I'm Not Sorry

January 25, 2004 11:16 AM

I'mNotSorry.net is a website where women can share their positive experiences with abortion.
posted by homunculus (106 comments total)

Last week, on the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, federal legislation was introduced which would protect the right to an abortion, but the anti-abortion leadership in both the House and Senate will probably block any action on it for the foreseeable future. Lately, it seems like the pro-choice side has been losing the abortion debate.
posted by homunculus at 11:21 AM on January 25, 2004

Well, I'm glad you decided to take a stand!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:25 AM on January 25, 2004

wow, what a great link. for years I've had trouble deciding just where do I stand on abortion. and uh, now I have even more conflicted idea! but it's good to be informed so thanks.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:50 AM on January 25, 2004

Well I'm sorry my parents didn't get an abortion.
posted by Slagman at 12:03 PM on January 25, 2004

the right to an abortion

This does not exist, at least not in the United States.
posted by oaf at 12:12 PM on January 25, 2004

If my grandmother were alive she'd want her story posted on that site for sure. She got pregnant during the great depression (after my aunt, before my mother) and a baby at that time would have been a disaster for her -- she was working 3rd shift in a candy bar factory and she and my grandfather were getting by on scraps. She was so thankful that this option was available to her.

Great site, thanks for the link.
posted by boredomjockey at 12:39 PM on January 25, 2004

This is an excellent site, and I'm glad that there are still women who are unapologetic about terminating a pregnancy.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:41 PM on January 25, 2004

my grandma too, boredomjockey
posted by amberglow at 1:50 PM on January 25, 2004

Yes, but if we continue to allow birth control options, who's gonna be left to pay off the National Debt?

Seriously, I find this site fascinating, but utterly useless in the national debate over abortion. Anecdote is, and has always been, the weakest form of persuasion. That having been said, if this site helps one woman come to grips with a decision she has made, then it has been a worthwhile effort. No one should suffer because of mistaken ideas of peer pressure.

Finally, allow me to present one person's amusing efforts to counter the righteousness of anti-abortionists. *warning* guaranteed to piss off any fundamentalist who choose to read it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:20 PM on January 25, 2004

the story of my mother's abortion is similar to many on this site. she was from a low income family and in college and working when she became pregnant. I wonder sometimes how much different my life would be if she were not able to move on and secure a stable life for herself and my father and for me.
posted by mcsweetie at 2:25 PM on January 25, 2004

My parents met and began dating in high school. My mother became pregnant with me when she was 20 years old, in college. My father was also in college at the time, at a school across the state. Neither had any appreciable assets, and my grandparents were none too happy about the situation. The obvious solution, given my parents' situation, was an abortion. Perhaps it was their religious upbringing, or perhaps the shame of their parents, but for whatever reason, they didn't choose the obvious solution. Instead, they married, and my mother dropped out of college and moved across the state to live with my father. Although it was difficult for them financially, my parents did an admirable job of taking care of each other and me, and were fortunate to have an amazing support group of friends at the university.

My father graduated, and immediately found a decent job with a company based over a thousand miles away. We made the move, and my father has been employed with that company ever since. My parents are, as far as I can tell, quite happy, in love, and relatively well off financially. I had, in retrospect, a wonderful childhood, with very little I would change. Had my parents chosen to get an abortion, perhaps my brothers would have had a better, or at least more affluent life. Then again, perhaps my parents would not have married, and neither I nor my two younger brothers would be around at all.

Please note that I am 100% in favor of a woman's right to choose how and when she becomes a mother. I simply wanted to share my own story about how the choice you make can be a great one, even if it is challenging.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:52 PM on January 25, 2004

Brilliant link, Wulfgar! Nothing warms my heart more than biblical literalism turned back onto the fundies.
Hos.9:16 - God assures Hosea that he will "slay even the beloved fruit of the womb."
posted by Jimbob at 2:57 PM on January 25, 2004

Cool site. Unfortunately, the first story I clicked on was a young woman who was about to have her third abortion, having become pregnant twice while having unprotected sex, and once while using birth control. Duh. Not exactly a poster child. I guess there are other stupid people in the world, though, and perhaps this story will be a comfort for them. In any case, a good take on providing a seldom-heard perspective on this issue.
posted by scarabic at 3:49 PM on January 25, 2004

monju - I see your point quite clearly, and I tend to agree. But I think the point of this site (at least in theory) is to surface stories where people decide to have the abortion, go on to college, get out of that abusive relationship, etc, and things also turn out great. I've never met anyone who didn't love their kid after raising it, but there have got to be positive stories from the other side, too.
posted by scarabic at 3:54 PM on January 25, 2004

Let's see...that means the aborted fetuses of 1973 would be about thirty now. Wonder what we are missing?
posted by konolia at 4:14 PM on January 25, 2004

Well, in a limited sense, abortion may still be legal, but the practitioners are such a sorry lot that it is far from being "safe". One tale.

However, what neither the pro- or anti- side ever mention is the very steep drop off in violent crime that has happened, and persisted, since Roe v. Wade +17 years. That is, starting in 1990, for no apparent reason, there suddenly appeared a "new criminal" shortage.

I guess eugenics works.
posted by kablam at 4:15 PM on January 25, 2004

Um, thanks for the story, monju, but there are some rather glaring points that I'd like to underline.

"...my mother dropped out of college and moved across the state to live with my father."
That's nice that she even had the opportunity to have this choice.

"...and were fortunate to have an amazing support group of friends at the university"
Again, that's fortunate. I know if a lot of single, young parents had supportive family and friends, they'd probably opt to keep their children, too. Not everyone has this safety-net.

"...My father graduated, and immediately found a decent job with a company based over a thousand miles away."
Again, great break.

"...my father has been employed with that company ever since."
That must be nice; I don't know anyone who's held a job at the same company for more than a decade. Your dad must be either highly educated or very lucky.

