Newsflash: Abortion is never a "quick, easy" decision for women!

I've been amazed at the comments from DUers about how a lot of women make a "quick, easy, or rash" decision to have an abortion, and how the abortion industry "profits" off of that.

I've told my story on here many times, but I'm going to do so yet again because I'm tired of hearing things like that, and usually from men who, frankly, have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

I had just graduated from college in June of 1990 when, despite our use of condoms, I got pregnant. After a couple of months of increasinly hostile and distant behavior towards me, my fiance threw me out of the house when I was three months pregnant, saying he "didn't want me around and didn't want to deal with it" (referring to the pregnancy), and accusing me of screwing around on him because, since we used condoms, he was sure he couldn't be the father (paternity tests later threw egg all over his face).

I had not yet found a job, I had no money, and no other place to go but home. I slept in my car one night, alone, sick, and terrified, before finally facing the music and going home. I was pro-choice, but I didn't want to have an abortion; my parents, however, pushed for it, thinking it was the best thing at the time. I gave in and made an appointment at a local clinic, but when I got there I just couldn't go through with it. My fiance had been anti-abortion, and had said at first that my parents would have to go through him before I'd have an abortion, well, then, where the hell was he? I stayed at home throughout my pregnancy, (my son and I are still living with my parents), dealing with it alone and going through the labor and birth without the support of a baby's father. I personally know of many, many similar stories, and many more second-hand, and I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands more.

While I ultimately decided not to have an abortion, it was the most agonizing, heart-rending, difficult decision I've ever had to make before or since. It's been thirteen years, but the memory's as fresh as if it were yesterday, and I will NEVER EVER EVER forget it to my dying day. And that's the case with EVERY other woman I've known who's gone through it and, I would imagine, with nearly every woman, period. This is addressed mainly to the men who've posted on this: IT IS NOT A QUICK, EASY, RASH, SIMPLE DECISION! Women don't skip merrily off to the clinic, hop happily on the table, and then jump down and go tra-la-la-ing merrily on her way, without a sad thought in their pretty little heads. It's the most agonizing, difficult, heart-rending decision a woman will ever face, and it is NEVER taken lightly! That is RW fundie wingnut propaganda, and to assume otherwise is a gross insult to women and we deeply, thoroughly resent it. It just really angers me to see that kind of attitude from men, and ESPECIALLY on DU!

Actually, we deeply resent pro-life men, as well, but that's another thread.

As I man I believe that, while I may have my own opinion, in the end it is not my position to tell someone that she can or can't control her own body.

n/t

I've met women who have no problem getting an abortion, and I don't have any problem with it either.

I don't consider it murder, therefore I don't feel the need to feel bad about it whatsoever.

From a health standpoint, it shouldn't be done all the time but to say that you have to feel guilty about it just reinforces the point that you feel that it is wrong...which I don't.

I mean, if you feel bad about it you obviously thing it is wrong so why not go the extra step and outlaw it.

"no problem" with it? Were you privy to the decision-making process? Were you there when they had it done? They may have been relieved when it was over and their problem was solved, but that doesn't mean it was easy for them or they had no problem with the decision.

It was my gf...

And she had no problem doing it. She had it done, it took about half an hour and we went out for dinner later that night.

And I don't feel guilty about it whatsoever. It is a legal procedure that to me has the same signifigance as a woman having her period.

If you admit that it is a guilt racking situation, than a right winger can rightly claim that you know it is wrong. It just gives them a stronger position to use to outlaw it.

that the attitude that it is nothing more than having a period would hurt far more than believing that it is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. One of the weapons many anti-abortion people use is the notion that us pro-choicers are all cold-blooded killers. It reinforces their misguided notion that women who get abortions do so carelessly, even use them as a form of birth control. Not that I think it really matters either way. They're going to hold that position and fight to outlaw abortion no matter how we feel about it.

I'm very much pro-choice, but I also don't view abortion in the way that you describe. I'm one of those who believe it should be safe, legal, but rare. Address the causes of unwanted pregnancy rather than eliminating the choice. I understand completely why a woman would feel a lot of guilt and what she's done as well as why she would feel no guilt at all. And I don't think she should be made to feel guilty. But, just understand that most people don't hold the view that it is nothing more serious than having a mole removed.

I agree. It is a decision that should not be taken lightly or made lightly and I firmly believe that it almost never is.

... we believe that other people's personal lives are somehow our business.

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare". Rare? Why? If it "should" be rare, what ought we to do to make it that way?

It's a decision that is made by individual women, for their individual reasons and in whatever way they may happen to want to make it. That is their RIGHT. If their individual reason happens to be that they don't want to get fat, even if they simply could not be bothered to use birth control, and even if they had all the access to birth control in the world, that is simply none of your, or my, or anyone else's business. Period.

It is a decision that should not be taken lightly or made lightly ... .

Sez you? What earthly business is it of yours how anyone else makes her own decisions?

As to whether it is or is not every made "lightly", why do you think this is an issue? Why do you want to make it an issue? Why would you even want to dignify anyone else's desire to make it an issue by discussing it?

I'm grossed out by this attitude toward other women being expressed by a self-named liberal, is about all I can say.

that other people's personal lives are anyone else's business. Abortion should be safe and legal, and without any conditions or attachments. For everyone.

My whole point is that not everyone thinks abortion is no big deal. The whole point. Some reading into what I said is being done here.

And the whole rare thing is exactly what I meant. I don't think unintended pregnancies are a good thing. I don't view abortion as a good thing. I do not think it is good to not address the problem of unwanted pregnancies, because abortions are no big deal. Creating a society that doesn't put pressure on women to have an abortion because they can't afford it would go a long way. So would better sex education. I do not think that an unintended pregnancy is a walk in the park for most people. To pretend that it is so we don't have to address the problems that lead to them is shortsided.

And it has nothing to do with restricting abortion in anyway, or guilting anyone out of one.

unintended pregnancies are definitely NOT a walk in the park. I know mine sure as hell wasn't, and no one else I know in a similar situation thought so as well.

I don't view abortion as a good thing, either, although I fully support the right of a woman to choose it, and believe their decision is none of my business and I have no right to make it my business.

and for those who view it as no big deal and have no guilt about it, well I think that is great. I have a friend who had an abortion who felt that way about it. I was glad she was able to make her decision, carry it through, and go on with her life. I'm glad she didn't agonize or feel guilty about her decision.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of women who have abortions every year in the US.

You two talk as if there were some better alternative to abortion. If it isn't a good thing, what is?

Is heart surgery a good thing? It's dangerous and unpleasant and painful. Sounds like a lousy thing to me.

"Not having heart disease" is better than having heart surgery, you betcha. And what point might I have made?

"Not being pregnant" is better than having an abortion -- undoubtedly, for most women. An abortion is a surgical procedure that carries risks that a person who is not pregnant does not face, if nothing else.

But gosh -- a pregnant woman doesn't have a choice between "having an abortion" and "not being pregnant", any more than a person with heart disease has a choice between "having heart surgery" and "not having heart disease".

Once a woman is who does not want to be pregnant is pregnant, abortion is often a good thing. By the only standard that matters -- the woman's.

It makes as much sense to say "abortion should be rare" as it makes to say "heart surgery should be rare", for pity's sake. True, in both cases -- because people only have abortions or heart surgery to solve problems that they would rather not have.

Unwanted pregnancies should be rare, and heart disease should be rare. Those statements might be just a tad more meaningful. I just don't think I've ever heard anyone say "heart surgery should be rare".

So let us offer information about avoidance techniques for both unwanted pregnancies and heart disease -- and, to the extent it is possible, make alternatives to abortion and heart surgery available -- for those who want them, in both cases.

But let us not pontificate about either abortion or heart surgery being "not good", because we would be talking nonsense.

That is ... unless we thought that abortion and heart surgery were, for some reason, bad. Do we?

in my mouth, I did not mean that abortion was not good for the women who've been able to freely choose that option. And I've been there first-hand as far as making that decision and dealing with an unintended pregnancy, so please don't tell me how I felt, either. I KNOW a pregnant woman can't choose between "having an abortion" and "not being pregnant", I've been there.

exactly what you did mean when you said

I don't view abortion as a good thing ... .

I'd prefer that your explanation not be premised on things that amount to "not being pregnant is better" ... unless you're prepared to say "heart surgery is not a good thing", and can perhaps tell me when you might have said something quite as pointless about anything other than abortion.

And, of course, how anyone would be supposed to infer all of whatever explanation you offer from the statement I don't view abortion as a good thing would be another useful bit of information.

(edited to complete that last thought)

.

is not an issue that is quite as loaded as abortion is. The two things simply aren't the same.

I think we're on the same side of this issue, just talking about two different things. I feel the choice to have an abortion should not be restricted. It is entirely up to a woman to decide how she feels about the issue, and whether or not she wants to have one.

For the purposes of discussion, however, I think it is a valid point to respond to some anti-choicers with the fact that it is not something that most people take lightly. Usually, anti-choicers will say things like "well, women just use it as birth control" as if it were something as simple as making an appointment to have their hair done.

I also think it is a perfectly valid stance to think abortion isn't just hunky dory, but also be pro-choice. I'm very conflicted myself as to how I actually view it personally. However, I do not think that it is anyone else's business but a woman and her doctor, and whomever else she feels like letting in.

because no one seems to want to answer.

Usually, anti-choicers will say things like "well, women just use it as birth control" as if it were something as simple as making an appointment to have their hair done.

So what?

Why do we care what these cretins think about women?

Does any other disadvantaged group (or group that someone is trying to disadvantage) in the world worry about what their oppressors or would-be oppressors think about them?

Does any other group defend its rights by constantly harping on about what sensitive types they are, and how they agonize about whether or not to exercise the right that they are claiming to have -- and have?

Is sucking up to the oppressor, and agreeing to wear the oppressor's definition of one's self, really an effective way to defend one's rights?

Are you really not just saying that women are so devoid of moral sense that they will do evil things -- or so devoid of intelligence that they will do stupid things -- when you say that women agonize over pregnancy decisions AND you say that abortion is not "good"?

I have no problem with a statement that many women agonize over pregnancy decisions because they are not sure what decision will be best for them (and for anyone else they care about, if that's an issue for them). Many women have conflicting emotions about an unintended pregnancy -- and find it difficult to choose between the conflicting and uncertain pros and cons that can be expected to result from any decision.

But saying that women don't make such decisions "lightly" is no more meaningful or relevant than saying that African-Americans don't make the decision to go to law school "lightly", or Muslims don't make the decision to go to mosque "lightly", or gay men and lesbians don't make the decision to engage in sexual activity "lightly", when the issue is whether their right to do those things may be denied.


I also think it is a perfectly valid stance to think abortion isn't just hunky dory, but also be pro-choice.

As I've said, so do I.

What I fail to grasp is why anyone thinks it is necessary to say it -- to preface her statement that she is pro-choice with a statement that she doesn't think abortion is good (or whatever).

