I am the mother of two adopted children (now men). I can not imagine a world with out them and my husband and I are forever grateful for the brave decision their birth mothers made. I know adoption is not for everyone but i do wish the world would put a more positive spin on it as a alternative.
I thank God every day for the gift of life that beautiful women provided the world with.
Adoptive mom here too! And the mother to a daughter who died the day she was born due to Trisomy 18. Two children to the casual, outside observer who would be labeled “unwanted.” The story around childbearing and why we do it has become extremely flawed and reductive. I tell my story often in an attempt to shift mindset. Thanks for sharing yours:)
Many doctors predict that infants with Trisomy 13 or 18 will die in early infancy. I have known many of these children whose parents stood up for them and they lived dependent lives for years delighting many who came to know them and love them. The pessimistic prognoses are made by obstetricians who have no empiric experience with these offspring and who are culturally tuned in to the culture of destruction known as the abortion industry.
You're absolutely right. I thankfully have a husband who is a physician and had an OB who was a beautiful woman, who didn't think she knew better than her patients. Early termination was never on the table for me and my beautiful daughter changed many lives in the short time she spent on earth. She deserved to live a life of dignity and die when her time had come. Who am I to decide if a life is worthy of living or no? We seem to have forgotten that at a society.
I had never heard of Trisomy 18, thank you for sharing. I had three ectopic pregnancies due to DES so never really got to know my babies. The world is crazy today, but I'm so blessed to have been open to the world of adoption. It was never a genetic need for me to have my own child (actually it was initially) but the need to nurture was innate.
Jan and I tried for years to have children. Then we tested to see what the heck was going on. I was shooting blanks and Jan, if she had gotten pregnant, would have died. Match made in Heaven. We adopted two kids - 2 and 4 years, siblings boy and girl, that had been severely abused physically and sexually and had bounced around in the foster system for all of their short, awful years on this earth. Both are now in their late 20's. They don't have my blood but they are as much a part of me as if they were planned. I thank God for them.
No need to pay more taxes. Federal gov't can cut the military budget 2% and or stop one of the countless Federal boondoggles to fund adoptions. Government has its priorities total oriented to KILLING people and utilizing military force to protect corporations under the guise of "spreading" Democracy. All the concerns of tax paying citizens are dismissed to accommodate the war machine and the Wall St. crooks.
That is absolutely uninformed nonsense. Every adoptive parent I know personally is devoutly pro-life and I would happily wager that the majority of those who adopt in this country are as well.
Yep. You don't get to make your own facts. Pro-lifers adopt a lot of children, many into families that already have several biologic children. That there are kids in unadopted does not mean pro-lifers don't adopt. Did you mean to write "Not enough pro-lifers adopt to account for every parentless child?" If so, you should correct what you wrote and/or write what you mean.
Your original comment that "pro-lifers don't really adopt" remains unsubstantiated nonsense. As for 19k kids who were not adopted, it seems that you're insinuating they would have been better off had they been aborted.
Come to one of our foster parent association meetings. The disconnect between the values and ideals of the woke system that perpetuates the problem, and the tireless, generally conservative religious people who are trying to clean up the mess one child at a time couldn’t be more obvious or vast. I’ve adopted two kids through foster care, and hoping to adopt our adopt daughter (prayers please). So yes, we do, very much so, do our part.
My MIL's daughter (second marriage) cared for a child from the foster system and her mother would not sever her rights. I knew a dad who had a foster son who took years and years to adopt him and cared for him through severe seizures. Comp is a joke and speaks out of his ass.
PLENTY of kids with severed ties, just sitting around....waiting. Why don't you spend less time telling people to dig and more time adopting one of those kids before they "age out" of the system, Cynthia.
Pro-life people adopt ALL the time and what is more they adopt the children that nobody else will like precious Downs children and kids with handicaps !!!! How uninformed of you !!! Many of my pro-life friends have adopted and my brother who has 5 biological kids has adopted TWO additional to save one from abortion and the other from neglect!!!!
The reason there are so many kids in foster care is because either their biological parents do not want to place them for adoption OR because the system is broken and takes years to get kids situated. But it's not lack of willing adoptive parents.
Agree with everyone else. Back up your response (generalization) with some hard data next time. I know several pro lifers who have fostered to adopt, and then had their own children when they were unable to conceive before.
My sister in law is one of 12 children, 4 biological and 8 adopted. Many are adopted from the US and many from South Korea. One such adoptee from Korea was born to royalty of some sort but had a large birthmark on her face so they placed her for adoption. My SIL has now watched her sister create a short film that has recently won awards and been shown at Sundance about ADOPTION and the primary actor is her actual younger sister who is in her mid 30s but has the capacity of a 6 yo. She is also adopted from Korea.
Still tons of kids sitting there....waiting....hop to it.
What's foolish is thinking your tiny, anecdotal family story is evidence of anything, especially refutation of larger, macro-reality. You're the foolish one.
Open your eyes and ears and you will see things you probably don't know to see. That would dash your desire to believe that pro-life folks are the opposite of what you need them to be to suit your argument. I live in this world and see it every day.
Here is the dirty little secret. If you will take an 8 year old with physical, or mental, emotional problems, (you could say) Thee is a Drive Up Window. If OTOH you want a healthy 3 month old...Pack A Lunch.
I would too. However it’s also very difficult to adopt (especially as a single person). Maybe less red tape as well. Yes, I agree having two parents raising children is more stabilizing that having one, but having no parents/positive influence in your life and being passes around multiple group homes and foster families is not better than being raised by one stable parent.
there are pleny of places to "pay more". send the IRS more money.than you owe.. they can hire women to have children by using your cash. or actaully go out and hire a woman. you can give the baby as a gift. a birthday present
I am pro choice with limitations. I have worked in the operating room decades in hospitals that did terminations. The risk to a mother's life as a reason to abort is rare as is fetal anomalies. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. What I am saying is too many women today use abortion like it's birth control and termination of a pregnancy up until 9 months for any reason whatsoever is immoral. I am pro choice within reason.
I am pro choice but would never describe myself as pro abortion. I value the potential for life. The idea that some may use abortion as a means of birth control or that some may favor late term abortions is appalling to me. But I think banning abortion is unrealistic. Educate young men and women about birth control, make it easily accessible...and remind "older" women who don't want more kids to use birth control too.
Claudia, people ARE educated about birth control. You can search high and low and you will not find a sexually active person who doesn't know that birth control exists and how to get/use it. They simply choose not to use it - in part because they're rolling the dice and think there will be no consequences, and in part because abortion is available as an "out."
Legal, easy abortion will achieve nothing else but high rates of abortion as birth control. That is a fact like gravity is a fact. We have fifty years of data to prove it. So "pro-choice within reason" unfortunately is de facto pro-abortion.
Well I think you're onto something there. I think it's a major problem that neither side absolutely refuse to talk about birth control. The pro-choice left doesn't want to talk about it because they would have to admit it is an option to stop unwanted pregnancies to begin with. The anti-abortion right doesn't want to talk about it...why? I can't think of any good reason other than that they have some moral hangups about sex, and in truth they don't even want women to use contraceptives.
While you're right that people are educated about it, clearly we need more than facts being available. We need a full-on social campaign like campaign against drunk driving, or the campaign against cigarette smoking. Both of which had been successful. But instead, both sides rush to the farthest point of extremes instead of coming together on this where they can compromise and actually make abortions obsolete except in cases of necessary exceptions. Or don't compromise, but wage a one-side campaign drive to advocating contraceptions. That neither side would do this should tell you that solving abortions is not their real priority.
Most anti-abortion people are not against contraception as a way to reduce the need for abortion. Catholics may be against it but they do not work to outlaw it - only to ensure that they not be forced to use it or fund it.
I would argue that the pro-abortion left is not interested in making abortions obsolete at all. Quite the opposite - there are campaigns to get women to state that they had an abortion and are proud of having done so. They receive enormous amounts of money in the form of political donations (like from Planned Parenthood) to keep abortion going. The abortion industry goes beyond abortion itself to the selling of baby parts (though they claim it is cost recovery).
I think that the perception that the center is somehow better than either extreme is often misguided - maybe always misguided. Is there a centrist position on slavery? Were abolitionists too extreme? (Leaving political violence out of it for the purposes of argument.)
