RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

I Had An Abortion

Anonymous_'s picture

Every few months, the abortion debate comes back into focus in the mainstream media - like it did several weeks ago, when the news broke of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, and her mother's stance on abortion rights. That's when I started feeling guilty, and angry.

The circumstances of my abortion were incredibly mundane. I was 19 years old, a junior at a college in Boston, deeply in love with my boyfriend (J.), and doing well in school. I worked full-time at our school newspaper, heading there daily after class and staying regularly past midnight. I was taking birth-control pills, but my schedule - which forced me to value every last moment of sleep - made me irresponsible about taking the pills at the same time every day. Sometimes I would miss doses entirely and take two in one day to make up for it. Occasionally, I would have (what I didn't really think of as) unprotected sex; I believed I was protected not only by my inappropriately administered Ortho Tri-Cyclen, but also by young-adult invincibility.

I found out I was pregnant on a Sunday, thanks to a home-pregnancy test that I bought at CVS after discussing with J. that my period was late. I don't remember being nervous about taking the test. But when I saw the results - positive - I left my dorm suite bathroom and literally crumpled to the floor just outside the door, weeping out of fear and for the decision I knew I would make.

I wasn't ready to have a child. That's it. Not financially, not emotionally. There was nothing else to think about. I called J., called Planned Parenthood, and scheduled my abortion for Halloween 2002.

My memories of that day are unformed. They aren't fuzzy, or hazy, as people describe memories; I believe they literally never took shape. I know that we walked to the Planned Parenthood clinic across the street, and made our way past the protesters who stood - only a few strong - in a cluster outside the state-designated "buffer zone." Inside, I found out that I was approximately six weeks pregnant. I know that a Planned Parenthood doctor gave me one RU-486 pill at the clinic, and another to take at home. (I'd decided to have a medical abortion, rather than a surgical one, because I thought it would be less physically painful and less invasive - more private. Also, I was within the eight-week time frame when it's still an option.) She warned me that shortly after taking the second pill, I would experience some pain.

Back at the dorm, hours later, I know that I writhed in my twin bed, suffering from debilitating, convulsing cramps. My roommates, best friend, and boyfriend hovered around; they brought me pain killers, Tiger Balm, hot-water bottles, and applesauce, and all the while they stroked my head and conferenced in the background about how I was doing. I bled profusely as my body rejected the fetus that had been described to me as "the size of a grain of rice." I threw up. And finally, I fell asleep.

Three days later, I showed up for work at the newspaper as though nothing had happened. In some stroke of truly black comedy, we had an editorial-board discussion that very night about whether or not to run a pro-life insert that would bring in a ton of money, but go against our editorial stance. I felt sick. We opted against running the insert, and I can't remember if I even offered an opinion during the conversation. That's the last thing I recall in the days immediately following.

Now here I am, almost exactly six years later. My abortion made me practice safer sex, and it introduced me to the pro-choice movement. It put a strain on my relationship, which broke apart eventually. It made me feel scared, and relieved. And it puts me in a group with the 40 percent of American women who have also had abortions by the time they're 45 years old.

That's a lot of women. But we're rarely the ones you hear about.

When pundits and politicians debate abortion, they often bring up the most unfortunate cases: rape or incest victims, or women with medical problems. The fact that these women risk losing the right to govern their own bodies is outrageous. So we end up fighting for those worst-case scenarios, which somehow makes what we might call the "normal" cases seem more cavalier. As if some cases are less essential, and therefore less justifiable, than others. Let's be clear - it's the circumstances that vary, not the validity of our decisions, nor our need for access to safe, legal abortions.

Years later, my experience still causes me to feel guilty that I lived in a state where no one, other than those who were directly involved, questioned my decision. It makes me somehow embarrassed to admit that all I had to do was cross a street, while others have to bridge state lines, family boundaries (I still haven’t told my parents), and financial constraints (my boyfriend put the procedure on his credit card; I paid him back for half as soon as I had the money). Essentially, I’m sorry that I was more privileged than other women who are in similar circumstances.

This is my story, and mine alone, and the one I’ll carry with me forever. But the fact is, most women’s stories are more like mine than they are like the extreme scenarios that are bandied about when politicians — and even regular people — talk about abortion. So where does that leave women like me? Should we feel ashamed? Does anyone think about us, the people who have actually gone through with an abortion, and come to terms with it, and accepted that it was the right decision, for whatever reason, at that time?

Some of us don’t feel safe, mentally or physically, sharing our stories, because they are not the extreme. We are not the women who needed a medical procedure to save our lives, or whose bodies were violated by strangers or loved ones. Our decisions, therefore, seem less ethically justifiable in today’s society. Yet we chose what we did for our own reasons, which sound trite and selfish to many, but which speak volumes in our heads every time the debate comes up in conversation or the news. The law has been interpreted to protect us. We shouldn’t feel so alone.

Why am I anonymous?
The women in Jennifer Baumgardner’s book are so brave and confident. I’m not quite there yet. I do tell some people about my abortion, if it’s relevant to a conversation I’m having. But because of the stigma that still exists, I haven’t yet told my family and I’m not sure if or how I’m going to do so — and I know that I don’t want to “tell them” in a newspaper that thousands of people read each week. So why tell my story at all, especially to run alongside this other, about a book that encourages openness and attempts to challenge the very stigma to which I’m falling prey? Because I believe that any narrative, even a nameless one, helps take away some of the mystery and shame associated with abortion. Because I want to remind people how the public political debate can sometimes have very personal ramifications. And because I’m committed to fighting this battle, even if it’s from the sidelines.

This article was first published by the Portland Phoenix.

 


. . . . .
56 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

Thank you for sharing your story with our readers. For other women wishing to speak out, Exhale is sponsoring "Pro-Voice '08", an opportunity to say the one sentence you'd most like to hear from the next President about your experience with abortion.

Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on October 9, 2008 - 9:41pm.

Also wanted to thank you for sharing. I completely agree that people need to remember that abortion is a valid decision, even if the circumstances don't seem 'extreme'. When it's the best choice at the time, it's the right decision and should be respected as such.

Submitted by Emma on October 10, 2008 - 2:09am.

You did the right thing for you and that's all that counts. Thank you for sharing your story. I too found myself pregnant when I was 20, and chose to have an abortion. I am now 39, and have never regretted my decision. I know my life would have been far different had I gone through with the pregnancy.

Submitted by Anonymous123 on October 11, 2008 - 8:32pm.

Don't listen to Truth; he rarely speaks it. You did what you had to, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Thank you for having the courage to tell your story.

Submitted by Anonymous12 on October 10, 2008 - 6:57am.

One of the more extreme anti-choice people that regularly comments on our site goes by the pseudonym "Truth" and his comment on this post has been deleted because it violates our stated commenting policy, found in the "About Us" section of the website. It reads:

We understand that the issues discussed on this website are divisive. Unlike many forums that concern these issues we embrace and encourage a civil discourse about them. We will continue to allow open commenting that is of a civil nature and that seeks to engage the debate, but we will delete without further explanation comments that threaten, demean, or decrease the civility of discussion.