Being pro-choice means opposing efforts to interfere with women's exercise of their rights. If a statement that one is conflicted about, or dislikes, abortion, in principle, is going to accomplish that, fine. I have my own reservations about the morality of abortion, but I do not believe that I have, or anyone has, any justification for interfering in women's rights -- that might be a useful rebuttal to someone else's statement of personal opinion as if it were justification for interfering in women's rights.

I believe that abortion should be rare and I believe that abortion is not good and I can tell you that all women find it agonizingly difficult to choose abortion -- I continue to be at a loss as to how that might do anything to oppose efforts to interfere with women's exercise of their rights.

However, I do not think that it is anyone else's business but a woman and her doctor, and whomever else she feels like letting in.

Then I still don't understand why you would agree to treat the decision as if it were anyone else's business by acquiescing in the attempt to portray women's personal reasons and decision-making process as having anything to do with women's rights, by responding to it in any way other than "you are out of order: what you are talking about is none of your business and of no relevance to the issue".

.

If you're whole point is we shouldn't be debating with the opposition at all, then I can see where you're coming from.

But, there is a debate. Ignoring it won't make it go away. It consists of point and counter-point. So, sometimes there will times when one responds to "All women who have abortions don't give a shit" with "Well, sometimes they do." Sometimes people will say "It's no different than *insert more benign procedure here*" and it's perfectly okay to counter with "But, I don't agree". It's also okay to counter with that and be pro-choice.

Plugging our ears and saying "Nanana, I can't hear you!" isn't debate. Telling others what they should and shouldn't say, and setting up your own rules as the absolute framework for the discussion isn't debate. Saying "I'm right, and all other things are immaterial!" is not debate. If you don't want to debate the issue, that is fine. But, there are many issues and counter-issues when discussing something like abortion. If that bothers you, then maybe you should stay away from abortion debates. I usually do, because they're almost always ugly. I really have no idea why I jumped into this one.

:yourock: The assignment of a value judgement is the central issue. It is where power is usurped and/or we cede control. WHO decides? Framing the issue is EVERYTHING. I also cringed a bit when reading the headline. However it is a discussion we'll have till we don't need to have it anymore. I do hope LH and Pith re-read what you've written in less heated moments and catch the subtlety of your challenge to their core assumptions.

I don't think there's only one way to discuss the issue. I also don't attach any value judgments at all. I happen to agree that abortion should be legal with no restrictions. The only people who have to feel any way about the issue at all are the ones having the abortion. I really do get that. I didn't know how many ways to say I agree with that.

But, people ARE going to think that abortion is not such a great think. Shouting them out of the debate does no good. Trying to snark and belittle, and somehow imply that my position is somehow less pure did nothing to make me feel like somehow I should be more enlightened, I'm sorry.

I have yet to hear a heated abortion discussion when out and about after a decade on the continent. The way the system works is, a women goes to her doctor (with the insurance card that covers her visit, EVERYONE has one! Damn that socialized medicine! ;-) ) and if a pregnancy is confirmed she is ASKED how she wants it treated. Nobody's bidness 'cept whoever she chooses for her health care and those she includes in the discussion. It's not a "topic" as it's considered personal and in extremely poor taste. (Can I tell you what a relief that is? Right up there with relatively safe streets and efficient public transport). The "social welfare" state still supports the well-being of mothers, children and the elderly.

It is in Homo sapiens' best interests that women control their reproduction. That is clear. What would happen if you simply affirmed control of your own body, your commitment that every woman have that choice and refused to discuss it further, PARTICULARLY with those for whom it's a "hot button?" Do you feel a responsibility "explain yourself?" I'm just asking.

We women are so conditioned, here, there and everydamnwhere, to concern ourselves with what others think. Let me not assume for you, but it is so true for so many with whom I've commiserated over the decades and continents. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a WONDERFUL trait as it encourages communication and compromise, working things out in our common interests and accomodating others'sensibilities--- until it works against us all on such a basic level.

*BBoyz DON'T CARE what you & me think. Take that to the bank!

Does anyone have that photo o' nassy, pasty white dudes standing around when the *simian put his print on that non-medical term, that you could post right under here?

.
.
.

at least in my participation of the thread, is when I stated that I personally thought that more could be done to make abortion (or, more particularly, unwanted pregnancies) more rare i.e. social issues dealing with poverty and sex education. It was in response to a post by someone else who stated that abortion is no different than having a period, and anyone who thought otherwise was wrong.

I agree that the topic of how women feel about their abortions is in poor taste if you're talking about moral judgments, and if you're talking about keeping it legal and unrestricted. It IS no one else's business.

But, heaven forbid, I was expressing my individual feeling on the topic, not even in the context of abortion rights, and I was jumped on. A lot of the things I said were twisted and misunderstood.

Honestly, I'm on your and Iverglas's side. I really didn't see what the friggin deal was. Going head to head with those who would see our reproductive rights stripped, I'd be right with you yelling just as loudly.

to live in a place where women are allowed to live their lives and make their decisions concerning their own reproduction in peace, free from harassment and the assumption by RW wingnuts that they have the right to control your bodies and reproduction and decide such matters for you, and free from having to always explain yourself and your decisions to such people! I wonder if we'll EVER have that in this country.

wasn't "assuming" anything. I have been through that situation myself, and have known plenty of women who have, and for ALL of them it was NEVER an easy decision, some agonized for days over it knowing that they couldn't go back once the decision was made either way.

Please do not presume to tell us what we felt and how we should feel, and it is NOT just a "simple" procedure that's no different from getting a mole removed or some such thing. To pretend otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.

And perhaps I shouldn't have said "never" in the thread title, I concede that. There are, indeed, women for whom the decision is not a difficult one and who were relieved afterwards, and that's fine. That's their own and no one else's business.

But I'll tell you what. I also encountered many pro-choice people who thought I should have had an abortion and who condemned me for not having one. They thought it was "no big deal", that there would be no emotional consequences at all, and it was wrong and selfish of me NOT to have the abortion. Those people are just as bad as the pro-lifers. They're doing the same thing as the pro-lifers, only from the other side. They have no more right to tell women they should have an abortion because it's no big deal, and that they're selfish if they don't, than the pro-lifers have to demand that women go through with a pregnancy when they don't want to and when it would disrupt their life. In both scenarios, THEY ARE NOT THAT WOMAN and they don't have to deal with the consequences of whatever decision she makes.

And I will also say that to pretend that abortion should be an easy decision for women, and that they're conceding ground to the right-to-lifers if they agonize over it, is just plain WRONG, as wrong as claiming that it's always a difficult decision for women, (I conceded above that I shouldn't have put "never" in my thread title, I think I was letting emotions get the better of me when I first posted the thread in reaction to comments on another thread). My feelings in making my decision are as valid as the feelings of a woman who found the decision much easier and who had no problem with it, and I resent your saying otherwise.

In both cases, it's perfectly okay for women to feel the way they do. I don't believe that because I agonized over my own abortion decision, and because it was the most difficult decision I've ever faced, that that means I believe abortion is wrong/evil/pick your negative adjective, or that women should feel any guilt at all over deciding to have one. As long as SHE HERSELF can live with whatever decision she makes, and the decision is made by HERSELF ALONE, without any pressure or hassle from anyone else, that should be all that matters.

The core assumption I picked up (please see if the shoe fits) was the need to counter a premise so preposterous, yet prevalent. EVERYTHING that you say is true. However, our Job One is preserving our rights. Those who proffer the absurd premise that women are ditzes that cannot decide life and death matters as they SIMULTANEOUSLY rain death and destruction upon living, breathing children GLOBALLY, are in control of American legislation.
.
.
.
Anyone find that foto yet?

Well, how about getting the right wing off the backs of sex education and birth control, for starters?

I simply cannot believe how fucking stupid they are when it comes to that!

you know of only one woman, not "women"...

*You* are the one who said

Newsflash: Abortion is never a "quick, easy" decision for women!

And now you ask someone else how he knows that for some women it is?

Might we not ask you the questions you ask him:

Were you privy to the decision-making process?
Were you there when they had it done?

?

You apparently think that it is possible for you to speak for every single one of nearly a million women a year, in the US alone, who have abortions, and yet he can't speak for any women whom he believes (and why would you think he would believe that without reason?) to be exceptions to the huge, sweeping, universal statement you made?


They may have been relieved when it was over and their problem was solved, but that doesn't mean it was easy for them or they had no problem with the decision.

Here's my question: so what?

Is an individual woman's personal feelings about a decision she made and an action she took relevant to some matter of public policy?

Does how people feel about something they do have some bearing on whether they should be prohibited from doing it?

I'll bet that just about anyone faced with a forced choice, neither option being one that s/he would choose if s/he had his/her druthers, might agonize a little over the decision, if it was one likely to have considerable effect on his/her life ... or if it was one that s/he had been told all his/her life that s/he ought to agonize over.

Who *wants* to have an abortion? Any more than anyone wants to have wisdom teeth extracted? Or to cremate a parent's body? Or to have heart surgery? Most people in any of those situations -- unwanted pregnancy, painful tooth growth, parental death, heart disease -- would much rather not have to make any choice at all. Dental surgery, or pain and dental problems? Cremation, or burial? Dangerous surgery, or possible death? Pregnancy and parenthood and lost options, or loss of a different option that might be better? Who wouldn't rather not have wisdom teeth, or not have a dead parent, or not have heart disease ... or not be pregnant?

Most people faced with decisions that will or may have major consequences for their lives will consider the options and their possible consequences carefully. Some will agonize over the decision, if both options are likely to make them unhappy to some extent.

But what does that have to do with something that is a matter of public policy -- whether they should be permitted to make that decision or prohibited from making it?

And why would making such a sweeping, universal statement about the people who have to make that decision advance the argument that there are no grounds for interfering in it?

It is absolutely nobody's business how or why women make decisions about their pregnancies.

Certainly asserting that a decision is a terrible, agonizing one to make is no answer at all to the claim that anyone should not be allowed to make it.

And I gotta agree that making that assertion does nothing but play into the hands of those who claim that women should not be allowed to choose abortion -- both by making their choices a matter of public concern in the first place, when they are not; and by plainly implying that all women who have abortions have to overcome some universal belief that it is, for whatever reason, a bad thing.

It ain't.

.

Try reading some of my other responses, and you'll understand that you're not talking to someone who wants to make people's decisions for them or who thinks it's any of my business or concern what decisions others make. Why don't you try attacking the REAL misogynists and anti-choicers posting on here instead of someone who's been fighting them all from day one?

Why don't you try attacking the REAL misogynists and anti-choicers posting on here instead of someone who's been fighting them all from day one?

Your statement was misogynist and serves misogynist ends. You may have a different opinion, and of course you can go right ahead and express it, just as I may.

Making statements about women you do not know that imply that they are doing something that they believe to be a bad thing -- and that anyone who might be an exception to that rule is a freak of nature -- does not do anything to fight misogyny and misogynists.

Stating plainly that women are human beings who have the human right to make their own decisions about their own bodies and lives, for their own reasons and in their own fashions, and that neither their reasons nor the nature of their decision-making process is the business of anyone else, is what it takes to defeat the misogynists and their misogynistic agendas.

Any time that we allow the debate to veer from the only relevant issue, which is a woman's right to choose, we risk losing it.