My point, by the way, is that your parents had it easy compared to what a lot of young, pregnant couples have to go through. The question of "do we keep the kid, or..." never had to be answered, so I'm not at all suprised that you're here today. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this choice always comes in such a nicely wrapped package. For the majority of those women getting abortions, they don't have all the advantages your parents had. I know you recognize this, but the problem is that most anti-abortion folk don't understand how the other half live.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:15 PM on January 25, 2004

So what's the difference, anyway?

Inconvenience is inconvenience, right?
posted by konolia at 4:40 PM on January 25, 2004

Wonder what we are missing?

Self-righteous and simplistically emotional guilt-tripping by disinterested parties interested in judging others' personal decisions? That must be it. We don't have nearly enough of that.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 4:43 PM on January 25, 2004

My point, by the way, is that your parents had it easy compared to what a lot of young, pregnant couples have to go through.

Yes, that's probably right. I never meant for my story to suggest that others similarly situated, or as you point out, not as well off, should make the same decision. Instead, my point was that we should keep in mind that decisions about whether or not to keep a child are hard, and depend very much on each woman's individual circumstances. Some babies are kept, some are not. There is no uniform right answer.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:50 PM on January 25, 2004

Let's see...that means the aborted fetuses of 1973 would be about thirty now. Wonder what we are missing?

The next Osama bin Laden?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:54 PM on January 25, 2004

we're not missing anything, because there were abortions all throughout history well before 1973, and women after 1973 would have gone to backalley people and they're the ones that might be missing today.
posted by amberglow at 5:00 PM on January 25, 2004

women who are unapologetic about terminating a pregnancy.

While I'm not necessarily glad about this -- I'm much more on the pro-life side of the debate -- I'm interested in the site, and can see where it's important for this side of the story to be told if you're going to try to make good public policy.
posted by namespan at 6:43 PM on January 25, 2004

that means the aborted fetuses of 1973 would be about thirty now. Wonder what we are missing?

Not much. Plenty of other people stepped up to the plate and helped make overpopulation possible!
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:35 PM on January 25, 2004

Let's see...that means the aborted fetuses of 1973 would be about thirty now. Wonder what we are missing?

Geniuses, mass murderers, rich, poor, etc. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that, because of the unknown potential of a fetus alone, abortion should be illegal? If you follow that to its extreme, why not just go ahead and support eugenics? That would give you some realization of potential, alright!

Inconvenience is inconvenience, right?

Comparing abortion to infanticide is a bit of a stretch. In the case of abortion, a woman is having an operation done to her own body, to remove what she apparently considers a parasite. If you were to deny her right to do so, you're effectively saying that she doesn't have control over her own body, to do with as she pleases. I don't think it's the role of government or society to control our bodies.
posted by me & my monkey at 7:48 PM on January 25, 2004

The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime.
posted by dhartung at 8:14 PM on January 25, 2004

Comparing abortion to infanticide is a bit of a stretch. In the case of abortion, a woman is having an operation done to her own body, to remove what she apparently considers a parasite. If you were to deny her right to do so, you're effectively saying that she doesn't have control over her own body, to do with as she pleases. I don't think it's the role of government or society to control our bodies

I don't think it's a stretch, one bit. That "parasite" is a separate being -do the DNA.

If I were proabortion I would be proinfanticide as well. I am dead-dog serious. I truly cannot fathom what the line of demarcation would be. If a healthy fetus can be trouble, how much more trouble an infant with defects?

Self-righteous and simplistically emotional guilt-tripping by disinterested parties interested in judging others' personal decisions? That must be it. We don't have nearly enough of that

You call it self-righteous and I call it simple morality. Whatever. So where do you stand on infanticide? Should that be a personal decision as well? Why not?

You weren't around to see what my circumstances were when I had my children. If I had asked most of you whether I should have continued my pregnancies, for at least two of them you probably would have recommended abortion. Life was that bad for me then, financially and in quite a few other ways. But they didn't stay bad.

I don't go after individuals who choose abortion. I think they are making a huge mistake, but they have to bear the burden of their actions. I do think as a society we have totally lost it when we condone scraping out/ vacuuming out our young as if they were cancerous tumors. Totally disrespectful of the gift of life. Don't whitewash the fact that abortion is the willful destruction of a PERSON. At a very early stage of life, but a person nevertheless. There IS NO LINE OF DEMARCATION.
posted by konolia at 8:23 PM on January 25, 2004

/me boils up a batch of knitting needles.
posted by quonsar at 8:37 PM on January 25, 2004

If I were proabortion I would be proinfanticide as well. I am dead-dog serious. I truly cannot fathom what the line of demarcation would be.

Um, it's called birth.
posted by beth at 8:41 PM on January 25, 2004

That "parasite" is a separate being -do the DNA.

Er, that'd be part of the definition of a parasite, eh?

Colour me odd, but non-viable fetuses aren't "persons" in my book.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:48 PM on January 25, 2004

and then there's RU-486 and the morning-after pill.

(no knitting needles needed, q, thank god) : >
posted by amberglow at 8:50 PM on January 25, 2004

and what beth said--birth pretty much divides the living from the not-yet living.
posted by amberglow at 8:50 PM on January 25, 2004

When those women are on their deathbeds, they are likely to be less sanguine about their bloody crimes. White with fear is more like it. Facing death having murdered one's own child is not something I'd wish on anyone. The relatives around such a woman, of course, will say she is merely delirious. They have to say that, or their consciences would call them to account for their own complicity in this monstrous evil.

Abortion is not a path to a peaceful death, certainly not for the child, but especially not for the mother.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:53 PM on January 25, 2004

Well this really gets into a heavy philosophical debate about what a person is. I like Descartes "I exist" being a self-validating statement. But of course, my earliest "I exist" memory was when I was around two years of age... and some severly retarded people never even possibly reach self-consciousness. So I guess my point is that I hate when people bring person, parasite, etc. terminology into the debate as a means of appealing to emotion. Really it's a fetus till it pops out, at which point it's a baby.