The only way to make abortions obsolete is to outlaw abortion. Of course there will always be back alley abortions, but no one will get serious about contraception on a massive scale until abortion is removed as an option.
Outlawing abortion won't make abortions obsolete. Abortion was illegal until recent times. All that did was drive abortions underground and women died from black alley abortions. Maybe you're too young to remember the coat hangers. Or maybe your approach is out of sight, out of mind.
You can make abortions obsolete by starting a campaign for men to stop having sex unless it's a woman they are certain they want to have a child with, and they have the woman's agreement that they want to start a family and she would carry to terms if she get pregnant. The whole problem is within men's ability to solve right now. Women can't force men to have sex. Instead of going after women when it's too late, go make it illegal for men to impregnate women who aren't their wives and willing to have a child with them.
You won't make it illegal to kill your own baby but you want to make it illegal for consenting adults to have sex? That's some serious pretzel logic.
No, outlawing abortion won't make it obsolete. Nothing will make it obsolete, sadly. But outlawing it will mean a lot fewer murdered babies. And will result in a lot less irresponsible sex.
Pro-life with limitations is the same things as Pro-choice with limitations, really. It just sounds terrible to say it the first way. But it's true of everyone who is pro-life.
I'm pro-life. But I accept that 1) there must be compromise, 2) there must be limitations, 3) the life of the mother takes precedence, 4) if the baby is viable and the mother's life is at risk abortion shouldn't be the first option.
A lot of pro-lifers would deny me the label of being pro-life.
Your name suits you. Only fanatics say the life of the unborn child should have precedence over the life of the mother. That does not make you Pro life.
Unfortunately I don't think everyone who is Pro Life thinks like you or I. I can appreciate it sounds better to be Pro Life and still support abortion with limitations. However there are some very staunch far right conservatives who want all abortion outlawed.
I mean no disrespect, but I am curious. If, given a healthy pregnancy and normal 20-week fetal assessment, what reason is, to you, justifiable for abortion at this point?
The term Pro Choice implies that you support "the right" to abortion up to birth. And usually paid by the State. And if you are a fanatic like Obama, even after birth. He voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act 4 times.
It is. They rationalize it, but there is regret. One is childless and the other had fertility issues (surprise) and was only able to bring one "wanted" child to term.
And I know one who has also had three. She used it as birth control....said she didn't like other birth control. The child she gave birth to had Downs.
It is unfortunately quite common for women to have more than one abortion, though they don’t necessarily talk about it casually. (Of course you can always find a few shouting about their multiple abortions over at SYA where they have made a religious cult of abortion on demand.)
You are correct that abortion is traumatizing though. This is well born out in studies showing that women who experience abortion are more likely to struggle with depression, sexual dysfunction, drug addiction, sexual abuse, and suicide.
I feel the same! I can’t understand why the Democrats while they had control of both the house and senate couldn’t have tried to pass an abortion law. I know it would also take some Republicans to vote in favor but lets face it many conservative women are pro choice!!! This is such a political football. The state of Maine where I live has such liberal abortion laws and states like Florida 6 weeks!!! The extremes in the country strike again😡
If the laws were more moderate I don't think we would be in this situation. Unfortunately, the very liberal extremes allowing abortion at any time and for any reason and the numbers of women using it as a birth control method brought us here IMHO.
I would guess (hope?) your simple, thoughtful, and concise statement represents how most people feel. Comment threads are mostly loaded with extremest. Thank you for not being one of them.
I also had a difficult pregnancy. I found out at my 26 week check up that my son was no longer growing. He had uterine growth restriction and I had preeclampsia. It was terrifying. At 26 weeks he was the size of a 24 week fetus. I was put on immediate bed rest and sent home. I had a panic attack two days later. I’d never had a panic attack so I didn’t know what was happening and we went to the hospital. While there running tests it was discovered that I had moved into severe preeclampsia and would be at the hospital for the duration of my pregnancy which only lasted another 4 days. Wesley was born at 27 weeks during an emergency c-section weighing only 1 pound 6 ounces. He spent 72 days in the NICU and is now a perfectly healthy and happy 7 year old. He’s the best thing that ever happened to me and I love him more than anything in the universe. When I look at his face I see God.
That was the most terrifying experience of my life and caused a ton of medical conditions that plagued me for several years. Those days were so hard and we decided not to have anymore biological children because I was still high risk and I didn’t want to risk trying for another baby and having that baby have permanent health issues that we were lucky enough to avoid with Wesley. We looked into adoption and it’s basically impossible if you aren’t rich. That dream died. We have one child when we wanted a minimum of two. I still struggle with not being able to have the family we envisioned and not being able to give Wesley siblings. But I know I’m lucky that we have a child at all. I am a woman who faced cataclysmic events in a pregnancy, faced death and the potential loss of a child and came out the other side of that experience profoundly pro-life. Just offering an alternative experience to the one in this story.
Yes, Wesley is the face of God...and so are you and your husband. Thanks for sharing your harrowing experience. My situation was different in that I had to go through IVF for both of our children. (I'm so pro-life, I made sure to give each embryo a chance for life.) Both of my children went to the NICU after birth; our daughter just for the night although I never met her until the next day and our son for 2 1/2 weeks after suffering a stroke when he was a day old. So my suffering was before and after the births of our children and I am grateful to God everyday for their existence. Our lives would not be the same.
It’s hard to have those tiny babies in the NICU but it’s so great when they come home. I’m sorry to hear about your sons stroke. I didn’t even know that was possible. I sincerely hope he’s doing good now. I will keep you and your two miracles in my prayers.
I was fortunate enough to get pregnant quickly and easily. My body just didn’t want to stay pregnant. I think these children that are hard fought for teach us lessons in being grateful.
We actually feel very blessed that his pediatrician saw the full seizure (I saw something I didn't recognize earlier that morning--jerking his arm) when she came in for his first examination. We found out later that many infant strokes are only detected when 6 or so months later one side of the body isn't developing at the same pace.
Because it was detected immediately, he got speech and occupational therapy (poor thing was quite sick -- which was just terrifying) and when he went off to kindergarten I was able to retire. As an educator, I knew how to advocate for him and am proud to say he's a junior in college and will be 21 in June. He struggles with ADHD but works harder than anyone I've ever met. His sister is Type A, so she works hard but his strongest quality is persistence and perseverance. Like you, we feel blessed for all that we have.
Thank for you for sharing, my best friend had a similar situation. Her son is now a handsome 17 year old, she could not have more kids, but very happy that she was able to have one son.
Hmm I don’t believe I said that at all. The author of the story outlined her painful experience and said she’s now pro-choice. I outlined mine and said I’m now pro-life. I didn’t advocate for anything.
Good piece. Interestingly, having my baby made me more pro life. But I was aghast at what Texas legislators passed regarding abortion. I’m a Texan and a clinician. I’ve helped care for many patients who’s health was in jeopardy due to a failing pregnancy. How we as a society could force another human to suffer and put their own body in danger is barbaric. I’m politically center. I have no one to represent me. I feel abandoned by politicians who govern from the margins. Thank you for putting your story out there. ❤️
You used the word barbaric. That is actually a good word to describe what happens to a baby during an abortion. I understand your position because you work with the mothers, but what about the thousands of babies that are brutally murdered during abortions?
Guns are inanimate objects. It is the people who use them that are dangerous. Particularly, but not exclusively, the people who steal them or otherwise unlawfully procure them.
The act of a gun purchase is not an intention. I can buy a gun and not use it on another person. Likewise, I can buy a scalpel and not use it on another person.
Apples and oranges. While performing an abortion is an act and buying a gun is an act an abortion, as others have pointed out always results in the death of a fetus, while gun ownership does not. As for sympathy I have it pretty universallyfor those on both sides of each issue but I do not let my sympathy cloud my judgement. FWIW I too distrust the motives of government, particularly at this time and place.
Because most people just like to say that they're centrist because it is perceived that centrism is somehow superior to extremism. When they get in the voting booth they find a reason to vote for the party they were always going to vote for all along. Usually Democrats. "Well I was going to vote Republican but then their extremist __ position alienated me and so I voted for the Dem." Every time. They were NEVER going to vote Republican. It's s a joke really.
The word ordeal is barely adequate to this horrific story. But stories like this are not justification to abort a fully formed baby. As it turns out, both mother and baby are doing well after 13 years, showing that abortion after 8 months was not medically necessary in this case, but rather a more expedient choice during a period of terrible duress - when life and death decisions are most likely to be flawed.