We do not talk about how hard it is for gay men and lesbians to decide whether or not they want to get married when we call for equal marriage rights -- even though many of those people do agonize over whether to do what they want to do when that means participating in a patriarchal institution. We do not talk about how hard it is for black students to decide whether to go to a "Negro" college or a predominantly white university, there being personal and philosophical reasons for each decision. We talk about equal rights.

There is not the slightest need to talk about women's feelings about their decisions when the issue is abortion rights.

My own feeling about such discussions is that they can never be anything but disrespectful of women, not only because the discussion can never provide a proper picture of the full range of meaning that women assign to the decision, and the whole enormous body of factors that women consider, but also simply because it means dragging the intimate details of women's personal lives, their emotions and competence and values and "morals" <cf. Jane Roe ... who is not a Jane, and not a Canadian, by the way>, into the public arena.

We do not do that to any other individual or group of people who reject unjustified interference in the exercise of their rights, and in fact we reject it when others try to do it, e.g. question the "morality" of gay men and lesbians who want to marry. We say that their morality is none of anyone's business and has nothing to do with their right to equal protection of the law. We don't engage in discussions of how agonizing their decision to take a same-sex partner might be.

What on earth is wrong with saying the same thing about pregnant women?

I don't care whether the anti-choice brigade thinks that all pregnant women who terminate their pregnancies are of sub-normal intelligence with the morals of an alley cat. That is none of their business, and has nothing to do with women's right to make their own choices, and that is exactly what I will tell them when they say it. Just exactly as I would tell them if they attempted to say the same thing about the partners to same-sex relationships or about people of colour.

Their opinion about those people, or about me, is irrelevant to our RIGHT to make our own choices and our RIGHT to the equal protection of the law when we do so. And I will not be drawn into any discussion of their opinion about any of us, because by doing so I legitimize the notion that the subject of their opinion is relevant to the exercise of our rights.

I don't care what their opinion is. And I completely fail to see how I would be changing it by accepting the premise that the people they regard as stupid and/or evil are doing something stupid and/or evil. And if abortion is not a stupid and/or evil thing to do, why would you say that it is a decision that "should never" be made lightly? How on earth do you imagine that this rebuffs efforts to deny or limit access to it?

it is not the same as getting our nails done or removing a wart or something like that. It is, frankly, ending a potential life, whether you want to see it that way or not.

Those who believe it's no big deal and that it's no different from getting a wart removed, etc., and that women won't feel anything afterwards are doing as much of a disservice to women as those who want to take away women's right to make their own decisions about their lives and bodies, and who think they have the right to make the decision for them.

It is, frankly, ending a potential life, whether you want to see it that way or not.

What I, and other women, might think just doesn't matter a pinch of poop, does it? You get to define our meanings, the meanings of our pregnancies, for us.

Sorry. No.

And even if it is vaguely accurate to say that abortion "is ending a potential life" (however fantastically oxymoronic that may strike me), I and any other woman who so chooses get to say "so what?"

What's your point? Shall I assume that "ending a potential life" is a bad thing, per you? Why should I care?

And why on earth would I think that your making that claim in public is going to advance my ability to exercise my rights?

Those who believe it's no big deal and that it's no different from getting a wart removed, etc., and that women won't feel anything afterwards are doing as much of a disservice to women ...

And who, pray tell, would "those" be?

Any woman who believes that her own abortion is no big deal and no different from getting a wart removed is doing no disservice to anyone.

I'm the one who has been saying that no one is entitled to assign meaning to anyone else's abortion. And I completely fail to see how anyone's feelings about her own abortion would affect anyone else ... or how suggesting that she stifle them and not make them public, if she chose to do so, would do a disservice to anyone else.

So yes indeedy, I'd certainly agree that anyone who announced to the world that all women believe that their abortions are no big deal and no different from getting a wart removed would be doing women a disservice -- because they too would be objectifying women by ascribing characteristics to them and exhibiting disrespect to them by making their personal lives a subject of public debate.

But I didn't notice anyone doing that.

And you weren't saying that an individual woman should not express her feelings about her own abortion -- just as I would certainly not say that you should not publicly express your own feelings about your own abortion, if you for some reason felt some need to do so.

And you weren't saying that no one should tell the world that all women regard their abortions as no big deal.

You said that someone who believed that was doing women a disservice. Hell, I don't even say that someone who believes that abortion is murder is doing women a disservice; I'm not out to meddle in other people's beliefs.

Perhaps you misspoke?

.

and distorted everything I've said so that it's almost unrecognizable to me. And if you don't believe abortion is ending a potential life, try looking at an ultrasound of an even two-month pregnancy, and you won't be able to believe that.

And if you don't believe abortion is ending a potential life, ...

Oxford Concise says:

potential - capable of coming into being

Maybe you can tell me how the fuck one can possibly "end" something that has not come into being -- that does not exist. (You're the one who said that, not me.)

Just say that abortion "ends a life", and you will have made a little more sense.

But then, so does pulling a weed -- end a life. Obviously, the fact that something "ends a life" is not generally regarded as sufficient grounds for prohibiting it.

There's also the fact that a human being's life is, really, generally regarded as beginning at birth. And -- really -- if you don't agree with that, then you think that a z/e/f is a human being, and you need to be calling for abortion to be prohibited and punished as homicide.

I'm afraid that there are situations in which I very much feel that I'd rather have enemies than the kinds of friends who do more damage to my interests than they advance them.

I have little difficulty with people who have personal objections to abortion -- whatever their reasons -- but support efforts to ensure that a woman's right to choose is not infringed.

I have considerable difficulty with people -- for reasons that I can never fathom -- who find it necessary to express their personal feelings about abortion as some universal truth that overrides anyone else's meaning ... and disparage other women's choices if they are not made with the agony and guilt that they would bring to the decision themselves ... and then say Oh yeah, I believe in choice and I'd never do anything to take it away.

Too late.

presume to put words in my mouth, twist and distort my meanings, and then proceed to say with certainty how I REALLY feel about something when they don't even know me yet are so certain they're correct.

of ultrasounds of embryo's + fetus' - I can do so without feeling that abortion is killing - and that's really what you mean as you can't really "end" a "potential" anything

BTW - a 7-8 week fetus measures about half an inch long - certainly they have never screamed out viable human being to me - maybe I'm just one of those heatless callous women the GOP keep telling people about.

if we want to ensure that abortion remains safe and legal. You state:

"I don't care what their opinion is. And I completely fail to see how I would be changing it by accepting the premise that the people they regard as stupid and/or evil are doing something stupid and/or evil. And if abortion is not a stupid and/or evil thing to do, why would you say that it is a decision that "should never" be made lightly? How on earth do you imagine that this rebuffs efforts to deny or limit access to it?"

Passing off abortion as nothing more than having teeth pulled does damage as well. Bottom line is, and I think you'll agree, that it doesn't really matter one way or the other when it comes to establishing that right. But, in the framework of debate, it does. I can tell you that I'm not sure my position on abortion would have changed much if I was only presented with "but it's no different than getting your tonsils out". Those on the other side view it as murder. They DO think that women carelessly get pregnant because they don't care if they get an abortion or not. They often use THAT scenario as their argument against allowing choice. Like it or not, that pretty much frames the debate. If enough people take their side of the debate, we can kiss choice goodbye.

I don't think we should be hammering home the point that "abortion is bad" But, neither should we be doing the complete opposite, which is ignoring that it IS ending a pregnancy, which is the potential for a human being.

couldn't have said it better myself.

Passing off abortion as nothing more than having teeth pulled does damage as well.

I AM NOT. As far as I can tell, NO ONE IS.

No one here has claimed that ALL women regard abortion as "nothing more than having teeth pulled".

But some here have claimed that NO women do.

I can tell you that I'm not sure my position on abortion would have changed much if I was only presented with "but it's no different than getting your tonsils out".

And only a complete idiot, or a person who had no respect for women at all, would have said such a thing -- would have claimed to be entitled to define all women's experience for them in that way. Small wonder you wouldn't have been impressed.

What I don't get is how, exactly, presenting someone with all women agonize over having an abortion, and abortions should be rare is supposed to change his/her position from anti-choice to pro-choice.

They DO think that women carelessly get pregnant because they don't care if they get an abortion or not. They often use THAT scenario as their argument against allowing choice.

Let's try a little logic then, might we? Do you see some connection between these two things?

If I carelessly get caught shoplifting because I don't care whether I go to prison or not, does this mean that I should be denied access to a lawyer? a fair trial? that I should have no protection against cruel or unusual punishment?

If I carelessly leave my door unlocked because I don't care whether I lose my stuff or not, should I be prohibited from buying new stuff?

How exactly is a "carelessness" scenario -- or even a gross negligence scenario -- an argument for denying people rights?

Why should we legitimize that deceitful little bit of demagoguery by attempting to deny the reality of the scenario? Particularly when we have no basis for denying it at all? Of course there are women who "carelessly get pregnant because they don't care if they get an abortion or not". SO WHAT? There are people who carelessly smoke all their lives because they don't care whether they get lung cancer or not. Shall we make a law prohibiting them from obtaining chemotherapy?

I'm waiting for someone to say women carelessly get pregnant because they don't care whether they have a child or not, and use THAT scenario as their argument against allowing choice(i.e. in favour of compelling women to terminate pregnancies). Makes exactly as much sense.

People's "carelessness" is not grounds for denying their rights. Period, full stop, constitutions, etc.

Does someone really have a problem with the notion that it is women's right to do what they want about their own pregnancies? I know that the anti-choice brigade does, but I quite hope that the self-described pro-choice crowd doesn't.

I don't think we should be hammering home the point that "abortion is bad" But, neither should we be doing the complete opposite, which is ignoring that it IS ending a pregnancy, which is the potential for a human being.

How exactly is "ignoring that <abortion> is ending a pregnancy" the "complete opposite" of saying that "abortion is bad"??

It seems to me that the complete opposite of saying "abortion is bad" would be saying "abortion is good". And the fact is that what I'm saying is that whether abortion is good or bad for a particular woman -- the ONLY SENSE in which abortion is either good or bad -- is for that woman to decide. And that responding to the assertion that "abortion is bad" in any other way is counter-productive.

There seems to be a popular common hymnal being sung from here. And my response to this we mustn't ignore that abortion is ending a pregnancy prompt must be the same: so what?

If a society has sufficient justification for preventing the termination of pregnancies, then there ya go. Prohibit abortion. But before we do that, let's ask those who think there is justification to demonstrate it; let's not give them ammunition, and definitely let's not tell them that we're speaking for all women when we do it.

Saying "pregnancy ... is the potential for a human being" (even if that made sense ... again, I'm just seeing fuzzy buzzwords) does not establish that pregnancy is something that a society has an interest in that supercedes the pregnant woman's interest, such as would justify prohibiting abortion. It sure does sound nasty, though. Is there a reason you want to keep saying it?

If society doesn't have such a compelling interest, then why keep stating the obvious? Abortion terminates a pregnancy. Did someone think it didn't?

It is a woman's right to decide what to do about her pregnancy. It is a woman's right to assign her own meaning to her own pregnancy, and to apply her own criteria in making the decision about what to do about her pregnancy.