Also the whole DNA debate really can't hold a straw, I mean there's DNA in a dead man, doesn't make him alive. The strongest arguement in my humble opinion is the "strong potential for life" one, which is quite true when looking at statistics for how many fetuses mature to the "person" stage of development.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm deeply divided on this topic as I can see both points of the debate and I only hope I'm never faced with the choice.

And why can't any eighteen or older person enjoy a beer after work and a joint on the weekends. Let's start with the simple "right to our body" debate, then move on up to the harder stuff.
posted by geoff. at 8:56 PM on January 25, 2004

One big problem is people like this wacko: An anti-abortion activist, calling for a new wave of violence against clinics and doctors, is following the example of violent Islamic fundamentalists, telling those who share his views to become "Christian terrorists" and promising them a reward in Heaven.
posted by amberglow at 9:02 PM on January 25, 2004

/me boils up a batch of knitting needles.

Traditionalists prefer these.
posted by homunculus at 9:03 PM on January 25, 2004

What I especially enjoy is how so many pro-life people also support the death penalty.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:03 PM on January 25, 2004

One big problem is people like this wacko

Here's Spignola's article, which was a response to this Salon article about Clayton Waagner.
posted by homunculus at 9:15 PM on January 25, 2004

Oops, here's the Salon article.
posted by homunculus at 9:20 PM on January 25, 2004

that army of god page was enough bedtime reading for tonight, homunculus, but thanks : <
posted by amberglow at 9:28 PM on January 25, 2004

You call it self-righteous and I call it simple morality. Whatever. So where do you stand on infanticide? Should that be a personal decision as well? Why not?

Actually, "simple morality" sounds about right to me. And I don't mean to be mocking. Simple morality is a great barometer for making personal decision, but all but useless for making macrosocial policy decisions which will have a direct on a variety of people and institutions. Where do I stand on infanticide? I'd have to go with anti-. Where do you stand on killing innocent Iraqi adults and children to placate a shared revenge fantasy?

You weren't around to see what my circumstances were when I had my children. If I had asked most of you whether I should have continued my pregnancies, for at least two of them you probably would have recommended abortion.

Nonsense. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is pro-abortion. No woman that I've ever met is going to say "Oh. My. God. That was the best abortion. You've totally got to have one." Anyone who would tell a friend unprompted and pointblank that they should abort their pregnancy is not pro-choice so much as totally wacko (and non-existent). The issue is whether individuals should make this choice, or whether the state should.

Ladies, these are the people who want to decide what is done with your womb:



Do they look knowledgable about such matters?

The basic message I get from "conservatives" on this matter is as follows:

"I don't want the government in my life. I want them in your life."
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:54 PM on January 25, 2004

*bows down to Ignatius J. Reilly*

Way to break it down, yo. I'm just sitting over here, cheering.
posted by Hildegarde at 9:56 PM on January 25, 2004

What I especially enjoy is how so many pro-life people also support the death penalty.

What I especially enjoy is how pro-abortion people compare helpless unborn babies to murderers.
posted by TheFarSeid at 9:59 PM on January 25, 2004

konolia and peeping_Thomist - I was wondering whether or not you think my mom is monstrously evil or a murderer or anything like that?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:03 PM on January 25, 2004

konolia: Contraception has also prevented the birth of many children. Aren't we "missing" them too? Oh, and one-quarter or so of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Are those people "missing"? For that matter, I guess we're "missing" a lot of people just due to abstinence... (Hey, wanna get it on? No?! Murderer!)

More to the point, you're setting up a straw man with your "line of demarcation" silliness. A healthy woman with a healthy fetus can't legally abort in the third trimester. Roe v. Wade recognizes, sensibly, that rights accrue to the gestating fetus gradually, and draws not one line but three, at the end of each trimester.

Roe is a relatively nuanced decision, and a sophisticated moral compromise. No wonder it baffles the fundies!
posted by nicwolff at 10:12 PM on January 25, 2004

What I especially enjoy is how so many pro-life people also support the death penalty.

How about:
"What I especially enjoy is how so many anti-capital-punishment people also support abortion."

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy and it cuts both ways. I'm pro-choice, but I can't ignore that FarSeid's comment has a ring of truth: how defensible is it to kill innocent fetuses while allowing guilty murderers to live?
posted by dhoyt at 10:18 PM on January 25, 2004

The aliases make it hard to tell, so I'll just throw this question out there: Are any of the abortion opponents in this thread actually capable of having an abortion?
posted by subgenius at 10:19 PM on January 25, 2004

TheFarSeid: You call yourself "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion" because you like the sound of it, but you're obviously not generally "pro-life" if you're for the death penalty. So, you're hypocrites.

"Pro-choice" isn't much better; most people who call themselves pro-choice aren't libertarians. But don't call us "pro-abortion", because we're not.
posted by nicwolff at 10:26 PM on January 25, 2004

dhoyt: Perfectly defensible. The fetus' rights have to be balanced against its mother's. Whose rights is the murderer threatening in jail? (Uh, besides probably his cellmate's if he gets the chance.)
posted by nicwolff at 10:32 PM on January 25, 2004

subgenius: konolia's last comment made clear that she's been pregnant.
posted by nicwolff at 10:34 PM on January 25, 2004

Oddly enough, abortions aren't performed on the basis of percieved guilt or innocence of the fetus.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:38 PM on January 25, 2004

beth and amberglow: Do you really want to argue that birth is the dividing line between person and non-person? Even if you buy in to the whole the "parasite" argument, a fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother's body well before being born. Konolia brought up the slippery slope between abortion and infantacide. One can debate whether an abortion at the early stages of pregnancy is really "murder" in the sense we normally think about it. But it strikes me as quite difficult to draw any meaningful distinction between an elective (i.e. not medically necessary) post-viability abortion and killing a premature baby that has already been delivered. The Supreme Court, to their credit, saw this in Roe v. Wade and that's why they drew the line where they did.