I think most Americans see the 15-week milestone as a reasonable point to stop abortion at will for any reason. After that, I think most Americans support the mother’s right to survive should a pregnancy be determined to be dangerous to her life. Besides the mother, there is another human life involved here too, and as a moral and ethical species, we should not forget to speak up for that life too. It is true that we have all passed through that stage of development on our journey to our current selves, a perspective we should all bear in mind. In the case where the unborn is not viable or has a debilitating condition, there is again a reasonable case to be made to abort after 15 weeks when that condition is first detected.
The problem with unlimited access at any time being a LAW is that such a law codifies terminating a life for possibly frivolous reasons. We don’t allow anyone to terminate another life for a frivolous reason any other time, so why here? If it is to keep doctors from fearing lawsuits, let’s have the conversation to see how we could mitigate those concerns. We have found a way for self-defense and war. I think consensus could be reached on that. Since so few abortions are done in late term, this shouldn’t impact many mothers to be. And once consensus is reached, it will eventually be accepted by the population and become more uniformly applied in the law.
This story tells of a horrific experience, and it must have been awful. But congratulations on the outcome. And there is no doubt that even with that experience, this mother would never allow anyone to prematurely end her son’s life now. We need more expectant mothers to act this way.
This is a very thoughtful and considerate response, to which I fully agree. There is nothing to look at more closely. If the decision comes down to mother or child, the only person who gets to make that decision is the mother (if she is able). We simply cannot be either or, pro-choice or pro-life, as most try to force upon us. It is simply not that simple. What is required is profound respect and responsibility.
No one knew she would have a partial placental abruption at anytime during her uncomfortable ordeal on bed rest at home and in the hospital. It has zero to do with abortion. Actually nothing in her story has anything to do with abortion.
I had a great history teacher once who always said “the pendulum swings back and forth”. I’ve always been pro-choice. I marched on our city hall to support the issue. That said, as the decades have gone by I have been increasingly appalled at the acceptance, indeed the demand, that abortion up to birth should be legal. Part of me thinks that if the left hadn’t pushed so hard to get partial birth abortion legal, and acceptable, Roe v Wade would not have been overturned and states would not be passing restrictions. I do think 6 weeks is too early, but I don’t think 15 weeks is unreasonable. If you think about it, that’s typically at LEAST two months without a period. There is such a thing as birth control.
The acceptance and demand are the natural, logical sequelae of the decriminalization and destigmatization of abortion after Roe. They are not remotely surprising - in fact they are and were expected. People who protested Roe at the time were called crazy extremists for pointing out the slippery slope.
The pregnancy tests have improved significantly being able to detect pregnancy as early as 4 weeks. I also think pill form of termination should be available under medical supervision because it does have unwarranted side effects.
It strikes me that more responsibility here could be placed on the doctors and medical system that put the author through an unpleasant couple of months. It wasn’t her son’s fault she had an “irritable uterus”, and it sounds like her hospital stay could have been made better. But instead, the author uses her story to make the case that babies should be made to pay the price when they’re not “wanted” by their mothers, their only crime being that they didn’t develop perfectly, or even that they happened to be conceived at an inopportune time.
The author probably means well, but this is a classic attempt to emotionally manipulate the reader into placing the blame on the baby’s existence, instead of demanding better medical care or (heaven forfend!) a greater willingness to accept and endure challenging and even scary circumstances on behalf of one’s unborn baby, because that baby’s life has worth and value.
Half way through your well-written article, you conflate medically necessary abortions and convenience abortions. Medically necessary abortions have only rarely been "outlawed," but the hype from the pro-abortion side apparently leads to irrational fear of performing medically necessary abortions.
Contrary to what the amplified radical voices say, there IS middle ground. I cannot believe medically necessary abortions are an abomination to God, nor is that decision easy for anyone involved.
But as one who has the blood of two perfectly healthy babies on my hands, I can say I am positive that abortions of convenience are murder pure and simple.
So we basically have irrational voices on one side saying no abortions at all and on the other side saying it's OK to abort inconvenient babies. Meanwhile, our nations remains violently divided over false premises promoted by extremists on both sides.
I don't know where the answer lies, but I'm sure no doctor will ever be convicted of aborting a baby for medial reasons. I assume if you know of one who has been, you would have mentioned it in your article?
Also ... another story coming from someone who had great
medical care that saved her life and that of her baby! And instead of gratitude to the medical community for cherishing her life and that of her baby, she asks them to be willing to betray their oath to cherish and protect life.
A bit surprising for the author to say the quiet part out loud here. So now we can add the inconvenience of bed rest to the list of pro-abortion feelings over facts arguments. When are we going to stop labeling hard and unpleasant things as suffering?
More honesty is needed here. The pro-choice side will continue to lose ground if pro-choice people cannot be honest about the fact that an early c-section or early induction to save the life of the mother is not abortion. Even if the baby dies as a tragic result. Ireland pre-legalization of abortion had one of the LOWEST maternal mortality rates in the world.
Nathan Hale regretted that he had but one life to lose for his country. I regret that I have but one “like” to give this comment.
Pro-choice people DO understand that pro-life women have medical emergencies during pregnancy too, right? Do they think pro-life women just sit back and wait to die for the cause?!
I went into labor and gave birth to my 13.5 week old baby—placenta had attached incorrectly. At that age I could see he was a boy-my only son—and every bit of him was perfect. He had the same wing-like shoulder blades his second sister did.
He was valuable and not just because I wanted him. Worth my life even with kids at home. Is it not a good mother that does everything in her power to protect her children—even sit in a hospital for a month? I would have stayed the rest of my pregnancy to save him and much more.
In the clinic they described what is passed as just a little mass of tissue. But aren’t we also, just bigger? Only they can’t cry or scream yet. At least we have had our chance to breathe the air and voice our opinions.
Very sorry for your loss, but in that tragedy you share the significance and value of every life. Thanks for your open heart.
My mother had two miscarriages and I'll never forget her description of the walnut sized fully formed baby she held after one of them. My parents (and my 7 other sibs and I) experienced the death of a brother by suicide. Every life is precious and giving life can cause great suffering. But no suffering is too great for breathing life into another human being.
Every state that has limited abortion, does allow for ones that are medically necessary to save the mother’s life; But the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the stories of women being denied medically necessary abortions are due to hospital administrators/lawyers/etc willfully misinterpreting the law, to generate these types of stories. Even Catholic hospitals do salpingectomies for ectopic pregnancies.
What is weird is that IF abortion was found to be the murder of another human being those in favor of it would NOT change their position. So the "its' a life" argument is futile. The killing of old people and disabled will be the next national argument. Life is not a consideration with many, many people. Was there a huge out cry in Nazi Germany over the genocide of millions Jewish mothers, grandparents and children and many others during WW 2? When it comes to peoples desires for "something" you can bet morality is the last consideration. Gonna have to wait for judgement day to even the scales. If there is no God I guess Hitler, Pol Pot and other mass killers win.
You are correct. For most pro-abortion people, they are totally fine with ending a human life. I mean that is the whole point, is it not? If a pregnant mother didn't end the baby's life then she would give birth to a living baby. They justify it on reasons of "it's a tiny clump of cells" or "it doesn't feel pain." Or the rape/incest/health of the mother reason, which is really just a legal loophole that allows abortions up to birth if you can find a sympathetic doctor (usually also your abortionist).
It seems that old people, besides being irrelevant, are disposable. We blame the shakiness of Social Security’s finances on their longevity, not politicians’ lack of good planning and want to limit earned benefits but give UBI to drug addicts. Then we compensate with assisted suicide laws to give them dignity and human composting to make them useful. Basically saving money, getting rid of the old codgers and growing vegetables with their remains all at the same time. Win-win? Add that to their celebration of abortion and it is an ugly picture of the appalling way progressives view life at both ends of a lifetime. That is what compassion looks like to them.
It seems like it is killing, but is there never an instance where killing is acceptable? Self-defense? War? Should a rape victim carry her assailant's child? If not, then sometimes killing is ok.
Maybe the pro-choice crowd needs to admit that it is killing, and the pro-life crowd needs to admit that in certain, limited circumstances, it's ok.