(html fixed on edit)

.

what the hell else to say. I frigging agree with you already about your last sentence. I couldn't agree more riding on the agreement bus to agreeville, wearing a t-shirt that says "I agree!". I don't know what more you want.

Look, you don't have to use logic scenarios with me. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me a simpering idiot. You don't even have to convince me that the right to abortion is extremely important. You say it doesn't matter what a woman's views are on abortion. I get that already. I also agree!

You are the one who got all in a twist when the OP had the AUDACITY to say that not all women take abortion lightly.

Not that it matters one iota, but a pregnancy has the potential to bring forth a human being into the world. Nothing oxymoronic about that The reason I stated that isn't to merely state the obvious. It is the number one reason why abortion is such a hot topic.

that anyone who doesn't totally agree with her is a simpering idiot. And, while I'm sure there are women who may not have too much of a problem at all with having an abortion, I can guaran-damn-tee you that most don't take it as lightly as the wingnuts would have us believe.

what thoughts you would attribute to any woman who doesn't take her abortion as seriously as you think proper.

But then, I wouldn't care. As long as you refrained from doing it in public.

.

twisting my words, or just don't understand me. I concede that I shouldn't have said "never" in my thread title, implying that ALL women felt the same way. I was a bit too emotional when I first posted the thread in reaction to nasty sexist comments from men on another abortion thread.

However, I get the sense you're implying that I was wrong for agonizing over my decision and that that gives ground to the right-to-life wingnuts, and I don't appreciate that. My feelings regarding my abortion decision, and those of other women who felt the same way, are as valid as the feelings of the woman who doesn't have a hard time at all making her decision and who has no problem whatsoever with it. And I DO NOT HAVE any negative feelings at all toward such women.

If I did, I would have to include my own mother. While she found the decision not terribly difficult at all, and was relieved when she had the abortion, (as were we all, since she was having such a difficult time physically, and it was painful to have to watch her deal with it), she also didn't take it lightly either.

My aunt, on the other hand, had nightmares for years afterwards and was emotionally upset for years afterwards, even though she knew it was the right decision since she was young and in no way able to handle motherhood at that point, and she had the support of all of us in making her decision, whatever that decision was. My grandmother went with her to the clinic and stayed with her afterwards. But you would have me believe that her feelings were wrong and invalid, and that she's conceding ground to the right-to-life wingnuts, and that is just not the case. She remains pro-choice to this day, and is trying to teach her teenage daughter (she's now married with two kids) to be the same.

But I really can't have you misrepresenting what I said.

However, I get the sense you're implying that I was wrong for agonizing over my decision and that that gives ground to the right-to-life wingnuts, and I don't appreciate that.

I haven't a clue where you'd get that "sense" from, since I have not said a single thing about your feelings.

And I have no idea what would make you think that I thought you were "wrong" for agonizing over your decision, since I have not given any indication whatsoever that I have any opinions whatsoever about anyone's decision-making process in respect of her own pregnancy.

My point was, pretty much, that I don't -- since that is simply not a matter in respect of which I think that my opinion would be of any value or significance at all. I just don't go around having opinions about things that are none of my business -- which your feelings about your pregnancy obviously are not.

But you would have me believe that her feelings were wrong and invalid, and that she's conceding ground to the right-to-life wingnuts, and that is just not the case.

And your statement that I "would have <you> believe" that, or anything at all, is simply false. I don't care what you believe about your aunt's feelings. I, personally, would not have believed anything at all about them, had I known nothing about them, and am perfectly willing to believe what you say about them.

I recommend that you be careful not to project what might be your own approach to anything onto someone else.

The fact that I believe women's own feelings about their own pregnancies and/or abortions to be irrelevant to a discussion of whether women's right to have an abortion may be interfered with is NOT a statement about those feelings, one way or any other.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are women who agonize over their decisions at length, just as I have absolutely no doubt that there are women who do not.

And I am sure that the source of the difficulty for some women is concerns about "moral" aspects of abortion, just as I am absolutely certain that for some women the source of the difficulty is completely different. I would guess, if asked, that most women who have difficulty deciding have considerations of a completely non-"moral" nature that make the decision difficult -- which decision will be best for them -- even if they do happen to have "moral" considerations as well.

I would refrain from making *any* generalizations about women's considerations in making decisions about their pregnancies, and I would refrain from characterizing *any* individual woman's decision-making process in any way unless I were, for some reason, asked, and thought that I had very good reason to answer and very good grounds for an answer.

.

you didn't get your manual on the debate topic, and what is and isn't relevant to proper abortion discourse, either? Damn, guess we're out of the loop.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You are the one who got all in a twist when the OP had the AUDACITY to say that not all women take abortion lightly.

Nope, I am the one who objected ("all in a twist" strikes me as intentionally disrespectful) when liberalhistorian said:

Newsflash: Abortion is never a "quick, easy" decision for women!

and also said:

It's the most agonizing, difficult, heart-rending decision a woman will ever face, and it is NEVER taken lightly!

emphasizing the word to which I objected, and indicating that this was not a slip of the pen.

Not quite the same thing as getting in a twist about something that I wasn't talking about at all, if it did happen.


Not that it matters one iota, but a pregnancy has the potential to bring forth a human being into the world. Nothing oxymoronic about that The reason I stated that isn't to merely state the obvious. It is the number one reason why abortion is such a hot topic.

Hmm, do you think? I don't.

I think the number one reason why abortion is such a hot topic is that prohibiting women from terminating their own pregnancies removes women's most essential control over their own lives, and ensures that women will never be able to act to achieve their own goals and aspirations on the same footing as men, and will always be disadvantaged as a group and as individuals.

I'm sure that a lot of people have been told that "a pregnancy has the potential to bring forth a human being into the world" (me, I'd say that a woman has that potential), and have chosen to believe it, and to believe that this is justification for taking women's control of their lives away from them. But then, some people will believe just anything.

I wouldn't waste time arguing with people who say that they believe that the third planet from Alpha Centauri is made of green cheese, myself. I'd just tell 'em that they didn't get to put me on a spaceship and send me there to bring some back. I'd assert my right not to be put on spaceships I don't want to be on, not argue with them about the nature of the third planet from Alpha Centauri.

People can believe whatever fairytales they want, about pregnancy or any other thing. The alleged existence of "the potential to bring forth a human being into the world" just ain't justification for denying me the ability to exercise my rights.

And now I'm off home to watch the sequel to If These Walls Could Talk, on Canada's Bravo tonight.

Just as I'm sure you really mean no disrespect towards me when you imply that I'm just not as pure in my pro-choice stance as you are.

Because somehow acknowledging the fact that pregnancy sometimes actually does result in a baby is a demerit against me. Guess they'll have to rip the epaulet off at the next pro-choice rally.

Edited to add that I don't doubt that the reason why some people want to end abortion is control over women. Those are usually people who are politically motivated in their decision. But I do not believe the majority of people hold that view for that reason. They genuinely do see life as starting at conception, therefore, to them, it is killing a baby. That is why they're against abortion. Again, I do not see how acknowledging THAT, and frameing the debate to counter that point of view is so wrong. Both are still a means to the same end: ensuring abortion rights are protected.

"I don't doubt that the reason why some people want to end abortion is control over women. Those are usually people who are politically motivated in their decision. But I do not believe the majority of people hold that view for that reason. They genuinely do see life as starting at conception"

THANK YOU -- a lot -- for saying this, Pithlet.

The debate on abortion could be a whole lot more civil and a whole lot less divisive if people on both sides of the issue took the time to understand that women who choose to have abortions are not just cold-blooded baby-killers and that those of us who have serious problems with the current legal system covering abortions are not misogynistic folks who hate and want to control women.

I, for one, appreciate your comments -- coming from a pro-choice person, and made here on DU. I hope that others listen to the wisdom in your words.

they just want to end making abortion available to poor people

I personally know republican women who have had abortions.
They could afford a super-private arrangement that would
continue even if planned parenthood were shut down.

And they sure as hell don't give a damn, either, for all of their "pro-life" rhetoric. They couldn't care less if a poor woman gets butchered and/or dies because they couldn't afford a legal, safe abortion.

...to create more Democrats? There has to be another reason.

BTW- I've heard that some inner-city abortion clinics are funded by KKK and other white supremecy groups.

And you believe this because...?

fundie RW email said it at some point!

...wants us to abort our babies.

I grew up with KKKers, and to the last male-chauvinist PIG among them, they are Extreme right-to-lifers. The very idea of any KKK man being willing to give ANY woman such authority over her own body is absolutely ludicrous. Have you ever even been IN an inner-city? What city? Were they wearing their bedding when they were offering to pay for abortions?

Thanks for the laugh, though.

Oh, geez, you poor thing! I'm glad you managed to somehow retain your intelligence and sanity, though, lol! And you're right, the KKK is adamantly, and quite hypocritically, anti-abortion.

I became an emancipated adult. All their preaching turned me into a fervently pro-choice liberal feminist - they never saw it coming. The idea of ANY of them supporting an abortion for ANY woman is laughable - truly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

"The idea of ANY of them supporting an abortion for ANY woman is laughable - truly the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

So, tell me, you have no problem believing that they would lynch a black man or emasculate a black man suspected of having sex with a white woman BUT you find it laughable that they wouldn't fund abortions for black women. I find your comment laughable. But it was refreshing of you to defend the KKK.

at all, she's absolutely correct in stating its absolute, total, adamant anti-abortion stance. They don't see the total hypocrisy in that, in being so against abortions and yet hating the baby once it's born if it's not white, they're too fucking dumb.

Much like the wingnuts don't see the hypocrisy in screaming about the "sanctity of life" and the "right to life", and then turning around and refusing to support/fund social programs, health insurance for children, etc., etc.

WHERE THE HELL DID I DEFEND THEM??? I find them the most vile creatures to slither across this planet, they are the worst scum in all mankind,
I detest, loathe, and despise them, and I would as soon spit in their faces as to look upon them EVER AGAIN! Is THAT clear enough for you to understand that I am not, nor would I ever, lift so much as a finger to EVER help ANY ONE OF THEM? They represent EVERYTHING I HATE.

And, yes, they have no problem killing black men, AND RAPING BLACK WOMEN!!! Do you need further clarification on my position, or do you get where I stand now?

...they certainly would never think of harming a black person.:puke:

BTW- I grew up black in Detroit. And no they don't wear their sheets at the clinic, they don't have the guts, they just fund it.

another BTW- Regardless of this I'm pro-choice

I know it sounds incredibly hypocritical, and it is, but the KKK is adamantly, totally, extremely anti-abortion. They don't see the total hypocrisy in being anti-abortion, yet hating babies once they're born if they happen to be non-white.

...did you?