I suspect you probably are not in favor of elective post-viability abortions either. But it illustrates an important point about the difficultly, if not the downright impossibility of line-drawing between person and non-person in this context. Viability has its own problems (for one thing, it's not inconcievable that, as science improves, viability could stretch all the way back to conception).
posted by boltman at 10:42 PM on January 25, 2004

Boy, now didn't this turn out to be a great discussion? I bet a lot of minds where changed, on both sides!

Thanks homunculus!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:44 PM on January 25, 2004

Look, it's late and I'm tired so let me just hit some points here:

My point on dna is that the fetus is a separate being from the mother albeit reliant on her for survival.

As to birth being the line of demarcation...my husband was born two months premature. Are you saying that he got his human card stamped two months early simply by being moved out of the uterus early? OR that I was less of a person at that point of gestation just because mama kept me in the oven two months more? What about those one pound micropreemies that manage to survive sometimes? If you are saying viability outside the womb is the line, then what of people on life support who aren't viable without it? I can see that as analogous.(I am not talking about braindead here-that's another debate. )

And I am totally disgusted at anyone who honestly thinks that partially delivering a fetus and sucking out its brain before finishing the delivery should be a protected medical procedure. If it is so damned necessary to end that pregnancy why not just induce labor and see if there is a possibility to save the baby? Oh, but that would cost a lot of MONEY....oh, I see it now. Better to make sure it's dead then, right?
Again I say that if you honestly think that should be protected medical procedure, you shouldn't have qualms about infanticide either.

BTW I have informed my family that if I ever conceived as a result of rape I was going to have the baby, period. Since I am still this side of menopause it is theoretically a possibility.

As to my statement re the lost generation of thirty-year olds, I hold to my belief that we are like snowflakes, no two alike. Birth control and miscarriage are beside the point (except to say that most women I know mourn miscarriages as the lost children that they really are. But I guess ya only count if you are wanted?)
posted by konolia at 10:50 PM on January 25, 2004

Boy, now didn't this turn out to be a great discussion?

indeed. up until this very post I am writing, nobody had taken your troll bait. good job, all; and back to your corner, me!
posted by mcsweetie at 11:04 PM on January 25, 2004

Again I say that if you honestly think that should be protected medical procedure, you shouldn't have qualms about infanticide either.

For some reason, this reminded me of Toni Morrison's Beloved.

Birth control and miscarriage are beside the point (except to say that most women I know mourn miscarriages as the lost children that they really are. But I guess ya only count if you are wanted?)

Agreed, yes, all the women I know mourn miscarriages as well. Out of curiosity, given the no-line-in-the-sand philosophy, do you think straight couples should mourn if they have sex without concieving? How about gay men, who cannot concieve at all amongst themselves (unless the duodenum has a use hitherto unknown)? I mean, those are a lot of potential lives zooming around that never reach their full, flowering form. Are they part of the lost generation?

If there's no distinction between the trimesters, why should there be a distinction between a first trimester fetus and sperm? Both have the capacity to become human given the right circumstances, right? And since 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, it's not safe to say a fetus will become a baby. It's only a possibility. If one is more of a possibility than another, doesn't it stand to reason that a first trimester fetus is more of a possibility than sperm, but less than a second trimester fetus?

I respect your desire to never have an abortion. I don't want to have one either.
posted by Hildegarde at 11:13 PM on January 25, 2004

up until this very post I am writing, nobody had taken your troll bait.

So far no one's taken yours either, mcsweetie. Or were you expecting an even-handed, rationale response to, "So, like, do ya'll think my mom is a murderer and stuff?" C'mon.

I'm also fascinated that some of the same people who blanche at being called "pro-abortion" have so enthusiastically used the "pro-war" epithet in regards to people who supported deposing Saddam. Again, we are all hypocrites. Let's not pretend otherwise.
posted by dhoyt at 11:18 PM on January 25, 2004

My point on dna is that the fetus is a separate being from the mother albeit reliant on her for survival.

Not sure what you mean by separate "being", since you'd have to define what constitutes an entity. Is a virus an entity? Is bacteria? Is a newly fertilized egg? This is a difficult question. Certainly it seems to me that when a sperm and an egg meet, they do not instantly create a being in the same sense that I am a being. To me, fertilization begins a process which sometimes results in a human being, but is not in itself an act of creation, any more than the sperm and the egg are each 1/2 of a person.

And I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in this thread who says that a premie isn't a human being. Third-trimester abortions are a whole different issue. It is not even in the same ethical ballpark as things like morning-after pills. Everybody that I've read or talked to seems to agree that late-stage abortions are a matter of weighing the health of the mother against a lot of difficult factors including the health of the child. You've got something of a straw man argument going on here, or else you don't really understand what the other side is saying.

Birth control and miscarriage are beside the point

Are they? I don't think they are, if you're appealing to the sense of lost potential.
posted by Hildago at 11:27 PM on January 25, 2004

Again, we are all hypocrites. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Amen, but let's leave the political digression at that.
posted by Hildago at 11:35 PM on January 25, 2004

You really gotta worry about those dayglo abortions though. Not to mention the explosive ones.
posted by Jimbob at 11:47 PM on January 25, 2004

I don't go after individuals who choose abortion. I think they are making a huge mistake, but they have to bear the burden of their actions.

Great. Think what you like, just don't make life difficult for anyone else. Optionally, realize that your judgement of "mistake" is a huge generatlization, a damning point of view on people you don't know, who are in circumstances you may not be able to imagine.

And, even more optionally, (as if it weren't obvious) realize that anyone who has a kid has to bear the responsibility of their actions, too. I can't say I'm terribly pleased with the way many folks rise to that challenge.

Is abortion worse than raising another fat, stupid American? I wish I knew the answer to that question. It would make a lot of other discussions much simpler.
posted by scarabic at 12:09 AM on January 26, 2004

nicwolff: People call themselves "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion" because it's obviously more appealing to take a positive stance on something. I have no problem calling myself "anti-abortion" because I unashamedly am.

