no more thought to it than as to what color nail polish they would use that day. And, maybe there are a few women shallow enough to think that way.
I would suspect that MOST women who choose to abort had spent time thinking of those exact things and what kind of life she and the baby would have if she chose to continue the pregnancy. I believe, but don't have time to look up on the web, that many studies have been done as to WHY women abort, and most of those do indeed cite financial and social factors as the main reason for the decision.
posted on December 7, 2000 07:21:36 AM
a great civil chat on a very sensitive issue. who believes that life begins with fertilization as opposed to the first heartbeat? how does your belief relate to your opinion on abortion in general? are there those who believe that abortion is o.k.(relatively speaking) up until the first heartbeat?
[ edited by stusi on Dec 7, 2000 07:23 AM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 07:26:54 AM
I think that most people are sincere in their beliefs and that it isn't likely that a chat board discussion would change anyone's opinion.
posted on December 7, 2000 07:36:28 AM
i agree that a chat is very unlikely to change anyone's opinion on a matter such as this. it is one of the few issues i can think of where there is such an extreme division of opinion. those who feel that there are conditions(eg.-rape) or guidelines (such as a heartbeat) that would sometimes justify abortion are perhaps the real "middle ground" here, as opposed to those who feel that all abortions are murder or those who feel that virtually any abortion is o.k. including partial-birth.
posted on December 7, 2000 09:05:36 AMYou make it sound as if they gave no more thought to it than as to what color nail polish they would use that day
Actually, it was more like "Oh s*it, now I have to go to all this trouble and take time off from work." And yes, in every case it was stunningly nonchalant, which is what made this pro-choicer's eyes pop nearly out of my head.
The issue was not moral at all for them, and these were people with whom I spent a lot of time talking about personal matters on a daily basis. One was a small-town Vermont girl with a steady boyfriend; another a Tri-Delta sorority college freshman from a "money" family and a steady boyfriend who she told me PAID for the BC pills she declined to use; the third a successful fashion illustrator in NYC and the last - the one who had 3 in 9 months - an old-money-Boston CPA with an independent income, and at the time my best friend.
The universal reaction post-abortion was "God I'm glad THAT's over." That's it. I was dumbfounded, as I'm sure you would've been.
Edited to add: Here's an international study on the reasons women give for having had an abortion:
posted on December 7, 2000 09:28:18 AM
it shouldn't surprise anyone that there will always be those who take an "applying nail polish" attitude toward the most distasteful things that they and others do. is it symptomatic of our society in general? and it does cross all socio-economic areas as does drug addiction etc. partial birth abortion to a healthy fetus with a beating heart? are there so few people wanting to adopt that there is no place on earth for these babies?
posted on December 7, 2000 09:53:18 AM
a cute troll graphic, but why on this thread? so far this has been a serious, civil chat on a sensitive topic. what's up?
[ edited by stusi on Dec 7, 2000 09:56 AM ]
posted on December 7, 2000 10:49:59 AM
What this thread is missing, is the viewpoint of someone who's had an abortion. What prompted them to do this, rather than to seek out other alternatives? Is their stand on it the same now as it was when they had one? If it's different, what made them change their viewpoint? This sensitive issue is missing the one set of people who should be heard.
posted on December 7, 2000 11:14:36 AM
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:
Since I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, I think that the disposal of fertilized eggs -- such as are left over from in vitro fertilization procedures (typically more eggs are fertilized than are actually implanted, to allow for a margin of failure) is murder. Furthermore, I think Christopher Reeve's eagerness to harvest cells from them is sick. I can understand that the man wants to walk again, but I can't accept the end as justification for the means.
posted on December 7, 2000 11:16:31 AM
Rosiebud - you asked that someone who has been there pipe in on the subject. I'll do one better for you, I am there.
First of all, I am not a young kid...I am a 30 something, married, well-educated woman. I have been sexually active for 13 years and have not been pregnant once, until now. And I do use birth control. But, somehow, I have found myself six week pregnant and am planning on terminating this pregnancy next week. I guess what they say about birth control is true, it can fail.
Neither my husband nor I plan to ever bring children into our lives. We are just not the parent types. Please don't anyone tell me that I'll change my mind as soon as the baby comes, I'm not interested in taking that chance and I doubt you would be willing to take the baby off my hands when you are proven wrong. I would make a lousy parent and it's better for everyone that I admit to that now instead of subjecting a child to my form of parenting.
So my husband and I have established that me keeping this baby is not an option. For me, adoption is not either. I could not carry a baby to full term and then hand it over to someone else. I admire the women who can do it, I am just not that selfless. I am also not willing (call it selfish if you must) to subject myself to what a pregnancy would do to me just to hand the baby over to someone else. Condemn me if you must.
I have agonized over this decision, I have cried over this decision. I am not entering into this lightly or without thought. I've done nothing but think since I found out I was pregnant. I've done nothing but cry since I found out I was pregnant. I am not "too stupid to have sex" as someone chose to put it. I am a responsible adult who made a mistake and I shouldn't be forced to pay for that mistake (and neither should the child) for the rest of my life.
I'm sure I will with this decision for the rest of my life. How could I not. But I can guarantee I will never regret it or second guess my decision.
posted on December 7, 2000 11:22:02 AM
I have a question?
What about the Fathers? If a young boy stood in front of a judge and said I am young, I made a mistake, don't make me be responsible for this child. How many of you would say OK you don't have to pay child support?
Many of the resons cited for having abortions are the child won't be loved or cared for properly or they are young and made a mistake they shouldn't have to pay for it the rest of their lives. One comment was You decided to have sex now you should have to take the consequences...but what about the boys? Isn't this exactly what we say to them? Once they have sex and a baby is created their choices end. I have never heard anyone say well gesh he was young he shouldn't have to pay child support for the next 18 years over one mistake...or the birth control failed it isn't his fault if she wants to have this baby so bad let her pay for it.