FWIW- the link is something I just found, the info about KKK (and you'll remember I said other white supremecy groups)is something I've been aware of for years. So whether it's KKK, neo nazi or some other low life group funding the clinics is immaterial.

as I thought I had made clear. It's about their idiotic NEED TO CONTROL women - ALL women. As far as the powers behind the Republican party, it's not about the sanctity of life either; it's about REQUIRING a perpetual underclass to provide cheap labor for the ALMIGHTY they truly worship - the corporations! (As well as customers for their products)

Unfortunately, the KKK men I know would take great pride (having raped the black woman)in forcing a black woman to have their bi-racial child, rather than aborting it. Guess they must have a higher class of racist pigs in Detroit than in Az.

ergo, i doubt they would spend money on their potential mothers :eyes:

In 1993 I spent the summer in Milwaukee defending abortion clinics since Operation Rescue decided they would spend 2 weeks shutting down the clinics. There were five clinics and I drove from Madison every morning at 5 am to be there by 6 to set up our line to keep the clinics open. Now, after keeping the clinics open for the two weeks due to our defenses, Operation Rescue decided to extend their stay another four weeks, determined to shut them down. They were nasty brutal bullies, and the ordeal became very tiring. So on those days when I felt too tired to put up with their hatred, I would go to the clinic in the Black area and guess what, the most the anti-abortionists numbered was three. Usually there would only be two. And they would stand across the street singing some hymns and basically left the women alone. Now, I don't know if the anti-abortionists who make up Operation Rescue are KKK'er's, but they certainly didn't seem to care if the ONLY clinic that stayed open was in a Black neighborhood. Every other clinic was besieged. But we prevailed and kept the clinics open and they eventually went home, the losers.

their involvement???

The point I'm trying to make is that they did not care if the black women had access to abortions. They only wanted to restrict access to white women. I am not saying that they supported the black clinic, I am pointing out that they didn't feel it was necessary to close the black clinic down. Only the white ones. So it's okay for blacks to have abortions, but not whites. And believe me, they had enough people to surround all five clinics. They deliberately chose to stay away. And not because it wasn't safe, as the police were out in full force.

their majority status. And probably afraid of the neighborhood. Not hard to figure why. I disagree about them thinking it's okay for blacks to have abortions though; bring up the subject with a right-winger and one of the first things out of their mouths is their favorite stereotype - a black "welfare queen". They are truly pissed about the white women having them, though.

Frankly, you should look into the statistics of who is getting abortions and you would see why there would be no merit to that claim.

...actually I've heard it from several Babtist ministers.

http://stoptheslaughter.faithweb.com/faq/minorities.html
I found this on a google search, I'm not offering it as my point of view, but it does address what I mentioned.

n/t

Everybody should. Never pass up an opportunity to read some real good hate and lies ... and wonder why anyone would post a link to them at DU to substantiate a claim.

The link is to some of the handiwork of the American Life League, the most virulent of the "mainstream" anti-choice organizations in the US.

If there is actually anyone here who believes any of the factual assertions at that site (e.g. the lies about Margaret Sanger, "substantiated" by dishonestly patching together snippets of her words, taken out of context and applied to things to which she never applied them ...), well, I just shake my head in pity for such persons and for the rest of us who have to share a planet with them.

Unfortunately for our friend, of course, the site contains not a grain of a snippet of fact that, even if believed, would support the allegation that the KKK funds inner-city abortion clinics.

The wise and honourable thing to do at this point would be to withdraw it.


http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030214grenadereg5p5.asp

KKK leader accused of bomb plot
Abortion clinics target of his wrath, agents say

David Wayne Hull, 40, of Amwell, a longtime Klansman and adherent of
the racist Christian Identity religion, was arrested at his farmhouse
yesterday morning and arraigned in U.S. District Court, where a
magistrate ordered him held pending a detention hearing this morning.

According to an affidavit, Hull arranged for the purchase of hand
grenades in November and told an FBI witness he intended to use them
to blow up abortion clinics.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Multiple instances of anti-abortion violence:

Pensacola, FL: This city was a focal point for anti-abortion crime from mid 1984 to mid 1994:

... 1986-MAR: A second clinic was broken into and vandalized; two female employees were assaulted. John Burt, a former member of the KKK and his daughter were tried and convicted. John Burt became the local leader of Rescue America.

... 1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month.

There are allegations that the KKK's Metzger *said* that the KKK should "Covertly invest into non-White areas, invest in ghetto abortion clinics". I know of not the slightest scintilla of evidence that it has ever occurred ... and if "Babtist" ministers are in fact repeating such rumours to their flocks as fact, they should get down on their knees and beg for forgiveness.

Or heck, just do the wise and honourable thing, to preserve at least their earthly reputations if not their immortal souls, and withdraw their allegations.

.

sick and tired of all the lies the wingnut right-to-lifers have spread about the views and sayings of Margaret Sanger, who was nothing like the portrait they paint of her.

and Coretta Scott King didn't have any trouble with the truth.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABOUT/history/mlking.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABOUT/history/mlking2.html

Family Planning - A Special and Urgent Concern
A Speech by The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
Upon Accepting The Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award
May 5, 1966
Delivered by Mrs. Coretta Scott King
<MLK had to be absent on other business>

"... There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist -- a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. ..."

Mrs. Coretta Scott King delivered her husband's acceptance speech on his behalf.

Before reading Dr. King's speech, Mrs. King declared: "I am proud tonight to say a word in behalf of your mentor, and the person who symbolizes the ideas of this organization, Margaret Sanger.

Because of her dedication, her deep convictions, and for her suffering for what she believed in, I would like to say that I am proud to be a woman tonight."

One has to wonder why ANYONE would prefer the lies and slander propagated by lying, slandering people and the organizations they operate.

Just another question I'll have to keep waiting for the answer to, I guess, being careful not to hold my breath.

.

The more kids you have, the more you need to feed them.

The more you need to feed them, the more desparate you are for a job.

The more desparate you are for a job means they can pay you that much less and work you that much harder.

Amazing how many issues come back to $.

root of almost EVERYTHING in a society and culture.

and will never find a link so if someone has info either way I will appreciate it. Here goes, I've heard that most abortions are by young white women and that people of color are less likely to get an abortion.

Inner city clinics are used by people in the burbs too. At least in my High School (though that was a long time ago). Not too many Planned Parenthood offices in the North Shore Suburbs, but that doesn't mean People there are not having abortions.

sentiment is much stronger in the African-American community than in almost every other group. I don't really know if that's true or not.

for speaking so eloquently on a topic near and dear to me as well!

Relax pal. Everyone's got a right to their opinions, ESPECIALLY here. If you want to stifle that, there's a little site called "freerepublic.com" that loves to filter out things they don't like to hear.

I'm pro-choice all the way, though I'd never support someone having an abortion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

stifling opinions????????? Of course, people have the right to whatever opinion they want. And I have the right to resent and/or disagree with whatever opinion I want to as well. And how can you be pro-choice, as you claim, and yet never support someone having an abortion?

How can you be pro-choice and then have the nerve to follow up by actually choosing your personal opinions and actions. For shame!

how could someone say they were pro-choice, but never support someone having an abortion, since their having an abortion was following through on their right to make such a choice, that the pro-choice person supposedly believes they have the right to make.

is that it means the right of a pregnant woman to get an abortion, and does not extend to "rights" to coerce unwilling people into helping the pregnant woman get an abortion.

"unwilling people" help her if she decides to have the baby? Just asking.

Explanation: I believe that the law in most states specifies that the biological father can be legally required to pay child support whether he wants to or not. So the ansswer is yes, at least with respect to the biological father.

ROFLMAO! Hoo, boy, that's a good one! While "laws" may exist, good luck in enforcing them and getting any child support at all out of an awful lot of men, my son's father included.

And what I meant was that would those who are so determined to keep women from exercising their right to have an abortion, and who are so passionate in their defense of fetuses and their "right to have a life", actually walk the talk and help women in crisis/problem pregnancy situations if they decide not to have an abortion, both before AND AFTER the baby is born? My experience is that the answer to that question is a resounding NO!

Like I said earlier, I am pro-Choice, but living as I do in the South, I know many pro-Lifers and they are not all the ogres you claim. Many do indeed put their money and their time where their beliefs are -- through charity and through their churches.

I'm simply saying I've rarely met any.

I have personally done volunteer labor to help provide supplies (eg, cribs) to help impoverished women and families take care of their infants.

I also did volunteer work in a hospital that performed childbirth, but my work there was mostly related to people who died in the hospital, not the birthing patients.

generous! I'm afraid there's a whole helluva lot more involved in taking care of babies and children than that!

Charity should always be hailed, not mocked.

I was a bit harsh and unfair and for that, I apologize. But as someone who's been in this situation, it just shows how little he truly understands it. There's so much more involved in taking care of babies and children, especially if you're doing it alone because the father decided he didn't want to deal with it, and it's so very easy for people, especially men, to tell women that they should have the baby when they aren't the one who has to take care of it 24/7.

Any time someone who is NOT responsible for a child volunteers help, they should be commended.

who are trying to convince desparate women that help is availble for them. a box of baby clothes, a crib, a few bucks, a shoulder to cry on. just enough of an illusion to change someone's mind. then, poof. you are on your own, you hapless breeder, you. sorry. no commended. condemned, for the meddling control freaks they are.

I don't divide those who give charity into groups that are acceptable and those that are not.

Why does doing charity work imply some kind of special ignorance on my part?

You use a false quotation in your original post, so you have lost a lot of credibility right off the bat. Now you are stooping to personal insults. What a crock!

One suggests that someone cannot be pro-choice if s/he does not support someone's choice to have an abortion.

"Newsflash". Someone is pro-choice if s/he opposes interfering in someone else's ability to have an abortion. S/he does not have to support the decision personally.


The other one suggests that the first one suggested that pro-choice means supporting the coersion of "unwilling people" into helping someone get an abortion.

Another newsflash. What she said neither was nor implied any such thing. As if that needed to be pointed out.

.

Support's the wrong word. I guess "endorse" is what I'd use. I would never encourage it and I would try to dissuade someone from having an abortion (unless of course it threatened theirs or the child's health).

But even if I didn't support an abortion, that would be MY choice. I have no right to tell someone else how to live their lives. I have no right to impose that belief on someone else. That's how I can be pro-choice.

better what you meant now. That makes a lot more sense.

unless the baby's health was at stake? I musta read that wrong. =)

women are involved. IMHO everything to do with childbirth is not a quick, easy or rash decision. One must make the decision to carry a fetus at risk to ones health and well-being. Giving birth can involve a life and death procedure that mothers do gladly when they decide to go through with a pregnancy.

More than that, raising a child changes one's life forever and it's huge responsibility, many times borne alone by a mother if the father decides to bail out. If a women decides she is not able to fulfill these obligations then she has a right to terminate the pregnancy. This is also a tremendous burden of choice and no one should have any say in it except the pregnant woman.

I don't think these are right-wing talking points. More like a widespread male ignorance about women's experiences that crosses ideological boundaries.

--Peter

VERY WIDESPREAD IGNORANCE :O

So very true! Looks like you need to kick some ass here, Skittles.

You talk in absolutes but the real world is less black and white and more gray.

I agree that, "everything to do with childbirth is not a quick, easy or rash decision." That does not mean it is not entered into rashly. Not everyone thinks things through like they should. If they did, we wouldn't have so many unwanted pregnancies OR unwanted births.