 

If we have to delete more comments from the same person we will ban them from the site. We encourage our community to keep in mind that we encourage civil discourse even where disagreements are intense, and we encourage readers to help us establish community standards by reporting comments you believe are offensive based on our stated policy.  We may not always delete reported comments, but it helps us understand what our community of readers feels about the dialog. Thanks.

Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on October 10, 2008 - 7:26am.

...go to this website and listen to these other women in your similar situation...

Listen/Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDq3VbanGaM&feature=related

Censorship is something the Nazis and Communists do - not Americans that are seeking truth. This should tell you something about the people on this site. If their ways are just and righteous, then why are they afraid when someone posts something different than what they believe. The reason is that their position is very flimsy or delicate - like an egg that must be cared for ever so gently or it will crack. My commentary was not offensive - it was the Truth, which can only be heard from those who embrace it. These people are running from it - are you going to run with them? Or do you possess true courage to stand and face the truth head on?

Submitted by Truth on October 10, 2008 - 8:05am.

Conservative columnist David Brooks wrote a stellar piece in today's New York Times talking about the social class warfare that is being waged by extremists on the far-right, discussing it as a historical decline of true conservatism culminating in Sarah Palin's relentless ideological and class-based attacks.  Brooks writes:

... no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.

And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away.

The rise of the anti-choice movement and the extreme fringe of the movement like the commenter "Truth" coincide with the decline in conservatism. The rise of the far-right also coincides with a decline in the acceptance of medical facts in favor of ideology, a decline in the acceptance of personal freedom in favor of ideological control over others, a decline in respect for others beliefs and ideas in favor of an often violent and always angry politics.   Historically, asking people to respect the experiences of others and discuss public policy based on facts, recognizing that we don't all agree -- those were not ideas promoted by the Nazis.   I've left hundred of comments on anti-choice sites with links to factual articles on our site that would educate the readers of those sites, and very few of them have ever been published because the far-right can't allow facts to be discussed. That is censorship.   Our open commenting policy here is almost unheard of on far-right sites, where they don't even let most pro-choice comments appear.  "Truth" had the freedom to speak ideas here and chose to use harmful and hurtful speech that doesn't engage people in dialog.  Someone in our community felt it went too far based on our stated policy, we agreed.  I understand that many people on the extreme fringes of the far-right are demonstrating lots of anger and hostility right now, we all see it playing out on our TV screens and in the coverage online. I also understand that this behavior has been a hallmark of the extreme fringes of the anti-choice movement for a generation, and that many pro-life scholars and leaders recognize that such behavior is hurting their efforts. Progressives who have been the targets of this extremism have been working, based on medical facts, to improve contraception, sex ed, maternal health, pre- and post-natal care -- and we have done this at home and around the world to improve all aspects of reproductive health.  If you want to work with people interested in improving sexual and reproductive health based on facts, we welcome you. If all you want to do is hurl epithets, distort facts, preach an ideology that apparently works for you -- but in this free country cannot be forced on others -- that is your choice.  Our choice will be to continue to delete comments that do not fall within our very liberal commenting policy, and to seek common ground with anyone and everyone who wants to work on these issues based on facts.  I'll let those who understand history and what the Nazis and Communists were all about judge for themselves who best fits the description "Truth" provides above.

 

 

Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on October 10, 2008 - 9:14am.

As further evidence to the fact that extremist anti-choicers like "Truth" have run conservatism into the ground and are teetering on the edge of oblivion -- with their less than civil tactics that have been hurtful to women for many years -- comes an editorial endorsing Obama from the son of William F. Buckley. In it, Christopher Buckley writes that his father,

 .... once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”

 

Too bad it didn't hold.

 

Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on October 10, 2008 - 11:49am.

To even insinuate that is absolutely dispicable. As proven by MANY psychological studies there is no such thing as post-abortion syndrome. I choke to even think the words. A woman who has had prior psychological problems is, of course, likely to experience depression after ANY major life event. If you knew your research, you would also know that women that carry babies to term are also more likely to become depressed than women that have an abortion by choice. The women that go to horrible places like Project Rachel and other pregnancy crisis centers are experiencing depression and other symptoms not because of the abortion but because of the situation surrounding the abortion. Such as rape, incest, physical/mental abuse from the father, medical complications that lead to an abortion or even still borns. It is not the abortion that causes the depression. It is the search for someone/something to blame for the way that they are feeling due to their overall situation in life. I, for one, have medical problems--blood clots--that would make it nearly impossible for me to have a baby. In my case it would quite literally be trying to carry the baby to term and most likely dying or having an abortion. If I ever have to make that decision, I will gladly choose life. MY LIFE. Do not ever think that you have any right to judge another person or even try to understand what they are going through. There are so many other factors that come in to play that you have no idea about. I do, unlike you, respect anyone's right to choose. And that is just what the prochoice movement is about. It is not about forcing anyone to do something that they do not want to do. It is about giving them the chance to CHOOSE what is best for them. Something that the antichoice people do not seem to understand. We are not telling people that they have to have an abortion, we are protecting their right to decide for themselves.

Submitted by prochoice and proud on October 10, 2008 - 12:08pm.

How can you say that you truly care about someone after you posted something so rude that it got deleted? I've seen all kind of cruel, nonsensical things posted on this site that made it through, I can only wonder what you must have said that was so bad it warranted deletion. You know full well that this site accepts dissenting views, otherwise you wouldn't even be on it.

Totalitarian dictatorships supported censorship, but you know what else they did? They tried to manipulate language so that they could trick people into thinking their actions were just. There's even a fictional totalitarian government in the novel 1984 that had a propaganda department called "The Ministry of Truth"! The worst thing that these governments did, though, was seek to control every aspect of their citizens' lives, even the most private. Adolf Hitler himself banned birth control and abortion for German women because he thought it was their duty to reproduce!

I've heard pro-lifers described as "pounding their fists on reality, hoping it will break". That can be really fitting at times...

Submitted by Sayna on October 11, 2008 - 2:03pm.

Why don't you JUST GO AWAY! no one is interested in your holier-than-thou attitude. I'm sure you are as big of a hypocrite as your Sarah Palin is. This woman has got to be one of the biggest hypocrites out there because she feels that it is not ok to be pro-choice. But it is ok to have a persons livelihood taken away from them because they did not fire her brother in law.

I am not religious, however I do believe in Karma, and I see Karma coming back to her 10 fold!

Submitted by Anonymous123 on October 11, 2008 - 8:55pm.

Hey, "Truth",why don't you visit www.imnotsorry.net to learn about the tue majotity of women who have abortions,the ones who feel relief,not regret?None of them are the psychopaths you imagine them to be.You really shouldn't let your ideology cloud your empathy for other human beings...fully formed,born human beings,not the idealized fetish-feti of your fantasy.Oh,and stop crying nazi,it's pathetic.By the way,your screen-name reveals a peculiar sense of irony...