Don't call me a hypocrite for being "pro-life" and yet in favor of the death penalty. Like it or not, "pro-life" in today's culture refers to one's stand on abortion. And as I already said, it's not inconsistent to support the rights of the unborn to live and at the same time support the rights of society to take the lives of those who have murdered. Apples and oranges, folks.

Regarding calling you "pro-abortion," I take it back. You were right to call me on it. I'll respect your "pro-choice" label. Sorry.
posted by TheFarSeid at 1:06 AM on January 26, 2004

Well, I don't no that I'd go so far as to say abortion and the death penalty are "apples and oranges." Indeed, many Christians (including, I believe, the Pope) would argue that they are quite connected. (both lead to a "culture of death" is the way he puts it, i think). Of course you can be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion and not be a hypocrite. But, in my opinion at least, its a much tougher position to defend if you base your objection to abortion on explicitly Christian principles.
posted by boltman at 2:26 AM on January 26, 2004

Okay, apples and pears. God says "Don't murder" but then institutes the death penalty in the fledgling Israeli legal system. So these positions CAN co-exist.

Although a Christian, I base my objection to abortion on the fact that a little tiny human loses his or her life before being born. And don't even get me STARTED on partial-birth abortion.
posted by TheFarSeid at 2:47 AM on January 26, 2004

With all this miscarriage talk being tossed about, and the anecdotal incidence of women crying into their pillows over it, I'd like to remind all the men participating so actively in this thread that most miscarriages are those of women who are not trying to be pregnant one way or the other. Everyone wants to imagine the happy-but-for-a-bundle-of-joy married couple who are devastated at 12 weeks when the little lady comes staggering out of the bathroom and is rushed to the hospital. But every woman who is sexually active* can tell you about that period that arrives a couple days late, heavier than usual, and makes you go hmmm.

"A number of studies checked for pregnancy each month with a highly sensitive immunoassay from blood drawn or urine collected in sexually active women not using contraception. This research consistently demonstrates a high rate of unrecognized pregnancy in woman who are just a little late for the menstrual flow. Some studies report a total pregnancy loss rate (non clinical plus clinical) of more than 50% (1 in 2)."

This is pre-abortion. This is pre-detection. If anyone wants to argue on a moral level that miscarriage represents a loss of human potential, I'd say take it up with Bush's Secretary of Evolution Intelligent Design, or whoever is controlling the way women's bodies evolve these days. I don't know where we'd have the room for the extra 6 billion people on the planet, but that's just me (maybe in pre-manufactured housing).

* with men, I guess I should establish.
posted by pineapple at 3:29 AM on January 26, 2004

I'm also fascinated that some of the same people who blanche at being called "pro-abortion" have so enthusiastically used the "pro-war" epithet in regards to people who supported deposing Saddam. Again, we are all hypocrites. Let's not pretend otherwise.


I always use the term "anti-peace" to describe war mongers.....
posted by sic at 4:10 AM on January 26, 2004

Do you really want to argue that birth is the dividing line between person and non-person? Even if you buy in to the whole the "parasite" argument, a fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother's body well before being born.
Yup--until it's out, prematurely or fullterm, it's not a living person. Just because a fetus is capable of surviving while still in the womb doesn't mean that it is already living--from their birth is my belief. Anything inside a woman's body and dependent on it, whether it carries the potential of being alive or not, is not a separate living being until it is out of that body. As for late abortions, if they're needed they're fine--it's the woman's choice--or will keep her alive--and safe, legal, and rare is my hope. While viability changes all the time due to medical advances, gestation lasts a certain amount of time for a very important reason--to ensure the best hopes for a fully functioning human being as the end result.
posted by amberglow at 5:15 AM on January 26, 2004

I always enjoy reading people discussing abortion, so thank you all, honestly, for commenting in this thread. It's interesting reading everyone's opinions. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on abortion, so I always hope that I'm going to reach some definitive conclusion while reading opinions. It never happens.

The crux of the issue seems to be whether the foetus is a living human or not. Everything else doesn't seem to make much sense and is tangental. (pineapple, I don't really see your point. Pregnancies are often terminated naturally therefore they are of no value?)

Being unsure, personally, I will endeavor to make sure that no child/foetus of mine is aborted. I will not, however, make moral judgements on others or try to interfere with their lives. Unfortunately, this belief system seems to be hypocritical. Brought to extremes: "I'm not going to kill my child, but go ahead and kill yours."

What seems strange to me is that lately men are legally more responsible for children, but have no legal say on the termination of a pregnancy (as far as I know). While I am all for the increased responsibility of men when it comes to their children and for the increased reproductive freedom of women, this combination seems a little unfair. The woman can either terminate the pregnancy or have the child according to her wishes. So the man may lose a child he wants or be forced to support a child he doesn't.

Of course, in keeping with the rest of my comment, I have absolutely no solution to this. Except to tell all the guys to keep their dicks in their pants if they find the above situation at all terrifying.

(on a side note, I was a cesarian. Can I still be aborted? :P )
posted by ODiV at 5:42 AM on January 26, 2004

Abortion's a really tough issue. Once, I was talking about it with a friend, and the conversation turned to the idea that a lot of the time, if you are considering abortion, the baby that might be born would come into a horrible life of violence, poverty and crime. I said something along the lines of: "Well, those babies that got aborted - we can't ask them their opinion on whether they would want such a life." And my friend said: "Yeah, but I know a lot of people who wish they'd never been born."
posted by yoz420 at 5:46 AM on January 26, 2004

aborted fetuses of 1973 would be about thirty now. Wonder what we are missing?