The problem is, and I am a pro-lifer who came to be so when I saw my son's first sonogram, is that even a child that is conceived in rape is a separate human being. I really truly don't know the answer, but I do know that people who were conceived in rape and are functioning adults certainly didn't want to be aborted. I can't get past the fact that all of us were embryos and fetuses so why did we get protection and others didn't and don't. I agree it is a super emotional and difficult issue.
'Maybe the pro-choice crowd needs to admit that it is killing, and the pro-life crowd needs to admit that in certain, limited circumstances, it's ok.'
There's a symmetry to that which I like, Current.
Perhaps we can apply that same standard to gun control:
Maybe the pro-gun 2nd Amendment crowd will admit that it is indiscriminate killing, and endorse banning the sale of AR-15's - and the gun control crowd will, in limited circumstances, admit that, with the 350 million guns left over, some killing is ok.
Maybe it's easier to think about the death penalty that way, another issue where I go back and forth. Have those in favor admit that some innocent people will die, and those opposed admit that some crimes warrant it and it's the only way to protect people from "criminal justice reform" that puts dangerous felons back on the street.
Are you saying that it's ok to kill innocent children in war? Even in war we do not accept killing innocent civilians. Who is the unborn child, if not an innocent civilian -- An innocent life, caught in the crossfire?
No, I'm not saying it's ok to kill innocent children in war. I'm pointing out that very few of us are Shaker-style pacifists. This means that we accept that sometimes we cause the deaths of innocent civilians, but take every measure to avoid it. Or at least we should.
If you don’t think abortion is murder then it really is the lamest petty grievance against the government to be excited about. The government steals half of my money all the time. Not once in a while. All of the time. Half of it.
So the idea that people are voting solely based on this fringe non-issue indicates to me that those are people who really shouldn’t be allowed to voted.
“Oh dear lord you might have to fly to California once every six years. God help us. What a grave assault on you by the government……..which steals half of all of my money.”
Not just “fly to California once every six years” but “fly to California once every six years to rectify a situation which you participated in creating.” As has been argued elsewhere, no one is coming for medically necessary abortions so we are left with abortions of convenience. I also have a hard time getting excited that someone might have to go to some effort to murder a baby she allowed herself to conceive while at the same time the government is also stealing my money to send to Ukraine and pay perverts to teach kids to cut off their genitals.
It seems reasonable to give states jurisdiction over abortion law. It also seems reasonable to make it available within limitations. De Santis might be shooting himself in the foot with a 6-week limit; I agree with the author that this is too soon, however it was within that time frame that I had my last and most regretted abortion, a hasty decision predicated on the usual self-serving rationale that left me unintentionally childless.
Much of what supports the author's pro-choice stance is predicated on her own harrowing experience, which is rare and frankly makes little sense because she wound up with the one child that she needs to acknowledge was worth everything she went through. I have a friend who was confined to bedrest throughout her pregnancy; this friend also had used abortion as a form of birth control, with about 5 abortions behind her before she was "ready" to have a baby. It is not a stretch to assume that all those abortions might have had something to do with her ability to carry a child to term later on. She wound up with one, though she wanted more, and interestingly enough, retroactively wished she'd kept those babies she aborted, as the man who fathered them was the love of her life.
The issue with abortion is the narrative surrounding it. That one has to be "ready" to have a child. That all the ducks need to be in a row. That one's career should be established first. An entire set of priorities that leave 1 in 4 "unintentionally childless." My modest proposal is to reconsider our priorities. It's coming out in the wash these days, that one of the most challenging goals to achieve is to get married and have a baby. It shouldn't be this way.
So how to keep abortion legal within the standard 12 weeks, while promoting it as a last resort?
The Federal government doesn't "give" the States this jurisdiction, an amendment to the Constitution does. The Federal Government did however "take away" their jurisdiction during Roe vs Wade. Just commenting on the legal aspects here, not the moral aspects.
I have not heard this put succinctly. Do you have a source for your 1/4 of women, unable to have babies because of prior abortions? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
Stephen J. Shaw’s documentary “Birthgap” cites this multi-causal statistic. It’s not directly caused by abortions, although many end up childless because they aborted their opportunities thinking they weren’t “ready.”
As someone who would be classified by others as a non-religious conservative, I found this piece to be both compelling on one level, and pure propaganda on another. Not once did the author touch on the 90+ percent of abortions performed for reasons of lifestyle, finance, career, convenience, social standing or vanity. The law is such a blunt instrument, that perhaps it should not be the arbiter of whether the most innocent of human beings can be killed for the convenience of others. If today's parents-to-be had been raised on the premise that life cannot be terminated except for the horrific reasons that are already part of most state law, we would not need such hysterical displays of pro-abortion zealotry. After all, there are more families ready to adopt than there are babies being killed in the womb. Seems like a match made in heaven.
in a perfect world abortion would not exist.
But in an imperfect world....
I am the mother of two adopted children (now men). I can not imagine a world with out them and my husband and I are forever grateful for the brave decision their birth mothers made. I know adoption is not for everyone but i do wish the world would put a more positive spin on it as a alternative.
I thank God every day for the gift of life that beautiful women provided the world with.
Adoptive mom here too! And the mother to a daughter who died the day she was born due to Trisomy 18. Two children to the casual, outside observer who would be labeled “unwanted.” The story around childbearing and why we do it has become extremely flawed and reductive. I tell my story often in an attempt to shift mindset. Thanks for sharing yours:)
Many doctors predict that infants with Trisomy 13 or 18 will die in early infancy. I have known many of these children whose parents stood up for them and they lived dependent lives for years delighting many who came to know them and love them. The pessimistic prognoses are made by obstetricians who have no empiric experience with these offspring and who are culturally tuned in to the culture of destruction known as the abortion industry.
You're absolutely right. I thankfully have a husband who is a physician and had an OB who was a beautiful woman, who didn't think she knew better than her patients. Early termination was never on the table for me and my beautiful daughter changed many lives in the short time she spent on earth. She deserved to live a life of dignity and die when her time had come. Who am I to decide if a life is worthy of living or no? We seem to have forgotten that at a society.
I had never heard of Trisomy 18, thank you for sharing. I had three ectopic pregnancies due to DES so never really got to know my babies. The world is crazy today, but I'm so blessed to have been open to the world of adoption. It was never a genetic need for me to have my own child (actually it was initially) but the need to nurture was innate.
Jan and I tried for years to have children. Then we tested to see what the heck was going on. I was shooting blanks and Jan, if she had gotten pregnant, would have died. Match made in Heaven. We adopted two kids - 2 and 4 years, siblings boy and girl, that had been severely abused physically and sexually and had bounced around in the foster system for all of their short, awful years on this earth. Both are now in their late 20's. They don't have my blood but they are as much a part of me as if they were planned. I thank God for them.
No need to pay more taxes. Federal gov't can cut the military budget 2% and or stop one of the countless Federal boondoggles to fund adoptions. Government has its priorities total oriented to KILLING people and utilizing military force to protect corporations under the guise of "spreading" Democracy. All the concerns of tax paying citizens are dismissed to accommodate the war machine and the Wall St. crooks.
Yeah agree there also. We currently pay for everything else, move the money around and pay for adoptions too.
But pro-lifers don't really adopt. Nor would the agree to pay more taxes for such a ridiculous notion.
That is absolutely uninformed nonsense. Every adoptive parent I know personally is devoutly pro-life and I would happily wager that the majority of those who adopt in this country are as well.
Nope. Tons of kids in foster care/unadopted in America.
Yep. You don't get to make your own facts. Pro-lifers adopt a lot of children, many into families that already have several biologic children. That there are kids in unadopted does not mean pro-lifers don't adopt. Did you mean to write "Not enough pro-lifers adopt to account for every parentless child?" If so, you should correct what you wrote and/or write what you mean.
Oh...already have biological kids...so an extra one would be a..."burden?"
Nah. Not making anything up. 19,000 aged out.
https://www.ccainstitute.org/resources/fact-sheets
Not newborns
who cares. a kid is a kid right? an older kid is just a kid that is a Later kid. adopt one. or 10. they need homes
Well, 19,000 U.S. kids say different.
https://www.ccainstitute.org/resources/fact-sheets
Your original comment that "pro-lifers don't really adopt" remains unsubstantiated nonsense. As for 19k kids who were not adopted, it seems that you're insinuating they would have been better off had they been aborted.
More than 19,000 pro-lifers in America. So, the number should ne 0. Not "insinuating" anything.