Submitted by resident_alien on October 10, 2008 - 8:34am.

This was a wonderful read in that it reveals the many real difficulties that women face when speaking of their individual experience with abortion.  I had an abortion in 1993 and once I started talking about it, nothing could shut me up!  I do have one thing I'd like to add to this particular discussion.  My unwanted pregnancy was the result of rape but I fail to see how my abortion could be separated from yours or any other woman who had an elective abortion.  I used to omit the fact that my pregnancy was rape-related when I told my story because I just couldn't stand the hypocritical comments I would hear from people about how my abortion was "justified" or "understandable" because of the circumstances surrounding the intercourse.  How I wasn't using abortion as a form of "birth control".  I cannot explain how incredulous these comments appeared to me, how illogical they are... now I ask people how it is that my fertilized egg would be any different than the fertilized egg of someone who had consensual sex... how if birth control means "to control the number of children one has" that my elective abortion would be as much "birth control" as any other woman's elective abortion.  I believe it to be far too important that every woman share her experience with abortion, regardless of what the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy were.  No woman should be made to feel that her story is less important or relevant.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 10, 2008 - 1:18pm.

Hello everyone good on our anonymous friend for writing this blog post and everyone here who supports her and her story. I so agree that we need to talk about ALL women who have had abortions not just the ones who were raped, survivors of incest or have health issues we need to talk about them ALL! I am one of the women who has had an abortion due to health issues and I have had people say to me "well at least you had an excuse." I was so stark raving mad when those certain people said that to me for it made me feel like they were saying all those other women were just getting them for silly childish reasons or something. It really got to me when I kept hearing that over and over again. I believe like Amanda has said here before that abortion should be available on demand without apology and we NEED to trust in women to make their OWN medical decisions for themselves and their families. I am so proud of you anonymous for being a brave prochoice woman and speaking out! Don't let Truth get to you (he's about as far from it as possible)I've sparred with him before he's not worth the energy or time. Also don't feel guilty for feeling that you had a clinic so close to you. For my abortion I had to travel to another state on a weekend so I didn't miss work and I had to save the money not only for the gas but also the procedure it was hell consider yourself lucky and fight for other women like me to have more options! Keep up the good fight and stay strong, peace to all, Liz.

Submitted by Liz Barnes on October 10, 2008 - 4:09pm.

I'm new to this on-line community and I hope you will treat me respectfully even though I am anti-abortion and Pro-Life.  I read anonymous' story on my lunch hour so I've had a lot of time to think about it and I'd like to share some of my responses.

 

It seems to me that sharing stories such as this one might have an effect that isn't immediately obvious and that is to protect the unborn.  It's good for a person to learn from her/his experiences but it's even better to learn from someone else's experiences.  There are lessons to learn from this experience.

 

For one thing, I was struck by this line:

I wasn't ready to have a child. That's it. Not financially, not emotionally. There was nothing else to think about.

It must be obvious to anyone that it's hard to notice options when one is under 'time pressure'.  A woman with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is under time pressure to make a decision.  Almost always, her decision is going to be based (or strongly influenced) by the thinking she's done about the matter prior to getting pregnant.  That's why I think it's too bad that we don't talk more about the human element of this personal decision.  For example, I doubt very much that -- before getting pregnant -- anonymous had conversations with friends and family around the issue of "what would you do if I got pregnant."  I honestly think most women don't even know how other people would respond because there's a hesitancy, in this society, to broach such a subject.

 

This story illustrates how important it is for women to have such conversations before getting pregnant.  "Choice" is an important word and an important concept.  It's good for women to have choice, but that means that her choices need to be informed.  It may well be that anonymous (who wasn't ready emotionally or financially) had more financial and emotional support than she knew.  I don't know her, though, and maybe she wouldn't have financial or emotional support (I just get the vibe that she's the kind of person who's been exposed to kind people).

 

If nothing else, I hope this post raises the question of whether women have sufficient emotional and financial support (that's a rhetorical question -- many women don't and that needs to change.  We need to expect better out of our society!) but I hope it also raises the question of whether women really know how much support they have.

 

We know what happened in anonymous' life; but we can't know what might have happened.  She might have discovered she had more support than she knew.

 

OK, I've just taken a deep breath, I'm ready for an avalanche of disagreement (please keep it civil -- I will try to respond in a civil way.)

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 10, 2008 - 7:44pm.

But I fail to see how it would reduce the abortion rate.  I don't think the writer is stupid.  I think she probably had a very good idea of a) her desire to have a child at this time and b) what sort of support she'd get.  You seem to have the belief that women who have abortions are unaware of what they're doing, and I disagree.  Maybe a few, but it seems our writer here was quite aware that she was in college and, more importantly, she knew herself.  Communicating with others doesn't change your own desires for yourself. 

 

On a larger scale, communication often just means that the abortion, should it happen, will be easier for the woman.  I agree that men and women should discuss "what if" if they get into a sexual relationship.  But the answer to that question is often what you don't want to hear, which is, "I'll abort."  And that's fine.  It's better to do the work of thinking it through before an accidental pregnancy.  Hopefully, you'll never have to go through with your "what if" plan.  But if you do, the abortion is a lot smoother if you decided it beforehand.

 

Support is great,but I'm sick of seeing support for mothers being contextualized as something to prevent abortion.  That reinforces the incorrect belief that women are dumb, and it insinuates that support is contigent on "proper" behavior.  How about we support mothers because it's the right thing to do, not because we have an agenda?

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on October 12, 2008 - 5:31pm.

Hello Amanda,

 

Thank you for responding to my post.  I would like to respond to one part of your post and tie it in with something 'anonymous' wrote in her story.

 

Anonymous wrote, My abortion ... put a strain on my relationship, which broke apart eventually. This gives me the idea that "J" was less comfortable with the choice for abortion than she was.  I wish she'd told us more about this part of the story but I know for certain that many men have a sense of loss about their aborted child even if their partners don't have the same feeling.

 

You wrote, I agree that men and women should discuss "what if" if they get into a sexual relationship.  But the answer to that question is often what you don't want to hear, which is, "I'll abort."  You're absolutely right about that!  But I say, "What happens after she tells you she would abort?"  Before making the decision about who he wants for a sex partner, a man ought to be aware of how he would feel standing helplessly by while she chooses to abort his child.  Boys should begin to ponder that question when they're twelve or thirteen.  If they conclude that they would be struck with grief, then it stands to reason that they ought to wait for a different partner to come along.  It's hard to wait for sex, but it's not as hard as grieving a child -- and if my words could reach them, I would want boys and young men to think about that.