Not to sound insensitive here, but we're missing approx. 3/4 of a million people on an already overpopulated, bulging-at-the-seams planet. Not that I support a woman's right to choose as a means for population control, but of those not brought into existance, I wonder how many are better off when in fact so many who were/are "blessed" with life are terribly neglected and/or abused by parents who never really wanted them in the first place?
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:59 AM on January 26, 2004

used the "pro-war" epithet in regards to people who supported deposing Saddam

I don't think I've seen the pro-war label attached to anyone who supported deposing Saddam through political, diplomatic, or other non-military means.
But I could be wrong.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:29 AM on January 26, 2004

Here's what I want to know: if the stem cells from an aborted fetus are reused to help heal the sick and wounded, restoring to life those who are dying or comatose, is the life lost to the fetus less than, equal to, or greater to those lives who live by the sacrifice?
posted by wobh at 7:08 AM on January 26, 2004

wobh: Most stem cell lines aren't from aborted fetuses, they're from unused embryos created for the artificial insemination process. They normally get thrown out after it's certain the couple doesn't require them any more.
Aborted fetuses would be another source for stem cells, but to my knowledge they've been used a lot less often.
posted by mikeh at 7:37 AM on January 26, 2004

So far no one's taken yours either, mcsweetie. Or were you expecting an even-handed, rationale response to, "So, like, do ya'll think my mom is a murderer and stuff?" C'mon.

with all this talk of "monstrous evil" and "infanticide," I was wondering if such strong rhetoric could stand firm against a real person.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:12 AM on January 26, 2004

Thanks mikeh, I didn't know that. That actually makes things muddier for me personally on this issue. I can see how one might have different answers regarding the stage of development of the embryo or fetus, but my rationale for the division now seems more arbitrary.

Here's another question: I expect that most people here would agree that we should be responsible for our actions and that, when irresponsible, we should be punished and made to pay the consequences. I expect most people would agree that justice is not served by being cruel to those who have been irresponsible. One of the consequences of irresponsible sex is pregnancy. One of the sticking points of the great abortion debate is where to draw the line between justice and cruelty in such cases. I'm of the opinion that at some point mercy towards the sexually irresponsible would be required by simple economics, if every conceived child, were willingly or forcibly brought to term, we'd soon be overpopulated, unable to afford good care and living standards would drop. Justice, or cruelty? What interests me here is that there seem to be some calculus of utilitarian morality, evolution, and economics in terms of social opportunity costs, we could actually apply to this problem if we were coldly rational enough to do so.

On a related note: konalia, you've said you would bring your (hypothetical) rapist's child to term, and I certainly see the justice or this position with respect to the child. I'm less clear on the justice of allowing a man's line to be continued by means of rape. Could you explain this aspect of your conviction? And after you bring the child to term, what then? Adoption or would you raise the child yourself? If you would raise the child yourself, how much money would you require from your rapist to help you raise the child (as a percentage of his income such as it might be with respect to yours)? Do you think the rapist should get visiting rights if he desires them?
posted by wobh at 8:28 AM on January 26, 2004

My southern, Republican family has always been anti-abortion. My grandmother (born 1912) was the exception. I once told my sister-in-law that Gran was pro-choice and she didn't believe me. Gran proved her wrong. She had worked for years as a L&D nurse and she knew that some people have no business having babies. They may be incapable of caring for a child or they may just be at a place in their lives where they aren't capable of caring for a child. They all advocated abortion when one of my nieces became pregnant at 18. It's funny how you think you'll react one way but when actually faced with the situation you change your tune.

I work with sick children and I assure you that there is more to life than a pulse. I oppose abortion as a form of birth control but I support a woman's right to choose.

Someone said that they find that the people who are anti-abortion are pro death penalty. What I find appalling is that a lot of the folks who are anti-abortion are anti social programs. You have a right to be born but you have no right to a decent life. If you are unlucky enough to be born into a family that can't care for you then you are shit out of luck.

When we can guarantee every child health insurance, adequate nutrition and an education that will allow them to reach their potential I will be anti-abortion. Until then I understand that there are situations that an abortion is a reasonable option.

I have seen children abused by parents to the point of brain damage or death. It's very hard to prosecute because you can never quite pin down who in the household actually abused the child. The general rule of thumb is that if you abuse someone else's child you'll be prosecuted. If you abuse your own child you'll get parenting classes.
posted by whatever at 8:39 AM on January 26, 2004

I'm less clear on the justice of allowing a man's line to be continued by means of rape. Could you explain this aspect of your conviction? And after you bring the child to term, what then?

Obviously I am not sure since I have not been in that position, but I think the best thing for the child would be adoption. That way he or she would not have to suffer any emotional baggage for the situation. At least that is my thinking at the moment. I do know that I have the kind of husband who would not have a problem with raising a child in that situation if it came to that.

As to line being continued by rape, give me a break. Why should an innocent child be held responsible for a criminal sperm donor? Ideally he would be in prison. Adoption would terminate his parental rights (come forward and go to jail, buddy) so that is another reason that adoption might be the best way to go.
posted by konolia at 8:53 AM on January 26, 2004

...that a lot of the folks who are anti-abortion are anti social programs. You have a right to be born but you have no right to a decent life. If you are unlucky enough to be born into a family that can't care for you then you are shit out of luck.
When we can guarantee every child health insurance, adequate nutrition and an education that will allow them to reach their potential I will be anti-abortion. Until then I understand that there are situations that an abortion is a reasonable option.
Very well said, and an excellent point that's often ignored by the pro-life side. If they put a fraction of their energies into making life better for the women and children already born, maybe that would help reduce the abortion rate, furthering their cause.
posted by amberglow at 9:04 AM on January 26, 2004

I will now not reiterate a long argument I had in the blue, with konolia I believe, about how The Pill acts in part as an abortificaent. Suffice to say that if you are taking some of the extreme anti-abortion stances seen in this thread, you sure as hell had better NOT be using The Pill as your contraceptive of choice.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:08 AM on January 26, 2004

FFF, agreed.

Amberglow, that is apples and oranges. The question of whether or not abortion is murder and the question of improving the lives of those already here are two different things.

If they put a fraction of their energies into making life better for the women and children already born, maybe that would help reduce the abortion rate, furthering their cause.