Yes, raising a child is a "huge responsibility, many times borne alone by a mother."

Yes, MOST women have the right to terminate their pregnancies. But it gets complicated if the woman is underage (not legally adult); if the pregnancy is later-term or if the woman is not able to make decisions for herself.

"If they did, we wouldn't have so many unwanted pregnancies OR unwanted births." Sounds like a morning after pill situation to me.

And, the complications for underage, late term and mentally deficient women are uninformed adults. This is where the decisions need to be left up to the woman, or her legal guardians with consultation with her doctor and mid-wife nurse. If the guardians are idiots then the courts need to intervene.

And I do indeed support the morning after pill.

Where I split with the pro-choice side is on the under-age issue.

As for late term abortions, I think Congress had something to say about that one.

isn't mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, but she's mature enough to have and raise a baby?

Period.

Her parents need to be involved since they ARE involved in her medical care and would be involved if she decided to give birth as well.

parents and/or family who would be supportive, and who she would have no reason to fear, and too often that is just not the case.

You wish to deny rights to those who ARE responsible parents because of those who are not.

No, not every family situation is perfect. Some are great, some are horrendous. Most, for those parents who are around, fall somewhere in between. But as long as parents are involved in the day-to-day responsibilities of parenthood, this is one of them.

are involved in the decissions. not because the law says so but, because, duh, they ARE responsible parents. their kids trust them.

Kids are kids and they get scared no matter how good a job their parents do. We should not encourage the medical profession to preempt parental rights and responsibilities because of a childish fear.

the situation. you'd be surprised how often this is the case.

1. The back street abortionist. Of course parental consent wasn't needed. Many young girls died or were maimed for life. One of my friends was never able to have other children. How much better if they can get a safe therapeutic abortion whether parents know or not?

2. The forced marriage. This was very common. Two kids had to drop out of school, because the schools would not let them attend. They were deemed a bad example to the "good" kids. Most were condemned to a life of poverty, divorce, and welfare. Schools are a little more enlightened today, but even so pregnant girls and young mothers are segregated from the main student body in special schools.

3. The visit to an aunt in another city. The aunt was a home for unwed mothers. The girl was forced to carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption without usually even being allowed to see it. But that wasn't the end of it, not knowing what happened to their baby was traumatic and in the case of another friend, the baby found her when she grew up. Her husband divorced her after thirty years of marriage. This doesn't always happen but for those who had put their lives back together and then have it fall apart because of a youthful indiscretion it has been devastating.

4. The rich girl had no problem. Daddy flew her to a clinic in Europe to get a safe abortion and a fitting for a diaphram, the only widely used female contraceptive at that time. She could even have her hymen restored if virginity desirable.

Fifty years ago, America had just finished the Korean War and was firmly in the midst of the Cold War. The pill was nowhere to be seen and Playboy Magazine was brand new and heralding an American sexual revolution.

Times change. Now on to your points.

1. The back street abortionist was very bad, but don't have any illusions about abortion now. It is like ALL medical procedures and imperfect. Unfortunately, the only perfect way to not get pregnant and stay that way is to not have sex.

2. Thankfully we are largely past the forced marriage stage of history here in America. Where are pregnant girls segregated? I haven't encountered that practice in my travels.

3. I don't share your antipathy for adoption. It is a perfectly legitimate solution to a troubling problem. I know the adopted children probably appreciate it.

4. Yes, things are typically easier on the rich. Such is life.

legitimate IF IT'S FREELY CHOSEN, and, in those cases, it most definitely wasn't. My mom is 62, and she absolutely confirms everything in Cleita's post, as would my grandmother were she still alive (I know, because we talked about it many times).

The pregnant woman had no choice at all in the matter. Many suffered a lifetime of depression and similar problems because of it. It's hard for men to truly understand how devastating it is for a woman to be forced to give up a child when she doesn't want to do so. They think of it as the perfect solution, but it just isn't that simple.

And abortion is so much safer and so much less dangerous now than pre-Roe that any suggestion of true danger in undergoing the procedure is really laughable.

Choosing to carry a birth to term and then give up the child for adoption takes courage. But I think both results -- abortion or birth -- can be challenging, especially for those too young to realize the repurcusions of their actions.

Yes, abortion is much safer, but it's far from perfect. The physical and psychological damage should not be understated either.

adoption? This should be voluntary, not forced. I have known many a mature woman, who prior to legal abortion days, gave up their children for adoption when it was the fifth or sixth one and they knew they could not afford to raise it. Many young girls, not ready for motherhood too and who are pro-life, do so as well. But to force a young girl when a legal abortion could have taken care of the matter, and when that was her choice, is really cruel to me.

We we talk about teens, we discuss the whole range of underage girls from 13 on up. But pregnancy doesn't start at 13. There was a case in NY last year of a 9-year-old getting pregnant.

Families need to be involved in the process. THEY should know their daughters. And perhaps, each time, they will decide abortion is the right choice. But they need to know what is happening with the medical lives of their children.

can kill them. Now, I know they can do a caesarean, but still this is traumatic for a child. I would say that informed parents or guardians would opt for abortion. I really don't understand your point. Isn't this the "partial birth abortion" debate framed in a different context? I'm not accusing you of this but isn't it taking a situation, which is purely a medical problem, and having the law meddle in it?

Like most things in our society gets approved by laws and governments. That is one of my big points here. Abortion and all other health issues are things we face together.

As for a 10-year-old giving birth or having an abortion, I don't know the particulars of that situation or the girl's on mental and physical well being. The only ones who do are the parents who should work IN CONJUNCTION with the doctors and not be separated from them.

I mean most little girls will go to mommy if they have a tummy ache. It's the older teenage girls who may not want to tell their parents because the parents are fundies or some other kind of wack jobs. They should be able to at least get the counseling they need before parents are brought into it. Most girls with a good relationship with their parents will include them in the decision from the beginning. It's really a non-issue.

when a 9 y.o. gets pregnant, there is a sicko involved. a sicko who knows how to shut her up.

parent. Who should be the last person on earth to determine the outcome of her pregnancy

involve social services. I was just stating that the fact a responsible parent wouldn't be involved isn't even a problem here.

Not the parent at all.

Not all parents molest their children, nor do most.

Unsurprisingly, he was involved in some program to work with kids.

if you have a heart attack it has no impact on me. likewise if i have cancer, it has no impact on you. i have no "right" to decide what type of care you should have for a heart attack, and you have no "right" to determine which cancer treatment i should receive.
healthcare decisions that do not involve your body are none of your business.

I was just about to point that out, you beat me to it. I'm amazed at all of the posters who seem to think abortion is a public matter that affects all of us, when it's really just the woman's own private decision and her business alone.

which considers woman nothing more than property of man. as :puke: as that is...you hear it in many anti-choice arguments.

penis, it also gives them a superior brain. If it were true, then they would be a different species to us.

Who are property of men? I don't know any of them, nor do I really wish to.

That doesn't mean men aren't allowed to have an opinion on this issue. Like it or not, abortion AND unwanted births are both issues that impact us all.

That much should be quite obvious. It is a contentious issue, but it remains a public matter no matter how you look at it.

Several posters keep using the term "woman" in this debate, neglecting of course that some of the debate involves not women, but girls, young ones even.

... so maybe you could tell us why your (or anyone else's) adolescent daughter's pregnancy decisions wouldn't also be "a public matter"?

You think that you, a complete stranger and layperson and ignorant in every respect of the women you are talking about, get some say in the pregnancy decisions of women you have never met or even heard of.

But you think that nobody else, not even highly skilled professionals (in medicine, the law, the social sciences) -- let alone the general public through its elected representatives -- should have any say at all in your kid's pregnancy decisions, i.e. even to the extent of permitting her to make them on her own, in consultation with whichever of those professionals she and/or they think appropriate, without having to tell you.

Damn. There's gotta be some logic in there somewhere.

I know! YOU get to stick your nose into EVERYBODY's decisions, and even deeper into the decisions of people whose decisions you might actually be able to control even if you can't control anybody else's.

Have I got it now?


"It is a contentious issue, but it remains a public matter no matter how you look at it."

Proof by blatant assertion, eh? You sez so, so it's so.

Abortion is a private matter no matter how you look at it, sez I. Ta da.

Unless, of course, you look at it from up atop I Get To Stick My Nose Into Everybody's Business mountain.


Sigh, I know, the post takes up more than the space of a monitor, so ya didn't read it. Oh well, I'll try to get over my disappointment.

.

If I have a heart attack, whatever treatment I have will have been approved by the state and federal agencies. Whatever drugs I am allowed to take will be the same.

The same goes if you have cancer.

In a democracy, that is how it works. If you wish to try a drug that WE as a society have banned, we can prevent it. If you wish to perform some sort of treatment we as a society do not approve, we can prevent that as well.

This should be voluntary, not forced.

Absolutely, and in most cases a woman relinquishes a child for adoption because she has not had a real choice about it. There was no place for her to go with an infant. My birthmother kept me with her for three months before she had to admit that she had no one who would help her as long as she had a baby in tow. Another friend who is a birthmother actually lived on the streets with her infant for several months before she had to give in and relinquish her child. Some women are more "sensible" and understand that they have no hope, but there are also situations where women were forcibly restrained or given tranquilizers in the hospital when the social workers came to take the babies. These stories came from women I know personally who had babies in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

But in all this discussion, I don't see much mention of the child. Supposedly, the adoption decision is made in order to give the child "a better life." No one is asking the adopted person who is now an adult what s/he would have preferred. Yet we say that we act "in the best interests of the child."

Each year, hundreds of adults who were adopted search for and find their birthparents. They don't break into court vaults where their birth and adoption records are sealed forever. They don't access social security or other information to which they have no legal right. But they find. Speaking as one who did find, it is not easy... certainly not easy emotionally when you face the social workers and the high school graduates who are clerks in the courts. Anyone in the world, it seems, has the right to know who you are except you, and they are, it seems, perfectly within their rights to ask you why you are dissatisfied with your adoptive parents, why you don't love them, why you want to hurt them this way, and that you have no right. Still, we adopted adults persist.

There have been no records kept since the 1970s on just how many children in the U.S. are placed for adoption each year... not who, mind you, but just raw numbers. The entire supposedly joyous process is kept cloaked in secrecy in most cases. Yet researchers who have worked with volunteer adopted adults find that these adopted adults have stress levels higher than that of prisoners of war! Fully one out of three adopted adults, given the theoretical choice of being born and adopted again or never being born in the first place, choose to never have been born.

Certainly I have utmost empathy for those women who have a baby and relinquish that baby. My mother did that, and I love her. How on earth could I possibly feel otherwise?

Still, as the adult who was adopted, I totally have empathy for those adopted adults who would have chosen to never be born. That would be my choice also.

If adoption is "in the best interests of the child" then maybe we need to take another look at what we as a society have decided is "the best interests of the child." There are some of these "children" who are now adults and who would be more than willing to tell what they see as in their "best interests."

A while back I heard that the best thing a father could do for his children is to love their mother. Taking that idea on, I think the best thing all of us can do for children is to love their mothers.