 

The decision about whether to bring a pregnancy to term is the mother's decision to make.  That's the way it is, and that's the way it should be.  But that doesn't mean that men have any excuse to be clueless about an event that may have a profound effect on them.  Women get pregnant, but couples concieve a child.  A man's involvement in the conception is at least as important as the woman's -- and I would encourage him to have respect for the profound responsibility that comes with having reproductive organs.

 

"Talk about it".  That's what I say.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 12, 2008 - 7:43pm.

you are 100% correct that good communication is key. after a terrifying pregnancy scare with an ex that ultimately led to the collapse of the relationship, but partner and i have discussed in depth what we would do should i happen to become pregnant. my heart still does a little flip flop whenever my period is a few hours late (a benefit of being on hormonal birth control that is highly underrated: my period is like clockwork), but it's infinitely comforting to know that everybody who matters (i.e. my partner and i) are on the same page.

Submitted by anonymous2 on October 13, 2008 - 1:05pm.

Hi Paul. Since you seem willing to be civil to those who do not share your opinions, I am willing to talk. I think it is important to not only get the stories out there but to try to talk to the other side. I don't understand why the wars between the prochoice and prolife side need be so violent at times and filled with hate. I am big believer in peace among us humans here on Earth. So let me address your comment in a respectful way since you are willing to extend that courtesy to us. I do agree with you men and women need to talk to each other about sexual issues before said situations come up. The fact that it is so taboo in our culture not only says alot but tells us just how much work we need to do to opening up the dialogue between the sexes. That being said however, the reality of this world and certain relationships well those talks may never happen. I also agree with you that our world needs to improve its attitudes toward women and help women achieve a life outside of poverty. I am wondering since you state you are a practicing Catholic do you believe in oral contraception and condoms? I only ask cause prolifers like us prochoicers come in many flavors. I believe that the way to help curb the number of abortions in this country and internationally would be preventatives such as education and contraceptives. I think it is also important to not only educate people about their own bodies but to simply educate them to decrease poverty, have good maternal care and well child care. I think we all could do alot more to decrease the abortion rate. I think why there is so much hate between the two sides is the emotions that get wrapped into the argument. I just wish in my lifetime, a ceasefire can be reached between the two sides and somehow, someway we can come together to make this world a better place for women, men and children. Won't you please join me in a civil discussion about abortion and let's show both sides that it can be done. I will keep checking this blog post and I would really be glad to hear from you and your opinions on these issues. And may I say thank you for the civil nature of your comment it is refreshing. Peace, Liz.

Submitted by Liz Barnes on October 10, 2008 - 11:08pm.

I haven't much to add beyond what Liz had to say, but I do appreciate your willingness to have civil discussion on an issue that tends to become so polarized.

I will say that sometimes it is very easy to sit back and say, "Well the support is available, why didn't someone choose to use it"? Ideally, they shouldn't have to, there would never be contraceptive failure, there would never be rape, there would never be health issues of fetus and woman. The fact you want to ensure support is out there, and available, is admirable. It sounds as if in this story the woman knew even before the contraceptive failure what her choice would be in this circumstance; it was not necessarily a "time pressure" decision.

I'm rambling now, but I guess the crux of what I am getting at is that this is such a unique situation, that of a pregnant woman. Until we have that perfect world where every pregnancy is the result of a desire to bear a child, and there are no health issues, we can't deny women their autonomy and place the rights of a potential human above her own. I do think we can agree that the absolute best way to reduce the number of abortions is education, making contraception available and a right to women, and ensuring adequate prenatal care and support when a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy.

Just my two cents, with a thank you for your input in such a positive and polite manner.

Submitted by Spamamander on October 11, 2008 - 1:53pm.

You wrote, I don't understand why the wars between the prochoice and prolife side need be so violent at times and filled with hate.  I think I have an idea why and I’d like to hear your response to my idea. Human beings have a nifty defense mechanism that psychologists call projection.  I believe that both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people are guilty of using projection to avoid the pain of moral ambiguity.  It is an outrageous moral indignity to force a woman to carry a pregnancy she’s unwilling to carry; but it is also an outrageous moral indignity to deliberately end the life of an unborn child.  The abortion debate compels us to consider what happens when, seemingly, the only way to avoid one type of evil is to support another type of evil.  This is what Laurence Tribe called The Clash of Absolutes.  Most people attempt to resolve this clash by deciding which of the two alternatives is worse and then select the ‘lesser of the two evils’.  Then that ‘lesser evil’ is made even more palatable by the process of minimization.  The Pro-Choice person might say, “The aborted fetus wasn’t any bigger than a grain of rice. Its nervous system wasn’t developed enough to allow for thought or even for the possibility of experiencing pain.  It wasn’t a person; it was just a mass of cells.”  The Pro-Life person might say, “The woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant should think of that before she has sex!” Projection comes into play because each side is being intellectually dishonest.  The Pro-Choice person knows that a human life is ending and the Pro-Life person knows that it’s wrong to compel a woman to use her body in a way she doesn’t choose to use it.  When people are intellectually honest, the clash of absolutes is played out inside their minds and hearts.  Most people find that too painful, so they repress half of the truth and rediscover it in the passion of the people who are on the ‘opposing side’.  No one wants to own the piece of their own personality that they’ve repressed, so they demonize people on the other side.  That way everyone can enjoy the feeling of moral certainty and not be plunged into the existential angst of moral ambiguity.  Apparently, all the pain and agony associated with the violent, hateful culture war between the two parties is worth enduring in order to maintain the illusion of moral certainty. 

If you listen to people like me long enough, you’ll be forced into the abyss, so be careful!

 

The urgency I feel is the urgency of wanting to save lives while at the same time respecting the fact a woman who is forced to bring a pregnancy to term without giving her consent is the most abject of slaves.  The only way for me to deal with the clash is to encourage situations where neither of the two evils is present.  Instead of looking for ways to restrict a woman’s access to abortion, I look for ways make the choice of keeping her baby more desirable to the mother.  Obviously, this isn’t something I can do on my own so I put my effort into ‘changing the terms of the debate’.  Instead of saying “I’m on the right” or “I’m on the left”, I want people to embrace both sides of the truth and work hard to protect the lives of the unborn without demeaning women.  It’s possible to do this, but too many people are still getting psychological benefit out of fighting the culture war.

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 11, 2008 - 2:58pm.

You're projecting onto pro-choicers when you say we "know" that a human life is ending.  I strongly disagree.  In fact, I find it insulting to compare the precious life of actual people with that of mindless cells.  I tend to think that the belief that  a fertilized egg is a person is a way to wipe out the value of women's contributions.  It allows the person who believes it to think that men make babies, and that women are merely incubators. 

 

I believe that men contribute DNA, but that women actually make babies.  And since human beings are complex creatures, it takes almost 10 months of hard work for a woman's body to make a baby.  I disagree that men deserve all the credit, which is what is what we're doing when we say "life" begins at conception.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on October 12, 2008 - 5:35pm.