Bullfeathers. A lot of the women who abort would have the family support and the finances to handle a baby-or would have the option of adopting out. Lots of middle to upperclass would-be parents out there. Many of the women who would benefit from the services you mention keep their babies anyway. And of course they should be helped. Lots of programs and ministries out there doing just that. Yes, should be more, but murdering children because things aren't ideal is wrong.

Lots of abused and murdered children were wanted and planned for. Lots of unplanned babies come into homes that welcome and cherish them once they are born. Too often I see all these social issues lumped together in order to provide a justification for abortion. Way too simplistic.

I have experienced WIC and foodstamps and Section 8. I was surrounded by single parents who were provided these services as well and were making a decent life for their kids regardless. If you haven't been in these circumstances you might not be aware of what is out there.

My sister in law was an unwed mom and kept it secret from the rest of the family. She wound up in a homeless shelter right after the child was born and gave it up for adoption. The rest of the family didn't know about this until it was too late or my mother in law would have raised it-as it was he went to a really nice home outside Denver. I got to visit, and it was more than obvious he was in for a good life. So tell me again why it would have been better for him to die?
posted by konolia at 9:56 AM on January 26, 2004

How are the anti-abortion stances in this thread 'extreme'? I'm not baiting you. I'm honestly wondering what would be considered a non extreme anti-abortion stance.

Any why are you so hell bent that anti-abortionists (is that a word?) "had better NOT be using The Pill"? I could understand them being concerned about you using the pill, but I don't understand what your concern is.
posted by ODiV at 10:03 AM on January 26, 2004

As to line being continued by rape, give me a break. Why should an innocent child be held responsible for a criminal sperm donor?

I understand your position from this point of view. I agree and admire it even. I am asking you why should your (hypothetical) rapist be genetically rewarded for his criminal reproduction methods? Or do you not even acknowledge this as a dilemma?

(I hesitate to ask this because I dare not think otherwise, but perhaps we should clarify, if only for the others reading, that this is a personal conviction of yours and not a standard that you think others should be held to against their will. It is just personal isn't it?)
posted by wobh at 10:11 AM on January 26, 2004

I just want to point out that the phrase pro-abortion is pure gold. Get your abortion! Right here! First one free! Buy two, get three!

Like there could be abortion parties, and all your friends would bring party favors, and everyone would make abortion jokes, and it'd all be merry, and someone would have a DV of the abortion, and you could all watch.

Go abortion! Gimme an A!
posted by xmutex at 10:20 AM on January 26, 2004

Amberglow, that is apples and oranges. The question of whether or not abortion is murder and the question of improving the lives of those already here are two different things.
It's not apples and oranges at all--either you care about life in general, or you only care about stopping abortions. If you care about life in general, you work to make people's lives better. Forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want doesn't make her life better, nor the potential child's.
posted by amberglow at 10:26 AM on January 26, 2004

I expect that most people here would agree that we should be responsible for our actions and that, when irresponsible, we should be punished and made to pay the consequences

Given that not everyone is capable of being responsible for their actions, and that punishment is relatively ineffective in eliciting long-term behaviour change, no, I don't agree with this statement, I think it's archaic, I think we should move on to more effective ways to help people make better choices, rather than satisfying our need for revenge by making them "pay the consequences". Not much can be done to truly remedy irresponsible actions after the fact, the only really useful course of action is to determine why and how such actions came to be made, and figure out how to prevent them from being made in the future.

I am asking you why should your (hypothetical) rapist be genetically rewarded for his criminal reproduction methods?

I don't see that this is a dilemma, myself. The concept of "genetic reward" isn't terribly meaningful in terms of actual people.

Lots of abused and murdered children were wanted and planned for. Lots of unplanned babies come into homes that welcome and cherish them once they are born. Too often I see all these social issues lumped together in order to provide a justification for abortion. Way too simplistic.

Your examples aren't arguments AGAINST the freedom to choose abortion either. An unplanned pregnancy may be an unexpected joy to some, and a total tragedy to others - some people may be able to welcome and cherish an unplanned baby, others may not, I fail to see how this is an argument against people having the right to decide for themselves whether to have the baby or not. Given that pregnancy and childbirth cause permanent physical changes, and can be permanently disabling or even fatal, it seems clear to me that it's completely unreasonable for anyone but the person at risk to decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not.
posted by biscotti at 10:42 AM on January 26, 2004

Amberglow: So everyone who thinks murder should be a crime should be in favour of social programs as well?
(though I do, on both counts, yay Canada)
posted by ODiV at 10:43 AM on January 26, 2004

ODiv: because they would be among the worst sort of hypocrites if they were.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:44 AM on January 26, 2004

Here's one for the pro-choicers: All of the same arguements about opportunity costs with regard to a child's future quality of life, population control and conditions of conception (rape, incest, even infidelity) have been used to justify abortion and infanticide by men and women throughout the history of humanity. The only difference has been the means. Do you consider the decision of many women (in ancient Greece for example) to leave their children on hillsides to starve, or do drown them in rivers, equally defensible as modern western women chosing to abort (with respect to knowledge then available)?
posted by wobh at 10:51 AM on January 26, 2004

(Unless I misunderstand you biscotti, I have to disagree. The concept of 'genetic reward' is the most terribly meaningful concepts in terms of actual people there is. Perhaps you mean that it's not a concept most people are conscious of in making decisions about sex in the near term, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored by society generally.)
posted by wobh at 10:56 AM on January 26, 2004

I dunno. I think you can build a neatly consistent case for abortion rights on the grounds that childbirth is hugely, insanely dangerous. The odds of serious injury approach 100%, the odds of life-threatening injury (ie, a c-section) approach 40-50%, and the odds of death, absent medical intervention, are likewise shocking. I'm far too lazy to find actual statistics, but I'd be surprised if giving birth was more likely to kill or cause permanent damage than a gunshot wound, and (having looked it up before) it's safer to be a firefighter than to be pregnant and undergo childbirth.