No we expect them to take responsibility for their actions. I realize many don't but many women don't either.
posted on December 7, 2000 11:25:37 AM
I'd like to second the comments that rawbunzel has made. I see RU486 as a huge step forward for women who are faced with a very early stage unwanted pregnancy.
I'd also say that my experience with friends who have had abortions almost exactly mirrors HCQ's. Out of perhaps 10 close lifelong women friends (the majority of which fall into the white/middleclass/college educated portion of the population), 5 have had abortions. While no one can truly see what's happening in another person's heart or soul, I can make an educated guess from extensive personal sharing with these friends that 4 of them were rather cavalier about it---a reaction that shocked me, frankly, even though I have always been in favor of choice. I didn't see a huge amount of soul searching. I do think some financial factors entered into it and I know some of them felt that the men who fathered the kids weren't fatherhood material. From all my conversations with them, their main reason for not wanting to continue the pregnancies seemed to be an unwillingness to change their lifestyle in order to make room for a child. They didn't want to stop school, didn't want to marry the guy, didn't want to have to deal with childcare, didn't want to be tied down, didn't want to stop their careers, etc. I don't want to necessarily denigrate these reasons, but I have to say that I was surprised by the level of casualness and entitlement. But that is not my decision to make and thank the Goddess I have never had to make it.
One person out of the five was very torn about her decision and remains ambivalent about it to this day---she feels it was the right thing to do practically speaking, but actively wishes things could have been different and that she could have been in a position to have the child.
Ironically, the latter person is the only one out of the five who had a true hardship (a serious and chronic degenerative disease) and could honestly not have handled the care of a child (financially,physically or emotionally).
Many of the working class women of all colors and creeds that I have known who have dealt with an unwanted pregnancy have kept their children. I don't know why the demographics seem to work out that way. Possibly fewer working class people have the perception of having the potential to travel, live luxuriously, and have many years of higher education as so many middle and upper middle class young adults do. Since they don't see these things waiting magically on the horizon they may have fewer reservations toward settling down early. I'm sure there are many more reasons.
And I wanted to say this about adoption.... One woman I used to work with gave her child up for adoption and the other working class women in the place criticized her very sharply for "giving up her child to strangers". She took quite a bit of abuse for what I thought was a very unselfish act. So please don't assume everyone supports someone who chooses adoption. There are a lot of ignoramuses out there who pressure adoption-oriented women into feelings of guilt and shame. The woman I worked with did put her child up for adotption despite the flak, but she became an office pariah and quit soon afterward (should have filed a stress related lawsuit, one of the few I would wholeheartedly support).
posted on December 7, 2000 11:38:53 AM
Spaz - "....disposal of fertilized eggs -- such as are left over from in vitro fertilization procedures (typically more eggs are fertilized than are actually implanted, to allow for a margin of failure)"...
I would love to see these couples (if they would be willing) donate the fertilized eggs to the (too) many couples who have tried for years to start a family. What happiness that would bring to so many couples.
What about the fathers? Well, I'm in the line that believes fathers, no matter their age, should take responsibility for the child. Period. Young or old, rich or poor, involved in the childs life or not...this is their child too. The responsibility belongs to both parents.
One problem comes about when the mother wants the abortion and the father is not aware of the pregnancy, or doesn't want the mother to abort when she wants to. He doesn't seem to have much say, legally. Those cases seem to be rare, so it doesn't present a problem very often.
posted on December 7, 2000 11:58:00 AM
I wasn't gonna comment in this thread, but...
Turtlesgirl - that took guts.
I've been there. I was a stupid kid - 19 years old, partying like the world was gonna end tomorrow in an effort to forget the fact my mom was battling stage 3 cancer. I was on the Pill. I made the choice that was right for me at that time of my life.
Was it easy? No. It was scary and fairly painful. And I knew what I was giving up. I cried a lot. But I knew in my gut it was the right choice. With all the drinking and drugging I was doing at the time, I had no doubt (then or now) that I had done some damage. At nineteen, with a waitressing job and a dying mother, I was ill equipped to care for a baby with the problems that one would have had.
Do I think about it all these years later? Now and then, yes. But it doesn't rule my world.
Would I do it again now? No. No, I wouldn't. I have two beautiful children - I know what I'd be giving up. But, up until we moved up here to dinky town America, I had pro-choice bumper stickers on my car. I helped women across picket lines of rabid spitting protesters. I participated in rallies. And I'd still be doing it, if we didn't live up here.
It's been nice to see this stay pretty calm and rational.
I believe the same thing. Young or old rich or poor if you made the baby you need to take care of it.
But why do we say it's ok for the girl to get out of it and not the boy? Because it's her body? Aside from medical issues that doesn't really make a difference does it? The reasons cited for the abortions so often are being young, can't take care of it, would ruin their life, did use birth control but it failed. Could not these same reasons be applied to the father as reasons why he cannot or should not be held responsible?
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on December 7, 2000 12:48:22 PM
Oddish - I'm not sure I'm understanding your post. Are you saying that since a female does have the choice to continue (or not) the pregnancy and the boy doesn't....that that's not fair? That if she decides to continue the pregnancy then he is forced to take responsibility, when she has a choice he doesn't?
Or are you saying that the girl shouldn't have a choice, just like the boy doesn't (in regards to responsibility/support)?
I previously stated that I personally could never have aborted a pregnancy. I was raised that it is wrong.
BUT, I do think it is not my place to force others to live by my beliefs. Each of us must make our own choices for our own lives.
hehe But pregnancy can occur, it is just aborted when the monthly period occurs.