I honestly wish you didn't feel "insulted".  We live in a country (I'm assuming you're an American -- which might also be "insulting") where 50% of the people passionately believe that a developing fetus is a living human being and 50% of the people passionately believe that it's (as you put it) "mindless cells".  That's a disagreement that is tearing us apart, and it's a disagreement that needs to be explored carefully and productively.  I'm coming into this conversation with the belief that you're expressing yourself honestly from your heart -- if you do that I won't ever feel insulted by you; please, give me the same benefit of the doubt.

The contribution that a mother gives to her young child during the "almost 10 months of hard work" that represent a pregnancy is incalcuable.  She "makes a baby" in the sense that her constant nurturance is the reason any of us can proceed from the 'zygote' phase of human life to the 'neonatal' phase of human life.  It is for this reason that she should be the one choosing to make this remarkable contribution to someone else's life -- who would want to live in a society where women women were compelled to be this self-giving to a person she doesn't want to assist?

 A baby is a very accomplished human being!  When you compare what "Baby" started off as to what Baby became with the help of Baby's mother it is mind boggling.  Baby owes Baby's status as 'baby' to Baby's mother.  We certainly agree on that.  But Baby owes Baby's status as "human being" to the fact that Baby became alive at the moment of fertilization.

 

Obviously women who abort don't "know" this in any concious sense.  Who would deliberately kill her own child?  But what would happen if, subsequent to the abortion, it dawned on a mother that that "mass of cells" was an actual human being?  That would be something very hard for her to accept.  Imagine the grief and the guilt!  Most people wouldn't want that awareness to reach the front of their heads.  That's the whole purpose of making Pro-Choice/Pro-Life discussions heated and irrational.  A person can respond to a Pro-Lifer's voice by saying, "No! No! No! You're wrong!!!"  If they responded to the voice in their head that way they'd become schizophrenic.

 

You say, You're projecting onto pro-choicers when you say we "know" that a human life is ending.  I can see where you're coming from on that one.  But you will, at least, agree that if a growing blastocyst is "just a mass of cells" inside the body of a Pro-Choice woman, it can't possibly be "a human being" inside the body of a Pro-Life woman.  My belief is that we are 'persons' even before we attain the accomplishments we're able to manifest with our mothers' help.  You say (I truly hope I'm not misrepresenting you!) that our personhood is conferred after a certain degree of accomplishment (maybe viability, maybe birth -- you tell me.)

 

At any rate, one of us is wrong.  The society is in a state of moral quandry while we sort this one out.  Our conversation -- if we both sincerely reach for the truth -- is a part of this 'sorting out' process.

 

I also disagree that men "deserve all the credit".  They deserve half of it (or half the blame, if the pregnancy is unplanned/unwanted).

 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 12, 2008 - 8:38pm.

Baby owes Baby's status as "human being" to the fact that Baby became alive at the moment of fertilization.

I don't think this has been terribly well thought out. The cells lining my cheek are alive, and they are undeniably human, but they are not human beings.


You might object that they don't have their own unique DNA, but then again as an identical twin, I don't either.


Of course, fissioning into two equally viable parts is not the only trick up an early embryo's sleeve. They can also literally, spontaneously merge with another embryo to form a single viable cell mass with two genetically distinct cell populations. These are tricks of cells or tissue. Human beings don't do these things.


If we wanted to pretend that this cell mass was actually a person, the above begs the question: a person? We're talking about something that can spontaneously fission or merge with a neighbour. Just how many persons is it? Should we take a weighted average? If we did, we should certainly consider the fact that about two-thirds of the time, they naturally fail to develop into anything resembling a viable infant.

Submitted by DL on October 14, 2008 - 7:29pm.

I don't think this has been terribly well thought out. 

DL,

Is it your understanding that the reason there are different convictions about when human life begins is because the people who believe that it begins at conception haven't thought it out?  If people were more informed, I guess, they would stop thinking that a fertilized egg was a human being.  (And then, perhaps, we'd all start believing that human life begins at implantation????)

I'll give you this much -- life would be EASIER if we all thought that whatever goes on in the first few hours and days after the ovum is fertilized is something other than human life.  If we all thought that, there would be no objection to the use of RU-486 as an emergency contraceptive, nor would there be any objection to stem cell research, nor would there be any objection to in-vitro fertilization.

But there ARE objections to these things, objections brought out by the same people who object to abortion after implantation, or abortion after three months, or abortion after six months -- people who ask themselves, "when did my life begin" and determine that their life began before they were viable, or before they 'looked human', or before they were nurtured by a placenta, or before they lost the ability to do things like split in two, or when they had a very strong likelihood of not making it at all.

Was I still 'me' when I was a lot different than I am now?  The point at which you can say, "Yeah, that was my life" is the point at which you would be willing to respect the life of someone who is now what you used to be.

The debate won't go away once people know as much about biology as you do -- the debate will continue as long as there's a difference in how much of one's life different people are willing to "own".

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 14, 2008 - 10:31pm.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong here) that DL was responding to your choice of words being that "baby" owes it's "baby" status to the moment "baby" suddenly became "alive"... which you claim is the moment of fertilization.  I believe the issue was that the sperm is also alive as is the egg... that the status of "baby" is not bestowed upon a fertilized egg (nor at any other point during gestation.)  I don't believe that DL was insinuating that people who believe that there is a baby present upon conception haven't "thought it out", she (or he) appeared to be stating that there are many who have come to a different conclusion.  It is possible for people to hold differing views on this subject. 

Obviously women who abort don't "know" this in any concious sense.  Who would deliberately kill her own child?  But what would happen if, subsequent to the abortion, it dawned on a mother that that "mass of cells" was an actual human being?  That would be something very hard for her to accept.  Imagine the grief and the guilt!  Most people wouldn't want that awareness to reach the front of their heads.  That's the whole purpose of making Pro-Choice/Pro-Life discussions heated and irrational.  A person can respond to a Pro-Lifer's voice by saying, "No! No! No! You're wrong!!!"  If they responded to the voice in their head that way they'd become schizophrenic

Malarkey.  I know that if I hadn't terminated my pregnancy (and provided no complications) I would have given birth to a child.  It is nothing short of insulting to imply that women are unaware of human reproduction simply because a woman disagrees with your notions of when a person (or baby) is present.  Please, we're supposed to be  these super delicate, fragile beings who are apparently borderline schizophrenic because we hold differing views from you?  Phooey!     

But you will, at least, agree that if a growing blastocyst is "just a mass of cells" inside the body of a Pro-Choice woman, it can't possibly be "a human being" inside the body of a Pro-Life woman

Oh yes, women (and men) can (and most certainly do) disagree on what a pregnancy means.  You, yourself have referred to that mass of cells as "baby" - and I believe you are entitled to feel any way you want about your (or your partners) pregnancy... however, what you feel about my pregnancy is completely irrelevant to me.