You now have the cite/data. So, shut the f-ck up.
every .... I know does.... and I would bet.... fill in the blanks to suit your anecdotal evidence
And? Your point?
Come to one of our foster parent association meetings. The disconnect between the values and ideals of the woke system that perpetuates the problem, and the tireless, generally conservative religious people who are trying to clean up the mess one child at a time couldn’t be more obvious or vast. I’ve adopted two kids through foster care, and hoping to adopt our adopt daughter (prayers please). So yes, we do, very much so, do our part.
Fascinating. Guess that explains why there's so many kids in foster care with not families.
My MIL's daughter (second marriage) cared for a child from the foster system and her mother would not sever her rights. I knew a dad who had a foster son who took years and years to adopt him and cared for him through severe seizures. Comp is a joke and speaks out of his ass.
"Again," nothing.
PLENTY of kids with severed ties, just sitting around....waiting. Why don't you spend less time telling people to dig and more time adopting one of those kids before they "age out" of the system, Cynthia.
why does it matter.
Pro-life people adopt ALL the time and what is more they adopt the children that nobody else will like precious Downs children and kids with handicaps !!!! How uninformed of you !!! Many of my pro-life friends have adopted and my brother who has 5 biological kids has adopted TWO additional to save one from abortion and the other from neglect!!!!
Lol. Yeah....that explains why there are so few kids in foster care in the U.S, right?
The reason there are so many kids in foster care is because either their biological parents do not want to place them for adoption OR because the system is broken and takes years to get kids situated. But it's not lack of willing adoptive parents.
Lol. So now it's the biological parents fault.
People spend exhorbitant amounts of time and money to adopt Russian/Ukranian babies or Asian babies. Years don't seem to be an issue then. Odd.
Pro-lifers Americans love adoption. Overhelming majority don't do it. Or just look for specific babies/kids.
Oh yes they do! We have two sons by birth and one by adoption.
Fascinating. You are the exceptions. Tons of unadopted kids/in foster care throughout America.
Cider House Rules
You just cited a fictional movie?
You are so wrong.
Nope.
https://www.ccainstitute.org/resources/fact-sheets
What a ridiculous statement.
What an accurate statement.
https://www.ccainstitute.org/resources/fact-sheets
Agree with everyone else. Back up your response (generalization) with some hard data next time. I know several pro lifers who have fostered to adopt, and then had their own children when they were unable to conceive before.
You know what my "hard data" is, Brett? The amount of kids unadopted/foster care in the U.S. That's my hard data. So why don't YOU look that up.
And that people will spend exhorbitant amounts of money to adopt a baby from Ukraine/Russia or from an Asian country.
Odd.
That is complete nonsense. Come back here when you can speak with some truthfulness.
Nah. Too many kids in U.S. unadopted. Shoukd be 0. Love those Russian/Ukranian or Asian babies, though. Spend thousands for those.
just hit google.
Yep.
https://www.ccainstitute.org/resources/fact-sheets
My sister in law is one of 12 children, 4 biological and 8 adopted. Many are adopted from the US and many from South Korea. One such adoptee from Korea was born to royalty of some sort but had a large birthmark on her face so they placed her for adoption. My SIL has now watched her sister create a short film that has recently won awards and been shown at Sundance about ADOPTION and the primary actor is her actual younger sister who is in her mid 30s but has the capacity of a 6 yo. She is also adopted from Korea.
My college roommate has adopted three children.
You are beyond foolish.
Fascinating....really....
Don't have to go to S. Korea. Buy American.
Still tons of kids sitting there....waiting....hop to it.
What's foolish is thinking your tiny, anecdotal family story is evidence of anything, especially refutation of larger, macro-reality. You're the foolish one.
Wanna Bet! I ask you to Cite your sources, to back your claim up.
Yeah...I'll bet. Look up the number of foster kids in U.S. waiting for adoption. That's my source, Steve.
often the birth parents do not release the children. Which is their right but tragic none the same.
My feeling walk a mile in someone's shoes before you cast a stone.
Nah. PLENTY of kids released and waiting....just sittin' around....
Maybe spend less time and money looking for Ukrainian/Russian babies and Asian ones.
Cite Source.
Number of kids in foster care on the U.S. That's the source.
You'd need to present evidence; and probably extraordinary evidence; since you are making such a big claim.
Yep. Hardly any unadopted/foster kids in the system in the U.S. Pro-life just snapping them up left and right.
Open your eyes and ears and you will see things you probably don't know to see. That would dash your desire to believe that pro-life folks are the opposite of what you need them to be to suit your argument. I live in this world and see it every day.
Lol. Yep, that explains why there are actually so few kids in the foster care system in the U.S., right?
Here is the dirty little secret. If you will take an 8 year old with physical, or mental, emotional problems, (you could say) Thee is a Drive Up Window. If OTOH you want a healthy 3 month old...Pack A Lunch.
I would too. However it’s also very difficult to adopt (especially as a single person). Maybe less red tape as well. Yes, I agree having two parents raising children is more stabilizing that having one, but having no parents/positive influence in your life and being passes around multiple group homes and foster families is not better than being raised by one stable parent.
I agree love does not have a quota
there are pleny of places to "pay more". send the IRS more money.than you owe.. they can hire women to have children by using your cash. or actaully go out and hire a woman. you can give the baby as a gift. a birthday present
I don’t want to pay more tax for other peoples, lascivious behaviour and unwanted consequences
I am pro choice with limitations. I have worked in the operating room decades in hospitals that did terminations. The risk to a mother's life as a reason to abort is rare as is fetal anomalies. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. What I am saying is too many women today use abortion like it's birth control and termination of a pregnancy up until 9 months for any reason whatsoever is immoral. I am pro choice within reason.
I am pro choice but would never describe myself as pro abortion. I value the potential for life. The idea that some may use abortion as a means of birth control or that some may favor late term abortions is appalling to me. But I think banning abortion is unrealistic. Educate young men and women about birth control, make it easily accessible...and remind "older" women who don't want more kids to use birth control too.
Claudia, people ARE educated about birth control. You can search high and low and you will not find a sexually active person who doesn't know that birth control exists and how to get/use it. They simply choose not to use it - in part because they're rolling the dice and think there will be no consequences, and in part because abortion is available as an "out."
Legal, easy abortion will achieve nothing else but high rates of abortion as birth control. That is a fact like gravity is a fact. We have fifty years of data to prove it. So "pro-choice within reason" unfortunately is de facto pro-abortion.
Well I think you're onto something there. I think it's a major problem that neither side absolutely refuse to talk about birth control. The pro-choice left doesn't want to talk about it because they would have to admit it is an option to stop unwanted pregnancies to begin with. The anti-abortion right doesn't want to talk about it...why? I can't think of any good reason other than that they have some moral hangups about sex, and in truth they don't even want women to use contraceptives.
While you're right that people are educated about it, clearly we need more than facts being available. We need a full-on social campaign like campaign against drunk driving, or the campaign against cigarette smoking. Both of which had been successful. But instead, both sides rush to the farthest point of extremes instead of coming together on this where they can compromise and actually make abortions obsolete except in cases of necessary exceptions. Or don't compromise, but wage a one-side campaign drive to advocating contraceptions. That neither side would do this should tell you that solving abortions is not their real priority.
Most anti-abortion people are not against contraception as a way to reduce the need for abortion. Catholics may be against it but they do not work to outlaw it - only to ensure that they not be forced to use it or fund it.
I would argue that the pro-abortion left is not interested in making abortions obsolete at all. Quite the opposite - there are campaigns to get women to state that they had an abortion and are proud of having done so. They receive enormous amounts of money in the form of political donations (like from Planned Parenthood) to keep abortion going. The abortion industry goes beyond abortion itself to the selling of baby parts (though they claim it is cost recovery).
I think that the perception that the center is somehow better than either extreme is often misguided - maybe always misguided. Is there a centrist position on slavery? Were abolitionists too extreme? (Leaving political violence out of it for the purposes of argument.)
The only way to make abortions obsolete is to outlaw abortion. Of course there will always be back alley abortions, but no one will get serious about contraception on a massive scale until abortion is removed as an option.
Outlawing abortion won't make abortions obsolete. Abortion was illegal until recent times. All that did was drive abortions underground and women died from black alley abortions. Maybe you're too young to remember the coat hangers. Or maybe your approach is out of sight, out of mind.