Maybe you could make this into a separate post. I don't know how much interest will be shown to this aspect of adoption right now, but it certainly deserves discussion and it is something that hasn't been touched on here that I know of.

See, I personally feel that an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy should be ended by abortion as soon as possible. If you get to the point of a baby being born, then things get sticky. What should we as a society do to shelter that child and give it a chance to have a happy childhood?

1. Your abortion stories is anecdotal and probably not representative of the full spectrum of abortion decisions.

2. If pregnant women are already carefully considering all of the moral issues, social issues, economic issues and alternatives to abortion, then regulation sincerely designed to facilitate responsible choice by the pregnant woman would be unproblematic. In fact, these regulations would be downright helpful if not every pregnant woman is as thoughtful and deliberate as your particular friends are.

3. The abortion industry does profit off abortion and this profit motive can be expected to color their actions and opinions at times (just like the economic interests of any business).

4. Where'd you get the quotes in the first sentence of the text of your post. I'd like to see a link, please. I don't recall coming across those quotes here on DU.

The misogynism and abortion wars are very old here. For point No. 1, a DU'er who got an abortion because she was raped, put up a post for every DU'er who had ever gotten an abortion or had to help a friend who got one. The thread of first person ancedotal stories was pretty overwhelming and could not be ignored. All clinics involving childbirth make profits not just on abortions. As far as the moral issues go, please tell me how you just say no to a rapist?

I remember that thread... gut-wrenching and it got HUGE. There are some amazing stories here on DU.

I don't know how to search the archive, otherwise I'd be glad to post the link.

Maybe "blu" will see this thread and repost it.

today about a law requiring women having abortions to show ID at the clinic. Techno-dummy that I am, I have no clue how to link to the thread. Maybe someone who does know will be able to do it. And there are, indeed, pro-life men on DU.

Do you remember what forum the thread was in?

far easier than pro-life men. And my experience with pro-life women is that they feel that way until they or a friend or family member is in that situation, then they often change their tune.

You can accept whomever you wish. But in our democracy, both men and women can have opinions.

Do you think that people not subject to the draft should express opinions about wars?

I mean, maybe if you can't be forced to fight and die, then you are not entitled to express your opinions. I think abortion, like war, is a political issue that affects us all and that we should all feel unembarrassed to express (preferably thoughtful) opinions on both these issues.

the private decision to have an abortion, that is totally her business, "affect us all?"

abortion affects us the same way that criminal justice, tort law, fairness in the workplace, poverty and war affects us as a society. Abortion law is part of what identifies us as a society.

In addition to these pervasive social aspects, the biological father and/or state welfare systems are greatly and directly impacted by abortion decisions.

I am definitely not saying that these other intersts should categorically override a woman's choice of whether to terminate. However, I think these secondary, but important interests entitle men to have opinions, especially when the issue is mere regulation tailored to ensure that the pro-choice choice is made responsibly, rather than irresponsibly.

with the exception of your last point. I'm not sure how we ensure that the choice is made "responsibly". I think the decision whether or not to terminate involves many factors for most women, and it is different for each one.

In my case, if I were to get pregnant right now, I'd have to seriously consider whether or not have the baby, because number one, I just had a baby 11 weeks ago, and number two, the last pregnancy almost killed me. There is a good chance that another one actually would, especially considering I've not fully recovered.

I respectfully sugges that you do whatever it takes to make sure that you do not get pregnant. Your health is at stake -- plus you will save yourself the burden of a non-easy choice.

thought of that!!!!! And, frankly, her husband/bf is just as responsible as her in avoiding a pregnancy.

whose actions are relevant to the risk we are trying to avoid.

You should probably MYOB when it comes to other people's reproductive choices. I'm sure you don't realize how condescending and rude it is to tell an obviously intelligent person what to do with her own body, as if she wouldn't have known what to do without your input.

I responded the way any person should to this kind of contemplation on the part of a woman whose life is in danger.

IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS. And furthermore, do you understand how condescending it is to tell somebody, "hey, make sure you don't do that thing you know is going to kill you" as if the thought hadn't occurred to her? What makes you think she needed YOU to tell her that? Because you're a man and she's a woman? That's all I can come up with.

post did she EVER give any indication at all that she was "contemplating a pregnancy?" She was simply stating that she didn't know what she'd do if she got pregnant now since she just had a baby and another one would possibly kill her. And she really didn't need your condescending advice and misogynist attitude, either.

It is your inaccurate insults toward me that are not needed in this conversation. Stop insulting me now, please.

You have no idea what measures I take, and it is none of your business. It was as if you assumed I'm just some naive idiot who doesn't know what causes pregnancy, and you felt it was your duty to "advise" me, a total stranger. Well, it wasn't welcome, and was, in fact, quite rude.

You were contemplating a pregnancy. You wrote that. You opened up the topic You let us know that it would be a high risk pregneancy that could threaten your life. You opened up the topic and invited discussion.

Your contemplation of a high risk pregnancy genuinely concerned me. I am glad to hear that you are not really seriously contemplating a pregnancy, after all, as some of your more recent posts have made clear.

However, it would have been nice if you had been clearer up front. When you just say that you might get pregnant and the pregnancy will likely kill you, then people who care are bound to worry and try to stop the pregnancy. That is simply responsible behavior and sound sex ed.

I was pointing out that not all women make the choice for the same reason. I was using my situation as an example. If I HAPPENED to get pregnant, it would not be a good thing, therefore I may have to contemplate the decision whether or not to have the baby. My point was we can't consider the reasons why women choose to have an abortion and whether or not it is the "responsible choice". It has to be open for everyone.

unless you were actually contemplating a pregnancy. If there is no pregnancy, then there are no abortion law issues.

Since you made it sound like you thought your particular situation was relevant to abortion law, to me this meant that you were contemplating a pregnancy.

I am glad you have clarified this, but I had no way of knowing all this at the time I gave my good advice.

But, anyway, my exact words were "If I were to get pregnant". I don't see how that in anyway conveys planning to get pregnant. But, this is the internet, and it can be easy to misconstrue what people say when we're relying on typed communication.

My point was IF. Yes, I'm not contemplating an abortion now, and don't plan on it. I was talking about a possible scenario that would lead to having to make the choice. You were talking about responsible reasons. My whole point was, what are responsible reasons? If society were so inclined, how would we determine what those were? So, yes, I believe my example was relevant.

The words "If I were to get pregnant" signals that pregnancy is being contemplated. You used those words. Ergo, you contemplated.

Don't try to wiggle out of it now. Guilty of contemplation in the first degree!

Stating the fact that I may possibly get pregnant in no way signals that I'm actually considering it. The only way your response to me would have made sense was if I had said I was consideringgetting pregnant. Not that I still think it would have been appropriate. It's still none of your business.

I'm not the one doing the wiggling here. You're the one who gave unsolicited advice when it wasn't warranted.

If you say that you might get pregnant, it means you are considering allowing yourself to get pregnant. This is what I want to keep advising you against because your health is at stake.

The exception is rape, but I don't think any bona fide contributor on DU is ever, ever for denying abortion in rape cases -- that is a separate issue and one where we all probably agree.

Anyway, your contemplation didn't sound like a contemplation of rape, it sounded like a contemplation of a typical pregnancy based on consentual fertilization. When a person in your health situation contemplates in this way, she is going to cause concern for her health and that is just what you did. Preventing these risks is what good sex ed is all about. And don't think sex ed stops at high school graduation -- it is education we all need at every stage of life!

Acknowledging that I have a functioning uterus does not mean I'm considering allowing myself to get pregnant.

But, again, it really is none of your business, because what if I am? The reason I ask is, unless it is a close friend or family member who says to you "I'm thinking about getting pregnant. What is your advice?" you really have no right to butt in without being offensive.

Honestly, did you really think I was considering getting pregnant just so I could turn around and face the decision to have an abortion? Really, if I was actually considering it, I don't think I would have been talking about having an abortion, now would I? I really honestly don't get where you thought I was considering it. It just doesn't make sense.

I try to stop them so they don't end up hurting themselves or causing pain to others. Your contemplation of high risk behavior made your situation into everybody's business. I am surprised I was the only one concerned enough to try to make sure your contemplation of pregnancy was not seriously intended.

Anyway, everybody else felt exactly like I did in their hearts and they were glad that I cautioned you -- if nothing else, then to be on the safe side.

Anyway, everybody else felt exactly like I did in their hearts and they were glad that I cautioned you -- if nothing else, then to be on the safe side.

Mr. Not a Canadian Roe seems to have been in contact with some Kryptonite.

Mind-reading is a valuable skill indeed -- you should really market it.

Just some friendly advice. I have no doubt that everybody else feels exactly as I do and is glad I offered it.

.

Funny, you're the only one who seems to be looking at it that way.

Absolutely nothing I said indicated that I was going to engage in high risk behavior. There's absolutely nothing in what I said to indicate that I have no idea what birth control is. And, there's nothing in what I stated to indicate I wanted to get pregnant so I could have an abortion. Your assumptions were insulting.

It's none of your business if I have sex or not. It's none of your business when or if I ovulate. It's not even any of your business if I get pregnant, for that matter.

Ladies, raise your hands if it's perfectly okay with you if total strangers tell you whether it's okay if you get pregnant. Also, raise your hands if you've ever known anyone to consider getting pregnant so they can have an abortion :silly:

I don't think we're going to see too many hands.

That remains true whether the risky behavior is sexual or non-sexual.

Advising against risky behavior is not the same thing as running around trying to determine who should get pregnant and who should not.

Are you saying that there are people out there who think is acceptable for you to risk your life by risking pregnancy? I don't think so.

If you want your experience to have special relevance in the abortion debate, then there must be some reasonable chance that you will actually be impacted by those laws.

If you are thinking of allowing a pregnancy: (1) your situation does have special relevance; but (2) you need more sex ed re avoiding health risks.

If you are not thinking of allowing a pregnancy: (1) then your story is irrelevant because the abortion laws will not impact your future (non) pregnancy; but (2) you don't need more sex ed.

You seem to want it both ways. Can't have it. Either you are:

relevant to the debate because you are at-risk

or

irrelevant to the debate because you are approriately health-conscious.

Abortion laws do not affect women who are sufficiently old, sufficiently educated, discipled and financially secure to avoid unwanted pregnancies. (the exception is rape, but we all agree what should happen in rape cases). What I am saying, is that you have now made it clear that the abortion laws are highly unlikely to affect you in the role of a pregnant woman. Like me, you won't be getting pregnant and will have to engage the debate as an objective observer rather than as a potential, direct participant.

If you want to tell someone to not jump off a bridge, fine.

But, that's not what happened here. You told me, a perfect stranger, that you'd advise me not to get pregnant. A perfect stranger who indicated in no way that she was even considering getting pregnant in the first place.

I basically stated that getting pregnant for me would be risky. You in turn said "Well, then, don't get pregnant". That assumes that I'm too stupid to see how obvious that is, and also assumes that I'm clueless as to how to avoid that.

he thinks we gals are stupid and clueless anyway!

Just because we disagree does not mean that I am saying or implying that anybody is stupid and clueless. Please stop falsely accusing me of disrespecting others.