 The debate won't go away once people know as much about biology as you do -- the debate will continue as long as there's a difference in how much of one's life different people are willing to "own".

I agree that this debate won't soon disappear... people will always feel compelled to force their beliefs (which they are convinced are absolute truths) upon others.  I do not believe this has anything to do with "own[ing]" one's life... I believe questions like what is "life" - when did "life" begin are questions that each individual must answer for her or himself.

 

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 15, 2008 - 8:40am.

I agree that this debate won't soon disappear... people will always feel compelled to force their beliefs (which they are convinced are absolute truths) upon others. I do not believe this has anything to do with "own[ing]" one's life... I believe questions like what is "life" - when did "life" begin are questions that each individual must answer for her or himself.
***********
But you're also forcing your beliefs on others by saying that they can't force their beliefs on other people...
that's your belief and you want everyone to conform to it.

Submitted by pro woman pro life on October 15, 2008 - 9:04am.

But you're also forcing your beliefs on others by saying that they can't force their beliefs on other people...
that's your belief and you want everyone to conform to it.

Are you actually suggesting that free will (i.e. a voluntary choice or decision) is a personal belief system which one can attempt to force on another person?  If so, you've completely lost me... please explain how supporting the freedom of people to make voluntary choices regarding their reproduction is forcing "everyone to conform to" my personal belief system (especially considering that I did not actually share my personal beliefs in my response.)

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 15, 2008 - 11:26am.

Are you actually suggesting that free will (i.e. a voluntary choice or decision) is a personal belief system which one can attempt to force on another person? If so, you've completely lost me... please explain how supporting the freedom of people to make voluntary choices regarding their reproduction is forcing "everyone to conform to" my personal belief system (especially considering that I did not actually share my personal beliefs in my response.)
*******
some people believe in forcing their personal beliefs on others. (I'm not talking about prolifers) you're forcing what you think is right on them when you say they have to conform to it.

Submitted by pro woman pro life on October 15, 2008 - 1:54pm.

some people believe in forcing their personal beliefs on others. (I'm not talking about prolifers) you're forcing what you think is right on them when you say they have to conform to it.

I'm sorry but that doesn't even make sense within the context of fully supporting free will among all people.  One cannot force others to conform to free will.  That I support free will in no way compels others to adhere to my personal belief system; making a statement such as yours is illogical in this context.  Further, you still haven't explained how my believing that each person has every right to their own belief system forces anything upon another person... I certainly cannot force someone to believe whatever it is that they already believe, can I?  It seems a bit redundant.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 15, 2008 - 2:11pm.

Don't you get it, Mellankelly? Human rights make tyrants and bigots cry, and that's mean.

Submitted by DL on October 15, 2008 - 5:01pm.

Don't you get it, Mellankelly? Human rights make tyrants and bigots cry, and that's mean.

Well then, I shall take care not to upset the bully's, eh?

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on October 15, 2008 - 6:29pm.

Is it your understanding that the reason there are different convictions about when human life begins is because the people who believe that it begins at conception haven't thought it out?

Actually, I was trying to find a polite way of pointing out the utter nonsense in your argument. The fact is I have yet to meet anyone who actually believes human personhood begins at conception, who names and holds funerals for zygotes that fail to implant, who push for laws that force women to take hormonal contraceptives when not attempting to conceive, or bar them from drinking coffee or riding horses for weeks after intercourse in order to prevent the loss of a fertilized egg.

Are you the first?

The point at which you can say, "Yeah, that was my life" is the point at which you would be willing to respect the life of someone who is now what you used to be.

As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Could I choose to recognize my life in my parents' sex drives, or their plans when they got married? If I did, would that make it right for the state to insinuate itself in everyone's bedroom or marriage?

People may disagree as to where their lives began, but the facts make it clear that fertilization is not a viable option. No belief, no matter how sincerely held, will make me into half a person or a chimeric individual into several.

I might note, by the way, that it was you who made the initial dogmatic pronouncement of when human life began, not I. Strange that you then retreat into relativism.

Submitted by DaveL on October 15, 2008 - 4:59pm.

 People may disagree as to where their lives began, but the facts make it clear that fertilization is not a viable option. No belief, no matter how sincerely held, will make me into half a person or a chimeric individual into several.

Dave, I understand your point.  I understood it the first time you made it.  But if the "facts make it clear" (as you assert that they do) then (as I said in the above post) why would there be such arguments about emergency contraception, or stem cell research, or IVF?  Obviously, some people actually do believe that life begins at fertilization.

 

What do I believe?  I believe that it's best to respect the life that exists from fertilization onward.  Does that make you half a person?  Why do you have to think it such concrete terms??  The zygote that preceded the split that caused you and your twin to have separate lives was worth respecting.  It would have been wrong to deliberately do harm to that zygote even at a time when no one could know whether one life or two would result from its survival.

 

Should we pass laws to bar women from drinking coffee?  I'm not a big fan of relying on laws to regulate such things.  I don't even believe in laws to restrict access to abortion -- I think the attempt to pass such laws is ultimately counterproductive.  I do, however, think that the better job a woman does of respecting life the more interest she takes in doing what needs doing to protect her child.

 

Several times today, I thought about the post you wrote to me yesterday.  I'm frustrated by the difficulty I have in communicating the thought that "respecting life" is different than "passing laws to force  mothers to respect life."  That, in itself, is disrespectful.

 

I hope you and I can have respectful and productive discussions.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 15, 2008 - 8:13pm.

 You say, Until we have that perfect world where every pregnancy is the result of a desire to bear a child, and there are no health issues, we can't deny women their autonomy and place the rights of a potential human above her own.

 

Obviously, we're never going to have a 'perfect world', so -- by your formula -- we will never be under any moral obligation to protect the unborn.  What if we turned your formula on its head and said, "Because

 we have a moral obligation to protect the unborn it is essential that we work hard to perfect the world with respect to the way our government institutions (and families, and friends, and colleagues, and universities, and empolyers) treat the mothers of the unborn?

 

I didn't invent this approach.  Maybe you've seen some of the

Feminists For Life Ads.  Look them over and take note that at no point are they suggesting that a woman's autonomy be denied.  Not all of us who are Pro-Life buy into the idea that the way to protect children is to pass laws restricting abortion access.  In fact, I would argue that a great deal of what is done in the name of being 'anti-abortion' actually increases abortions.

 

I notice you use the term 'potential human'.  If you don't believe that the thing being aborted is human than what is the need to reduce abortions?  I will admit, considering the story 'anonymous' wrote, that abortion (of a hypothetical 'potential human') is a bit of a pain and an annoyance -- but it's hardly enough of a problem to make reducing abortions a big priority.  Arthritis causes more pain and expense and not too many of us get worked up into a lather about arthritis pain.  (Well, not unless you're the one suffering it!) 

People would be in a much bigger fuss to end abortion if their concept of 'Fellow Man' included a place for the unborn.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 11, 2008 - 3:35pm.