You can make abortions obsolete by starting a campaign for men to stop having sex unless it's a woman they are certain they want to have a child with, and they have the woman's agreement that they want to start a family and she would carry to terms if she get pregnant. The whole problem is within men's ability to solve right now. Women can't force men to have sex. Instead of going after women when it's too late, go make it illegal for men to impregnate women who aren't their wives and willing to have a child with them.
You won't make it illegal to kill your own baby but you want to make it illegal for consenting adults to have sex? That's some serious pretzel logic.
No, outlawing abortion won't make it obsolete. Nothing will make it obsolete, sadly. But outlawing it will mean a lot fewer murdered babies. And will result in a lot less irresponsible sex.
Yes!
Theresa Bruno
If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, why aren’t you Pro Life?
Pro-life with limitations is the same things as Pro-choice with limitations, really. It just sounds terrible to say it the first way. But it's true of everyone who is pro-life.
I'm pro-life. But I accept that 1) there must be compromise, 2) there must be limitations, 3) the life of the mother takes precedence, 4) if the baby is viable and the mother's life is at risk abortion shouldn't be the first option.
A lot of pro-lifers would deny me the label of being pro-life.
OnionPeace
Your name suits you. Only fanatics say the life of the unborn child should have precedence over the life of the mother. That does not make you Pro life.
Unfortunately I don't think everyone who is Pro Life thinks like you or I. I can appreciate it sounds better to be Pro Life and still support abortion with limitations. However there are some very staunch far right conservatives who want all abortion outlawed.
They are few and far between and have no sway.
Lol. Complete ban Conservatives are "few and far between" and have "no sway."
I guess it depends on what your preferred compromises and limitations are.
Because I am pro choice especially during very early stage.
I mean no disrespect, but I am curious. If, given a healthy pregnancy and normal 20-week fetal assessment, what reason is, to you, justifiable for abortion at this point?
I do not support an abortion in that situation.
The term Pro Choice implies that you support "the right" to abortion up to birth. And usually paid by the State. And if you are a fanatic like Obama, even after birth. He voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act 4 times.
Besides, Theresa did say her position is pro-choice with limitations. Not "just" pro-choice.
Pro-life with grace period = Pro-choice with limitations. And both allow the exceptions for life of the mother, rape, and incest.
No it does not. That's your interpretation.
100% incorrect re: your claims of infanticide.
I have only met one woman who had more then one abortion. Most woman find it physically and emotionally very difficult
Trust me there are many who have.
That you know of.
I know two women who have each had three. They're simply the only ones who have admitted it.
That is horrifying.
It is. They rationalize it, but there is regret. One is childless and the other had fertility issues (surprise) and was only able to bring one "wanted" child to term.
And I know one who has also had three. She used it as birth control....said she didn't like other birth control. The child she gave birth to had Downs.
It is unfortunately quite common for women to have more than one abortion, though they don’t necessarily talk about it casually. (Of course you can always find a few shouting about their multiple abortions over at SYA where they have made a religious cult of abortion on demand.)
You are correct that abortion is traumatizing though. This is well born out in studies showing that women who experience abortion are more likely to struggle with depression, sexual dysfunction, drug addiction, sexual abuse, and suicide.
My ex girlfriend had three. With me. (Not something to be proud of..)
On her fourth pregnancy she found out too late - and he's now 36..
I feel the same! I can’t understand why the Democrats while they had control of both the house and senate couldn’t have tried to pass an abortion law. I know it would also take some Republicans to vote in favor but lets face it many conservative women are pro choice!!! This is such a political football. The state of Maine where I live has such liberal abortion laws and states like Florida 6 weeks!!! The extremes in the country strike again😡
If the laws were more moderate I don't think we would be in this situation. Unfortunately, the very liberal extremes allowing abortion at any time and for any reason and the numbers of women using it as a birth control method brought us here IMHO.
I would guess (hope?) your simple, thoughtful, and concise statement represents how most people feel. Comment threads are mostly loaded with extremest. Thank you for not being one of them.
I do not support abortion for "psychological" reasons.
I also had a difficult pregnancy. I found out at my 26 week check up that my son was no longer growing. He had uterine growth restriction and I had preeclampsia. It was terrifying. At 26 weeks he was the size of a 24 week fetus. I was put on immediate bed rest and sent home. I had a panic attack two days later. I’d never had a panic attack so I didn’t know what was happening and we went to the hospital. While there running tests it was discovered that I had moved into severe preeclampsia and would be at the hospital for the duration of my pregnancy which only lasted another 4 days. Wesley was born at 27 weeks during an emergency c-section weighing only 1 pound 6 ounces. He spent 72 days in the NICU and is now a perfectly healthy and happy 7 year old. He’s the best thing that ever happened to me and I love him more than anything in the universe. When I look at his face I see God.
That was the most terrifying experience of my life and caused a ton of medical conditions that plagued me for several years. Those days were so hard and we decided not to have anymore biological children because I was still high risk and I didn’t want to risk trying for another baby and having that baby have permanent health issues that we were lucky enough to avoid with Wesley. We looked into adoption and it’s basically impossible if you aren’t rich. That dream died. We have one child when we wanted a minimum of two. I still struggle with not being able to have the family we envisioned and not being able to give Wesley siblings. But I know I’m lucky that we have a child at all. I am a woman who faced cataclysmic events in a pregnancy, faced death and the potential loss of a child and came out the other side of that experience profoundly pro-life. Just offering an alternative experience to the one in this story.
Thank you for sharing, Felina. Your story brought tears to my eyes. Your son is very lucky to have you as his mother. God bless.
Thank you for those kind words.
Thank you for sharing. These moving stories rarely see the light of day in the mainstream world.
Thank you Felina for sharing your story.
Yes, Wesley is the face of God...and so are you and your husband. Thanks for sharing your harrowing experience. My situation was different in that I had to go through IVF for both of our children. (I'm so pro-life, I made sure to give each embryo a chance for life.) Both of my children went to the NICU after birth; our daughter just for the night although I never met her until the next day and our son for 2 1/2 weeks after suffering a stroke when he was a day old. So my suffering was before and after the births of our children and I am grateful to God everyday for their existence. Our lives would not be the same.
Peace and continued blessings for your family.
It’s hard to have those tiny babies in the NICU but it’s so great when they come home. I’m sorry to hear about your sons stroke. I didn’t even know that was possible. I sincerely hope he’s doing good now. I will keep you and your two miracles in my prayers.
I was fortunate enough to get pregnant quickly and easily. My body just didn’t want to stay pregnant. I think these children that are hard fought for teach us lessons in being grateful.
We actually feel very blessed that his pediatrician saw the full seizure (I saw something I didn't recognize earlier that morning--jerking his arm) when she came in for his first examination. We found out later that many infant strokes are only detected when 6 or so months later one side of the body isn't developing at the same pace.
Because it was detected immediately, he got speech and occupational therapy (poor thing was quite sick -- which was just terrifying) and when he went off to kindergarten I was able to retire. As an educator, I knew how to advocate for him and am proud to say he's a junior in college and will be 21 in June. He struggles with ADHD but works harder than anyone I've ever met. His sister is Type A, so she works hard but his strongest quality is persistence and perseverance. Like you, we feel blessed for all that we have.
God bless and keep you and your family. If it helps any every mother on the planet has would, shoulda, coulda regrets about parenthood.
Thank for you for sharing, my best friend had a similar situation. Her son is now a handsome 17 year old, she could not have more kids, but very happy that she was able to have one son.
Amen sister. Thank you for sharing this. May God bless you and your family in this world and the next.
I'm truly sorry for what you went through. However, why should your experience and views dictate what other women can and cannot do?
Hmm I don’t believe I said that at all. The author of the story outlined her painful experience and said she’s now pro-choice. I outlined mine and said I’m now pro-life. I didn’t advocate for anything.
Felina clearly wasn’t trying to “dictate” anything. Thanks for sharing about your difficult experience and outcome.
Good piece. Interestingly, having my baby made me more pro life. But I was aghast at what Texas legislators passed regarding abortion. I’m a Texan and a clinician. I’ve helped care for many patients who’s health was in jeopardy due to a failing pregnancy. How we as a society could force another human to suffer and put their own body in danger is barbaric. I’m politically center. I have no one to represent me. I feel abandoned by politicians who govern from the margins. Thank you for putting your story out there. ❤️
Same. I am more pro-life than I used to be after having my children. We desperately need common sense to prevail on this debate.