Just because we disagree does not mean that I am saying or implying that anybody is stupid and clueless. Please stop falsely accusing me of disrespecting others.

Are you here to pick a fight or what?

If you've been messaging and/or e-mailing for longer than a few months you'd realize that people don't always stop to think of all the possible ways their sentences can be misunderstood. True, we have the emoticons, but even then there are sometimes misunderstandings.

I'd like to suggest that before you jump in with both feet you ask the poster (Pithlet?) for clarification. There's an old joke about ASS-U-ME that I'm sure you've heard.

No one is here to disrespect you. Some may disagree, but disagreement is not ipso facto the same as disrespect. If, though, you intend to be ludicrous and absurd, you might garner a bit of disrespect. So, for now, can both ladies please take a deep breath and a chill pill?



:grouphug:

1. I was accused of effectively characterizing women as "stupid" and "clueless."

2. Calling a set of people "stupid" is a form of disrespect.

3. Calling people "clueless" is a form of disrespect.

4. I was explicitly accused of the kind of disrespect set forth above in points #2, and #3.

5. This accusation is false. This accusation does not find any support in my actual comments.

6. The accusation does not reflect well on me.

7. I want these kind of false accusations to stop.

Clear enough?

If I had stated "Despite all my health risks, and the fact that it could kill me, I want to try to have a baby. What do you all think?" I would have expected "Umm, well, maybe that's not a good idea". I'm sure I would have gotten at least one of those. But that isn't even close to what I said.

There is no getting around the fact that your "advice" was neither appropriate nor solicited.

the abortion laws don't affect you, and it's NONE OF YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS!

And just because a law doesn't directly affect you doesn't mean you won't be impacted by that law or indirectly affected by it. Women have friends, daughters, sisters, etc., etc., who are very easily affected by it. Just because an abortion law doesn't affect a woman directly doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on her.

You're a man, so, if we use your reasoning, you shouldn't have any concern at all and it should, therefore, be none of your business. Come to think of it, it's really none of your business, anyway!

does this win them a voice in the abortion debate in your opinion?

I and everyone else knew exactly what she meant and that she was in no way considering pregnancy, and she didn't need your smug, condescending, patronizing "advice" and caution. We found your "caution" to be quite offensive, in fact, and not just because it was none of your business and you had no right to interfere.

we use protection? :wtf: And I think there may be some cultural confusion here, because when she said she didn't know what she'd do IF SHE DID GET PREGNANT, that in no way, to us in this country, at least, implied that she was considering, contemplating, thinking about, becoming pregnant. And women do have some help in the situation, too, you know, as much as some of you guys wish it were otherwise, we don't get pregnant on our own.

that English is spoken. If someone says "If I were to die tomorrow..." we don't automatically assume they're contemplating suicide. They're usually acknowledging their mortality, and that we can go anytime.

If someone says:

"If I committed suicide tomorrow "

then they should be suspected of contemplating suicide




By the same token, if someone says:

"If I get pregnant tomorrow . . ."

then they should be suspected of contemplating pregnancy.

If you'd used "If I decide to get pregnant tomorrow".

Death and pregnancy happen despite all our best efforts sometimes. Acknowledging the possibility of both happening in no way signals our desire or intent for either.

I'm sorry, but I have you dead to rights, here. You either misunderstood me, or you deliberately meant to insult my intelligence. I have my suspicions of which one it is.

If I had misunderstood someone, and mistakenly given unwanted advice, I'd be inclined to apologize, to show that it wasn't the latter. But, maybe that's just me. I'm not holding my breath.

It is not like death at all in the unavoidability sense.

not holding my breath. We were talking about discerning what a person's intentions were. And I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what I was saying. And I'm pretty sure I know exactly where you're coming from.

if you happen to be a bloke

Good point!

condoms never break... :eyes:

Do you know what the success rates of contraceptive methods are?

The only one that is 100% is abstinence. Even Depo-Provera has a 99.6% rate of effectiveness.

That means there's a .4% failure rate. Small, but not 100%

Condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, IUD's---they all have failure rates as well, some as high as 15%.

So don't say that if you don't want to get pregnant, take BC and everything will be okay---because it won't.

I've gotten DepoProvera shots every 3 months for the last 5 years, and I JUST had a preg scare last week.

I don't want to get pregnant--that's why I'm on BC. But I'm married, so I have the right to be sexually active with my husband when and how I see fit.

Rape isn't the only way unavoidable pregnancies happen. Perhaps educate yourself on the success and failure rates of different forms of contraception and you'll understand that even the most effecient and 'safe' planning methods can cause unintended pregnancies in those who are trying their best to prevent fertilization and implantation

This helps decrease the chance of unwanted pregnancy. May also want to consider sterilization (for your partner(s) and yourself) to help further supplement the other methods. You would be amazed at how low the chances of unwanted pregnancy become when you use all the methods, rather than just one or two.

I'm a nursing major---I think I have a broader sense of what causes fertilization and implatation, as well as what inhibits it than you do.

To suggest sterilization for a couple in their early 30's who don't want children NOW, but haven't ruled out the possiblity in the FUTURE just smacks of....ignorance.

Tell me, besides my husband having a vasectomy or using a condom, what stresses of birth control does HE have to face?

Why is it me, the woman, who must take the pill AND depo AND norplant AND use an IUD AND use a diaphragm AND use a cervical cap AND use the female condom AND use spermicide AND track my ovulatory cycle AND track my menstrual cycle AND AND AND infinitum?

Why is the inconvenient burden always placed on the woman?

Why haven't there been the leaps and bounds towards non-barrier forms of MALE contraception in the way that there have been bounds towards non-barrier forms of FEMALE contraception?

I refuse to believe that solely using Depoprovera (which has a 99.6% rate of success in preventing unwanted pregnancies) is....not doing enough to prevent pregnancy. That I must use EVERY FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL AVAILALBE should I not want to get pregnant. And if I REFUSE to use EVERY FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL AVAILALBE then somehow I'm ASKING TO GET PREGNANT.

How about this---TONS of people die every year because of car accidents. Perhaps if I don't want to die in a car accident, in addition to having a car with anti-lock brakes, in addition to wearing my seat-belt every time I drive a car, in addition to having a car with side-pannel airbags, I should just not drive at all. And I shouldn't walk, since often pedestrians are hit by drivers. And I shouldn't take public transportation either since busses and trains are involved in accidents. I should just sit in my house and NEVER GO ANYWHERE because to do so, I would be acknowledging the risks of driving, being a pedestrian, or being a rider of public transportation, and knowing those risks, I'm basically ASKING THE GODS to make me a victim of an auto-accident :eyes:

Based on your comments in this thread, all good girls would get complete hysterectomies at age 14 to prevent unwanted pregnancies. ANything LESS than that is asking for pregnancy to occur, which isn't a good enough reason to have an abortion, unless, of course, the young girl was raped, which is the only method of unpreventable pregnancy, and the only acceptable reason to have an abortion.

Of course, those abortions could be cut down too if those girls just got complete hysterectomies when they entered puberty. Then they'd NEVER get pregnant EVER, even in the event of rape.....

---

Even better---why don't BOYS undergo forced sterilization at puberty--then us gals can have wonton sex whenever and however we want, have NO unwanted pregnancies, have NO early onset of menopause, and again, the rate of abortions would decrease DRAMATICALLY---I guarantee it!!!

Keep your insane logic off of my uterus, thank you

You have mostly mastered the first lesson, which is identifying all the various methods of birth control. Your answer failed to reference rhythm method and withdrawal.

Now we work on the second lesson, which is arranging your attitudes and actions so that you actually follow through and use the redundant, burdensome methods.

Now please keep in mind that we do not control human biology. While the male can only be made to bear the burden of some of the methods, we have only two choices when coping with this unfairness that nature has imposed:

A abstinence

or

B. acceptance of our separately gendered bodies in both the respective advantages and disadvantages that they provide for us. This includes an acceptance of the birth control methods that are specifically tailored for whatever particular gender you happen to be.

If you would like we can move on to discuss coping strategies under option A or option B. For example, I find that cold showers help when pursuing option A (as I have at those times when I have strongly wanted to avoid pregnancy in my partner(s)).

You're arguing with someone who is pro-choice! </sarcasm>

me when people, especially men, say that we can avoid pregnancy if we really want to, because of the availability of birth control methods. Well, like I said, my fiance and I used condoms, and used them properly, and look what happened! NO method other than abstinence is completely failsafe. And all the methods except for condoms put the burden all on the woman, so what would men really know, anyway?

THANK GOD I had a total hysterectomy last summer and no longer have to worry about it, anymore! I can't begin to describe what a relief that really is.

There are two ways to make (non-rape) pregnancy virtually impossible:

1. abstinence; and

2. redundant forms of birth control. Example: condom, diaphragm, contraceptive foam, withdrawal and rhythm method combined as a 5-way pregnancy prevention program.

Under either of these methods there is control over the pregnancy in that pregnancy becomes virtually impossible and (non-rape) abortion law becomes a non-issue for the woman faithfully practicing either of these methods.

Of course, women are not required to choose one of the above approaches. However, in those cases where pregnancy means death, then it is important that the woman is advised as often as possible to follow one of the above approaches so that she does not die.

WHAT ABOUT THE MAN? He's also responsible for birth control, and has control over the method if it's condoms. And a lot of the methods you cite are NOT foolproof guarantees of no pregnancy, since my fiance and I were using condoms at the time I became pregnant. Condoms, in fact, have a 15% failure rate and the same is true for the other methods, with the exception of the pill. Again, we don't get pregnant on our own, we do have some help.

At any rate, I never suggested relying solely on condoms -- condoms should be part of a more comprehensive plan in those situations where pregnancy carries an unusually high risk of death.

as much as possible because apparently we're too dim to get it.

And, you forgot chastity belts.

I never singled out women. If a man had a partner who shouldn't get pregnant because of health risks, I would give that man the same unsolicited advice for pretty much the same reasons.

Chastity belts seem a little harsh.

However, voluntary sterilization (for the man and/or the woman) can be a good part of a pregnancy prevention program, especially when used in conjunction with other birth control methods.

You only mentioned women in your post.

But, I'm glad to hear you don't discriminate in your meddlesome ways.

a couple of days ago in post #181.

using Condom AND diaphragm AND foam AND withdrawl AND rhythm method with your spouse, eh?

Takes all the spontanaety out of sex, doesn't it?

"honey, I'd like to get busy right now on the kitchen table, but I must insert my diaphragm, and we must wait 10 minutes after inserting the foam for it to become effective, and oooh! Are my IUD strings tight? Let me put in the cervical cap as well---are you putting on the condom? Good! Ooops! Sorry! We can't do it after all! We'd be having such protective sex on my 3rd day of Ovulation. Oh well. Better luck next week...." :eyes:

Unfortunately, that's what the wingnuts expect. Maybe because they almost never have sex themselves, they don't realize what a hassle birth control can be. I'll say it again, I am so very relieved to have had a total hysterectomy last summer, I NEVER have to deal with any of that, especially the fear of pregnancy, ever again!