Hi, Paul. I've enjoyed your comments (a refreshing change from those of Truth). I'd add that much of the time pressure women are under is due to the laws designed to "reduce abortions." With 24 hour waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, and the like, a woman who does not realize she's pregnant right away has the clock ticking away rapidly until she reaches the second trimester, when her options are severely limited. I wonder how many women panic under such time pressure.
-
That being said, though, you seem to be assuming that most women's choices are uninformed. (Correct me if I'm misstating.) It seems somewhat patronizing.
-
Looking forward to hearing from you....

Submitted by Dr_Dredd on October 11, 2008 - 5:10pm.

If it's patronizing to state that I believe a lot of couples get involved in sexual relationships before making a clear-headed assessment of how they would react in the event of an unplanned pregnancy .... then I'm patronizing.

 

Is it your view that most couples 'look before they leap'? 

 

What could we do to get reliable information on that point?  I've been googling like crazy, looking for a survey that asks women, "Did you discuss pregnancy options with your family/friends/partner before getting into a sexual relationship?" but I haven't found one.  I'd also be curious what the result would be if young women were asked, "Have you ever had an open and honest conversation with your mother about what she would do if you got pregnant."

 

My gut feeling (not that it matters) is that the overwhelming percentage of women are victimized by the fact that we live in a society where important discussions about sex don't take place until it's too late. 

 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 11, 2008 - 9:13pm.

My gut feeling (not that it matters) is that the overwhelming percentage of women are victimized by the fact that we live in a society where important discussions about sex don't take place until it's too late.

Women and men are both victimized by a society that makes sex such a taboo subject, not giving enough information to make intelligent choices or encouraging the kind of dialogue needed between partners.

With that said, I wish I had a better term than "potential human" for a fetus. I can't in any kind of honesty equate the development of a fetus with a fully fledged, autonomous human being. I understand this is the touchpoint for most in this debate, and exactly why I think the decision needs to be left with the woman, her medical provider, and any deity she believes in if it applies. Its something that will never really be agreed upon by people on both "sides" of the debate, so it is better left to medical professionals and individual conscience.

Peace.

Submitted by Spamamander on October 11, 2008 - 11:11pm.

I'm probably biased, because most of the sexual issues I see in my practice have to do with infertility, not abortion. I haven't seen any systematic surveys, either.

Cheers!

Submitted by Dr_Dredd on October 11, 2008 - 11:19pm.

Can and should take place in sex education classes. But frequently, unless we are talking about an "abstinence only" curriculum, many people OPPOSE sex education classes.

I am happy to see that you, Paul, use reason, candor, respect and civility in presenting your side of the issue.

My personal belief, as a health care professional is that ALL sexually active people, regardless of age, deserve and should have access to birth control, health information and counseling.

They shouldn't be frightened into any decision, or coerced in any way.

Too many Christians (I'm one) frequently forget MATT. 7:1

Submitted by John Davis, RN on October 12, 2008 - 1:58am.

"If it's patronizing to state that I believe a lot of couples get involved in sexual relationships before making a clear-headed assessment of how they would react in the event of an unplanned pregnancy .... then I'm patronizing."

No, You're patronizing because you clearly assume that your self described moral obligations and priorities are right and superior and that once we all understand we will agree. I believe the technical term is hubris.
And no, most women who choose to have abortions are the hapless victims of an uncaring society who would 'choose life' if their support system were intact, that's what we call a projection.

Submitted by colleen on October 12, 2008 - 2:00pm.

Way back in the 'seventies, when I was going to college, I studied under quite a few professors who had an absolute zeal for challenging assumptions that we students believed were unassailable.  Our reaction to these "self described" enlighteners was often pretty negative.  How DARE they think that their off-putting ideas are right and ours are wrong.

 

Now the shoe is on the other foot.  This line of discussion began when I responded to anonymous' statement  I wasn't ready to have a child. That's it. Not financially, not emotionally. Like those nosy full-of-themselves professors of my youth I had the audacity to challenge her assumptions.  She said, "That's it -- end of discussion -- no other option".  I said, "Not so fast.  Maybe you're more ready than you think you are.  Maybe you have financial and emotional supports you don't realize.  Better think this thing through.  Let's let your experience be a reason for other woment to think things through even BEFORE they get pregnant."

 

Here in the good old USA we tend to become incensed when someone asserts that s/he knows something that we ought to know, or when someone suggests that we ought to slow down and be more deliberative about our decisions.  I well acquainted with that feeling myself and it's not surprising to me that I stirred it up in you.  I have so much hubris that I actually think I might be doing you a favor.

 

Thanks for writing.  Really, I mean it!

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 12, 2008 - 4:50pm.

I well acquainted with that feeling myself and it's not surprising to me that I stirred it up in you.

I'm sure you are well acquainted with that feeling but once again you're projecting. And, btw, I most certainly do not regard you as an elder dispensing instruction and wisdom or someone capable of challenging (girlish) assumptions nor was I echoing the feelings of your lost youth.

I have so much hubris that I actually think I might be doing you a favor.

That really is so unattractive.

Submitted by colleen on October 12, 2008 - 8:08pm.

That really is so unattractive.

 It certainly came out a lot worse than I intended it to!  I'm sorry.  I could try to explain to you how I got myself into that corner, but I'd rather hope you will let me start over.

The assumption that I wish to challenge isn't so much the assumption that 'anonymous' couldn't possibly have had the financial and emotional wherewithall to have a child.  The assumption I wish to challenge is that we're in 100% posession of our own decisions.  I don't think "instruction and wisdom" come from elders so much as I think it comes from opening ourselves up to what others say.

 

Look what came from me opening up to what you said:  I realized I didn't succeed in my communication with you.   I also realized that I got you upset.  That's not 'projection' on my part -- I really stepped on your foot and that's not at all what I intended to do.  Once again, I'm sorry.

 

My belief is that we're too much alone and that we don't make the kinds of good decisions (about the things we do that really affect others) we might make if we communicated with each other better than we do.  I believe that about men and, as noted, I believe that about women.  If I state that I don't believe that a woman made the best decision she could have it's not because I believe she is girlish, stupid, unaware, a half-person, someone meant-for-reproduction, deluded or a hapless victim (these are all the attitudes I supposedly have according to posters on this thread).  I think women don't always make the best decisions they could make because they are disconnected from the help they need and deserve.  I will repeat that I believe the same about men.

 

When a woman concieves a child she doesn't want and then aborts it there's something seriously wrong.  It's not just a case of 'something being wrong' with the woman -- there's something wrong with the web of human connections she's a part of.  She deserves better, and humanity deserves better; and when it keeps happening over and over and over and over there's bound to be people (like me) who say, "Hold on there!  We all ought to make it our priority to do a better job with this."

 

People tend to think that sex is private and personal and "It ain't nobody's business but my own".  But I'm firmly convinced that if that act of sex ushers in another person to the human family it's fundamentally the most public act possible.