You used the word barbaric. That is actually a good word to describe what happens to a baby during an abortion. I understand your position because you work with the mothers, but what about the thousands of babies that are brutally murdered during abortions?
Guns are inanimate objects. It is the people who use them that are dangerous. Particularly, but not exclusively, the people who steal them or otherwise unlawfully procure them.
The act of a gun purchase is not an intention. I can buy a gun and not use it on another person. Likewise, I can buy a scalpel and not use it on another person.
Apples and oranges. While performing an abortion is an act and buying a gun is an act an abortion, as others have pointed out always results in the death of a fetus, while gun ownership does not. As for sympathy I have it pretty universallyfor those on both sides of each issue but I do not let my sympathy cloud my judgement. FWIW I too distrust the motives of government, particularly at this time and place.
Buying a gun is not in any way dangerous. An abortion absolutely ends in a death.
Hear, hear!
“Pain perception” is irrelevant and you’re wrong on the stats about the reasons for abortions.
Its shocking to me that independent more centered candidates dont stand a chance in elections with so many people that say “Im center...”
Because most people just like to say that they're centrist because it is perceived that centrism is somehow superior to extremism. When they get in the voting booth they find a reason to vote for the party they were always going to vote for all along. Usually Democrats. "Well I was going to vote Republican but then their extremist __ position alienated me and so I voted for the Dem." Every time. They were NEVER going to vote Republican. It's s a joke really.
The word ordeal is barely adequate to this horrific story. But stories like this are not justification to abort a fully formed baby. As it turns out, both mother and baby are doing well after 13 years, showing that abortion after 8 months was not medically necessary in this case, but rather a more expedient choice during a period of terrible duress - when life and death decisions are most likely to be flawed.
I think most Americans see the 15-week milestone as a reasonable point to stop abortion at will for any reason. After that, I think most Americans support the mother’s right to survive should a pregnancy be determined to be dangerous to her life. Besides the mother, there is another human life involved here too, and as a moral and ethical species, we should not forget to speak up for that life too. It is true that we have all passed through that stage of development on our journey to our current selves, a perspective we should all bear in mind. In the case where the unborn is not viable or has a debilitating condition, there is again a reasonable case to be made to abort after 15 weeks when that condition is first detected.
The problem with unlimited access at any time being a LAW is that such a law codifies terminating a life for possibly frivolous reasons. We don’t allow anyone to terminate another life for a frivolous reason any other time, so why here? If it is to keep doctors from fearing lawsuits, let’s have the conversation to see how we could mitigate those concerns. We have found a way for self-defense and war. I think consensus could be reached on that. Since so few abortions are done in late term, this shouldn’t impact many mothers to be. And once consensus is reached, it will eventually be accepted by the population and become more uniformly applied in the law.
This story tells of a horrific experience, and it must have been awful. But congratulations on the outcome. And there is no doubt that even with that experience, this mother would never allow anyone to prematurely end her son’s life now. We need more expectant mothers to act this way.
Seems a reasonable, balanced way of looking at the issues.
This is a very thoughtful and considerate response, to which I fully agree. There is nothing to look at more closely. If the decision comes down to mother or child, the only person who gets to make that decision is the mother (if she is able). We simply cannot be either or, pro-choice or pro-life, as most try to force upon us. It is simply not that simple. What is required is profound respect and responsibility.
No one knew she would have a partial placental abruption at anytime during her uncomfortable ordeal on bed rest at home and in the hospital. It has zero to do with abortion. Actually nothing in her story has anything to do with abortion.
No she would not have died necessarily.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19813679/
Get over yourself. You do not get to decide the appropriateness of my response. And anyone who uses the term "you people" is not worth my time.
Emotion. Emotion. And more emotion. You really need to work on your persuasive skills.
I had a great history teacher once who always said “the pendulum swings back and forth”. I’ve always been pro-choice. I marched on our city hall to support the issue. That said, as the decades have gone by I have been increasingly appalled at the acceptance, indeed the demand, that abortion up to birth should be legal. Part of me thinks that if the left hadn’t pushed so hard to get partial birth abortion legal, and acceptable, Roe v Wade would not have been overturned and states would not be passing restrictions. I do think 6 weeks is too early, but I don’t think 15 weeks is unreasonable. If you think about it, that’s typically at LEAST two months without a period. There is such a thing as birth control.
Not just the demand, which is bad enough, but the celebration of abortion.
The acceptance and demand are the natural, logical sequelae of the decriminalization and destigmatization of abortion after Roe. They are not remotely surprising - in fact they are and were expected. People who protested Roe at the time were called crazy extremists for pointing out the slippery slope.
You are spot on...
The pregnancy tests have improved significantly being able to detect pregnancy as early as 4 weeks. I also think pill form of termination should be available under medical supervision because it does have unwarranted side effects.
I've never believed the pendulum theory of history. I'll go along with a billiard ball maybe. ;-)
It strikes me that more responsibility here could be placed on the doctors and medical system that put the author through an unpleasant couple of months. It wasn’t her son’s fault she had an “irritable uterus”, and it sounds like her hospital stay could have been made better. But instead, the author uses her story to make the case that babies should be made to pay the price when they’re not “wanted” by their mothers, their only crime being that they didn’t develop perfectly, or even that they happened to be conceived at an inopportune time.
The author probably means well, but this is a classic attempt to emotionally manipulate the reader into placing the blame on the baby’s existence, instead of demanding better medical care or (heaven forfend!) a greater willingness to accept and endure challenging and even scary circumstances on behalf of one’s unborn baby, because that baby’s life has worth and value.
As the mother of five (two adopted) and also an RN, I could not agree more with your comment.
Great comment. You touched on my conclusions. The piece could have been an effective argument for better treatment by the medical facility.
Absolutely this.
I had the same reaction. Plus she sounded not very suited to the experience.
Half way through your well-written article, you conflate medically necessary abortions and convenience abortions. Medically necessary abortions have only rarely been "outlawed," but the hype from the pro-abortion side apparently leads to irrational fear of performing medically necessary abortions.
Contrary to what the amplified radical voices say, there IS middle ground. I cannot believe medically necessary abortions are an abomination to God, nor is that decision easy for anyone involved.
But as one who has the blood of two perfectly healthy babies on my hands, I can say I am positive that abortions of convenience are murder pure and simple.
So we basically have irrational voices on one side saying no abortions at all and on the other side saying it's OK to abort inconvenient babies. Meanwhile, our nations remains violently divided over false premises promoted by extremists on both sides.
I don't know where the answer lies, but I'm sure no doctor will ever be convicted of aborting a baby for medial reasons. I assume if you know of one who has been, you would have mentioned it in your article?
Also ... another story coming from someone who had great
medical care that saved her life and that of her baby! And instead of gratitude to the medical community for cherishing her life and that of her baby, she asks them to be willing to betray their oath to cherish and protect life.
A bit surprising for the author to say the quiet part out loud here. So now we can add the inconvenience of bed rest to the list of pro-abortion feelings over facts arguments. When are we going to stop labeling hard and unpleasant things as suffering?
+1000
Not to one up, but.....+1000000.
More honesty is needed here. The pro-choice side will continue to lose ground if pro-choice people cannot be honest about the fact that an early c-section or early induction to save the life of the mother is not abortion. Even if the baby dies as a tragic result. Ireland pre-legalization of abortion had one of the LOWEST maternal mortality rates in the world.
Nathan Hale regretted that he had but one life to lose for his country. I regret that I have but one “like” to give this comment.
Pro-choice people DO understand that pro-life women have medical emergencies during pregnancy too, right? Do they think pro-life women just sit back and wait to die for the cause?!
Exactly!
I went into labor and gave birth to my 13.5 week old baby—placenta had attached incorrectly. At that age I could see he was a boy-my only son—and every bit of him was perfect. He had the same wing-like shoulder blades his second sister did.
He was valuable and not just because I wanted him. Worth my life even with kids at home. Is it not a good mother that does everything in her power to protect her children—even sit in a hospital for a month? I would have stayed the rest of my pregnancy to save him and much more.
In the clinic they described what is passed as just a little mass of tissue. But aren’t we also, just bigger? Only they can’t cry or scream yet. At least we have had our chance to breathe the air and voice our opinions.