 

By the way, I still feel bad about what I said -- I come into this with the assumption (an assumption you've challenged) that we do each other a favor by communicating honestly about a matter where we disagree -- even if it stirs up strong feelings (as you have in me!) 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 12, 2008 - 9:33pm.

and i get what you're trying to convey. that being said, i'm kind of with amanda and colleen on this.

if i were to become pregnant tomorrow, financially, i'd probably be ok. i have a family support system, i have a loving partner, i have a decent job (relatively speaking). mentally, i'd probably get through it, because i'm a strong girl with a strong sense of self and i'd probably be fine. physically, i'm young and relatively healthy (although i have a few chronic health issues that would probably be permanently exacerbated by pregnancy). in spite of all this (or maybe because of it), i know that i do not want children. i do not want to be pregnant (even if my physical problems weren't an issue). i've discussed it with my partner, and he feels the same way. we take our birth control measures very seriously, and we are both active partners in making sure the choice doesn't ever need to be made. but should it ever have to be, then i know he'd be there for me, that he'll help me through it.

and, while i've discussed this matter to some extent with my mother and some close friends, whatever they would have me do in that situation doesn't really concern me. so, while i'm sure there are a lot of couples out there who don't discuss these things ahead of time, there are a lot who do. and some of us would still come to the same decision as the original anonymous up there.

Submitted by anonymous2 on October 13, 2008 - 1:27pm.

Physically, i'm young and relatively healthy (although i have a few chronic health issues that would probably be permanently exacerbated by pregnancy).

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said that some issues just won't be solved with a better support network. A woman should not have to risk her life or health unless it's a conscious choice that she makes to do so. No amount of support, however well meaning, will be able to restore lost kidney function or eye function or whatever function that's been impaired.

Submitted by Dr_Dredd on October 13, 2008 - 11:58pm.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to engage in reasoned dialogue about this, and have enjoyed reading through the discussion. That said, I can't help but think you have a conceptual error here:

.

When a woman concieves a child she doesn't want and then aborts it there's something seriously wrong. It's not just a case of 'something being wrong' with the woman -- there's something wrong with the web of human connections she's a part of. She deserves better, and humanity deserves better.

.

Not necessarily. Something is wrong with her web of connections if a woman feels she has to abort a child she would otherwise *want* (even she didn't expect it), because she lacks the support network required to raise a child. But if a woman aborts a child she doesn't want in the first place, then she is exercising her choice not to be, as you put it, a 'slave', and to not carry a child to term simply because she happens to have a womb and be in a sexually-active relationship.

.

I do not wish to have children, whether now (as a not-rich graduate student) or in the future (when I hope to have an academic career). My partner and I are agreed on this, and have discussed what we would do if our contraception failed: I would have an abortion. He, and my parents, would be nothing but supportive if I wanted to pursue a pregnancy; there are no flaws in the web of human connections around me. But I do not want to be a mother.

.

Want to reduce abortion levels? Free, reliable contraception for all sexually-active women who aren't actively seeking to get pregnant. All women deserve to control their own bodies - and no-one deserves to go through the panic (and, in the US, expense) of an unwanted pregnancy. If your priority is unborn life, the same applies. Think how many fertilised eggs spontaneously 'abort' without any intervention, often before implantation; the only way to save as many of those human lives, if you consider them such, as possible is to let women prevent them from being fertilised in the first place.

Submitted by Nic on October 15, 2008 - 8:17am.

My "support systems" are intact.  In fact, my mom would adore it if I gave her grandkids and would help out however she could.  But I'm still not going to have children. 

 

Paul shares the assumption that all anti-choicers do, which is that women are sort of half-people compared to men.  That we are meant purely for reproduction, and that if we have the same desires to live full lives with sex, ambition, and time to ourselves like men have, then we are deluded.  I disagree.  Women are men's equals, and that means that when we feel like not having children, we are not deluded.  We are, just like men, full humans with a right to our own feelings and desires.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on October 12, 2008 - 5:39pm.

I do not understand why people like "Truth" even post on liberal blogs. This is a blog for Pro-choicers and we do not care to hear his rude comments or biblical passages.

I think that this guy should be banned, because he is not trying to have a civil-healthy debate. This guy is trying to make people feel bad for their decisions and feels that he shoud be the "judge and juror" so to speak.

I actually left this blog because I was tired of hearing his "rants".

Submitted by Anonymous123 on October 11, 2008 - 8:47pm.

Hi again Paul and to everyone else. Sorry I haven't answered sooner to everyone but I had computer issues. Paul I say that your intelligence is quite impressive as is your choice of books to read! My husband and I have had many discussions about why are the prochoice/prolife wars so violent and he even brought up the same argument about projection. I'll even add a reason that I sometimes get upset at prolifers (well certain ones). I had an abortion at six weeks pregnant because of health reasons severe ones. My husband and I made the incredibly hard decision to abort. They way we saw it and the way the doctors described was that I would die if the pregnancy progressed most likely taking the child to the grave with me. It was a tragic situation. But getting back to why it makes me so angry sometimes dealing with prolifers is I have encountered ones (even in my own family)that have said I should of sacrificed my life for the child even if we both died. I get pretty defensive because I want to live. It made me feel like they were saying my life wasn't worth anything and from talking with other women who have had abortions that were similar to my case, they ran into much the same thing maddening them. Or what my husband calls letting emotions run the show in the debate. I realize it is hard to take emotions out of it but I have been (when I escort at PP)in the presence of enough arguments between the two sides to know that it wouldn't get so violent if we kept them out. And you are right, Paul, that so many people are like what the woman and the others are like what about the babies that it gets heated fast. I also agree that many people like the whole us vs. them mentality that the culture wars bring hell I think politians have won by fanning the flames there in some cases. On other blogs I have been told that I am an idealist for wanting to reach across the aisle so to speak and work with the other side. Hell some prochoicers would see this as treasonous for even broaching you. Call me an idealist I don't care. I believe in the end somewhere we can all get together and make peace between each other and ourselves. I don't mind listening to you, Paul. I am open to new ideas. I did also want to make mention again of how couples should talk to each other especially before marriage about family and ideas on what family is to them. Someone gave my husband and I a book before we got married about questions to ask each other before you tie the knot or something and one night we sat down and talked over all the points in the book before we got married and found we had very similar ideas on alot and just enought different to keep it interesting. I treasured that night because I believe it made us stronger and probably in the long run saved our marriage. I have since passed the book on to my friends who are thinking of marriage (hence why I can't remember the name)and they love it. If I can find the name of it I will post it on here for if a couple can discuss those issues well trust me it will make for a better relationship. But again I realize like I said before not all can but if a couple can it should be done. Uh oh computer is flakin on me again. I apologize if I haven't answered all your questions but I do look forward to debating you again, peace, Liz.

Submitted by Liz Barnes on October 12, 2008 - 12:06pm.