Thank you for sharing. So sorry for your loss!
I’m very sorry for your loss.
Very sorry for your loss, but in that tragedy you share the significance and value of every life. Thanks for your open heart.
My mother had two miscarriages and I'll never forget her description of the walnut sized fully formed baby she held after one of them. My parents (and my 7 other sibs and I) experienced the death of a brother by suicide. Every life is precious and giving life can cause great suffering. But no suffering is too great for breathing life into another human being.
I’m so sorry for the loss of your brother. It must be absolutely soul crushing. Your last sentence is so true and beautiful.
Thank you so kindly.
Every state that has limited abortion, does allow for ones that are medically necessary to save the mother’s life; But the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the stories of women being denied medically necessary abortions are due to hospital administrators/lawyers/etc willfully misinterpreting the law, to generate these types of stories. Even Catholic hospitals do salpingectomies for ectopic pregnancies.
Ms. Hontz,
You are super pro abortion. I will not argue with you or try to change your mind.
But what if, maybe, abortion is really killing another human being? It might be.
What is weird is that IF abortion was found to be the murder of another human being those in favor of it would NOT change their position. So the "its' a life" argument is futile. The killing of old people and disabled will be the next national argument. Life is not a consideration with many, many people. Was there a huge out cry in Nazi Germany over the genocide of millions Jewish mothers, grandparents and children and many others during WW 2? When it comes to peoples desires for "something" you can bet morality is the last consideration. Gonna have to wait for judgement day to even the scales. If there is no God I guess Hitler, Pol Pot and other mass killers win.
You are correct. For most pro-abortion people, they are totally fine with ending a human life. I mean that is the whole point, is it not? If a pregnant mother didn't end the baby's life then she would give birth to a living baby. They justify it on reasons of "it's a tiny clump of cells" or "it doesn't feel pain." Or the rape/incest/health of the mother reason, which is really just a legal loophole that allows abortions up to birth if you can find a sympathetic doctor (usually also your abortionist).
Just look at what Canada is doing with assisted suicide! Damn, it's astonishing.
It seems that old people, besides being irrelevant, are disposable. We blame the shakiness of Social Security’s finances on their longevity, not politicians’ lack of good planning and want to limit earned benefits but give UBI to drug addicts. Then we compensate with assisted suicide laws to give them dignity and human composting to make them useful. Basically saving money, getting rid of the old codgers and growing vegetables with their remains all at the same time. Win-win? Add that to their celebration of abortion and it is an ugly picture of the appalling way progressives view life at both ends of a lifetime. That is what compassion looks like to them.
It seems like it is killing, but is there never an instance where killing is acceptable? Self-defense? War? Should a rape victim carry her assailant's child? If not, then sometimes killing is ok.
Maybe the pro-choice crowd needs to admit that it is killing, and the pro-life crowd needs to admit that in certain, limited circumstances, it's ok.
What a great comment. No BS buzz words. Just pure logic sans emotion. This is how honest conversations lead to solutions.
I agree that it is an honest comment. But how does it lead to solutions?
Because 1) it acknowledges there are no perfect solutions and 2).it eliminates the emotional aspect of the dilemma.
100% Lynne
The problem is, and I am a pro-lifer who came to be so when I saw my son's first sonogram, is that even a child that is conceived in rape is a separate human being. I really truly don't know the answer, but I do know that people who were conceived in rape and are functioning adults certainly didn't want to be aborted. I can't get past the fact that all of us were embryos and fetuses so why did we get protection and others didn't and don't. I agree it is a super emotional and difficult issue.
Because our mama saw to it.
'Maybe the pro-choice crowd needs to admit that it is killing, and the pro-life crowd needs to admit that in certain, limited circumstances, it's ok.'
There's a symmetry to that which I like, Current.
Perhaps we can apply that same standard to gun control:
Maybe the pro-gun 2nd Amendment crowd will admit that it is indiscriminate killing, and endorse banning the sale of AR-15's - and the gun control crowd will, in limited circumstances, admit that, with the 350 million guns left over, some killing is ok.
Or something like that.
Interesting.
Maybe it's easier to think about the death penalty that way, another issue where I go back and forth. Have those in favor admit that some innocent people will die, and those opposed admit that some crimes warrant it and it's the only way to protect people from "criminal justice reform" that puts dangerous felons back on the street.
Are you saying that it's ok to kill innocent children in war? Even in war we do not accept killing innocent civilians. Who is the unborn child, if not an innocent civilian -- An innocent life, caught in the crossfire?
No, I'm not saying it's ok to kill innocent children in war. I'm pointing out that very few of us are Shaker-style pacifists. This means that we accept that sometimes we cause the deaths of innocent civilians, but take every measure to avoid it. Or at least we should.
If you don’t think abortion is murder then it really is the lamest petty grievance against the government to be excited about. The government steals half of my money all the time. Not once in a while. All of the time. Half of it.
So the idea that people are voting solely based on this fringe non-issue indicates to me that those are people who really shouldn’t be allowed to voted.
“Oh dear lord you might have to fly to California once every six years. God help us. What a grave assault on you by the government……..which steals half of all of my money.”
Steals and squanders
Not just “fly to California once every six years” but “fly to California once every six years to rectify a situation which you participated in creating.” As has been argued elsewhere, no one is coming for medically necessary abortions so we are left with abortions of convenience. I also have a hard time getting excited that someone might have to go to some effort to murder a baby she allowed herself to conceive while at the same time the government is also stealing my money to send to Ukraine and pay perverts to teach kids to cut off their genitals.
It seems reasonable to give states jurisdiction over abortion law. It also seems reasonable to make it available within limitations. De Santis might be shooting himself in the foot with a 6-week limit; I agree with the author that this is too soon, however it was within that time frame that I had my last and most regretted abortion, a hasty decision predicated on the usual self-serving rationale that left me unintentionally childless.
Much of what supports the author's pro-choice stance is predicated on her own harrowing experience, which is rare and frankly makes little sense because she wound up with the one child that she needs to acknowledge was worth everything she went through. I have a friend who was confined to bedrest throughout her pregnancy; this friend also had used abortion as a form of birth control, with about 5 abortions behind her before she was "ready" to have a baby. It is not a stretch to assume that all those abortions might have had something to do with her ability to carry a child to term later on. She wound up with one, though she wanted more, and interestingly enough, retroactively wished she'd kept those babies she aborted, as the man who fathered them was the love of her life.
The issue with abortion is the narrative surrounding it. That one has to be "ready" to have a child. That all the ducks need to be in a row. That one's career should be established first. An entire set of priorities that leave 1 in 4 "unintentionally childless." My modest proposal is to reconsider our priorities. It's coming out in the wash these days, that one of the most challenging goals to achieve is to get married and have a baby. It shouldn't be this way.
So how to keep abortion legal within the standard 12 weeks, while promoting it as a last resort?
The Federal government doesn't "give" the States this jurisdiction, an amendment to the Constitution does. The Federal Government did however "take away" their jurisdiction during Roe vs Wade. Just commenting on the legal aspects here, not the moral aspects.
Yes, correct-- overturning Roe v. Wade gave it back. I’m not sure whether citizens in states with bans voted for it though.
They voted for the legislators that did it. And at least in my state it has been a political position for years.
I have not heard this put succinctly. Do you have a source for your 1/4 of women, unable to have babies because of prior abortions? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
Stephen J. Shaw’s documentary “Birthgap” cites this multi-causal statistic. It’s not directly caused by abortions, although many end up childless because they aborted their opportunities thinking they weren’t “ready.”
Thank you.
As someone who would be classified by others as a non-religious conservative, I found this piece to be both compelling on one level, and pure propaganda on another. Not once did the author touch on the 90+ percent of abortions performed for reasons of lifestyle, finance, career, convenience, social standing or vanity. The law is such a blunt instrument, that perhaps it should not be the arbiter of whether the most innocent of human beings can be killed for the convenience of others. If today's parents-to-be had been raised on the premise that life cannot be terminated except for the horrific reasons that are already part of most state law, we would not need such hysterical displays of pro-abortion zealotry. After all, there are more families ready to adopt than there are babies being killed in the womb. Seems like a match made in heaven.
If people want abortion for these vanity reasons, then they should vote for it in thier states. Right? I’d rather Federal Gov stay out of it.