Now, look at it this way. A pregnant woman can, by going through a lengthy, debilitating, and dangerous process, maybe save an infant in her womb (then again, it might be stillborn or die immediately after birth anyway). Or, bluntly, if she takes one course of action, the fetus will die, if she takes another (more dangerous) course of action, it might live.

We don't normally require people to undergo dangerous activities for the benefit of others -- we don't draft firefighters or farmers or steelworkers, and we don't even draft soldiers anymore. It makes sense to me that the question of "When and for who or what am I willing to put my life on the line?" is not one that we ought to make for people as a matter of general law.

wobh: your example of infanticide isn't the same. After birth, you can simply abandon your child to the custody of the state at zero risk to your life or health.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:37 AM on January 26, 2004

Should read: "Do you consider the decision of many people..." and "modern westerners who choose..." I don't mean to grossly oversimplify by suggesting the decision and responsibility is or has been or even should be soley in the hands of women.

By the way, I'm not asking these questions because I have all the answers. Really, I just love moral dilemmas and, for me anyway, the abortion issue happens to have some of the best ones. And the "granularity" (for lack of a better term) of these problems is very fine. I could write a book but I'm sure someone already has I just haven't read it yet. Anyway, I'm not trolling, but I don't see any path forward for society on this issue unless these are faced.

Here's one I found myself on the horns of which really threw me because I tend to the pro-life side of things. Let's say my postulated wife, with which I have two hypothetical children, has an theoretical affair of which she becomes pregnant and through which her actions are confessed. Just thinking about the situation made me more angry than I expected. Am I, out of the respect for the sanctity of life, to tolerate the cuckoo and the division of my wife's loyalties to her present children to it? Should I put the salvation of our marriage on the condition of her terminating the affair and aborting the yet unborn child which is its product? Since I have two children with her already is it better for them to allow myself to be cuckolded so as to preserve a family for them to grow up in? How would it be different if she only had one child of mine previously? Am I now justified in sowing a few wild oats of my own and dividing my loyalties likewise? Not only could I not answer these in a consistent way that was satisfying emotionally and morally. I found myself compromising prior moral stances (pro-life, monogamy, two wrongs not making a right) trying to satisfy all the aspects of the problem. I still don't know and I hope never to have to face the problem in real life.
posted by wobh at 11:38 AM on January 26, 2004

wobh, how's about you let her be responsible for making her choices and you be responsible for yours? Your hypotheticals contain a great number of harsh decisions you would have to make, but, unless you coerce with force, your wife's potential abortion is not among them.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:46 AM on January 26, 2004

Do you consider the decision of many women (in ancient Greece for example) to leave their children on hillsides to starve, or do drown them in rivers, equally defensible as modern western women chosing to abort (with respect to knowledge then available)?
Not exactly--from what i understand, there were potions and concoctions known to abort even back then...

Moral dilemmas are interesting, wobh, until they happen to a real person. When a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, she has to have more than just one choice (which is actually no choice).
posted by amberglow at 11:51 AM on January 26, 2004

Against the death penalty but pro-abortion?

Sounds familiar. See number 7.
posted by hama7 at 11:54 AM on January 26, 2004

ROU_Xenophobe, of course the example is not the same, but the rationalizations are. If the state kills your child because it is deformed they can rationalize that decision based on the future quality of life of the baby. (Of course, in ancient Sparta it seems likely that infanticide was rationalized on the basis of maximising the return social investment by limiting which children would recieve any amount of social investment at all. But it works both ways.)

Wulfgar! So, am I responsible for her abortion if I make it a condition of saving the marriage or not? How many other men's children should I tolerate before abandoning the whole business?
posted by wobh at 11:55 AM on January 26, 2004

The concept of 'genetic reward' is the most terribly meaningful concepts in terms of actual people there is

Only from the standpoint of genes, not from the standpoint of individual people. If a pregnancy results from a rape, and is carried to term, with the resulting offspring being raised and loved by the mother, without the rapist's knowing that there was ever a child, it is in no way a reward for the rapist. Yes, his genes will carry on to a next generation, but this is meaningless to him if he doesn't know about it, and meaningless to everyone else concerned (unless they choose to ascribe meaning to it). "Reward" is a concept requiring some level of consciousness, the only thing being rewarded here is DNA, not people. (I think we're talking past each other a bit here, I know what you are saying, but I do not accept that it is in any way meaningful as "reward" for the rapist).

As to your last comment - I'm firmly pro-choice (even though I'm somewhat anti-abortion) and it seems clear to me that it is not the child's fault that it's a result of cheating. The decision to abort the child or not should be based on things like health considerations (can your wife handle the pregnancy), financial considerations (can you afford another child) and personal considerations (do you and your wife want the child, and can you love it as your own). The genetic material the child carries is irrelevant unless you choose to make it relevant. Again, I cannot relate to your emphasis on genetics rather than people. Adopted children are the children of their adoptive parents, regardless of their genes - the only relevance their genes have (aside from relevance assigned to them by themselves or their parents) is in terms of physical characteristics.
posted by biscotti at 12:03 PM on January 26, 2004

Wulfgar! So, am I responsible for her abortion if I make it a condition of saving the marriage or not?

Absolutely not. You're giving her conditions of choice, you're not choosing for her.

How many other men's children should I tolerate before abandoning the whole business?

That has nothing to do with abortion, or the choices thereof. It has to do with terms of relationship, not what she does with her body and what's growing in it. It would be a damn hard question to answer, but it doesn't make you responsible for her choice.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:04 PM on January 26, 2004

You have a right to be born but you have no right to a decent life.

This is a very good point. And it suggests to me that at least some anti-abortion, anti-social services conservatives are more concerned about judging the moral virtue of women than protecting the lives and health of poor children. Only the later is an acceptable basis for opposing abortion.
posted by boltman at 12:44 PM on January 26, 2004

five fresh fish: I understand that they'd be hypocrites. I just don't understand why that should affect you in any appreciable way. If anything, I'd imagine it would serve to further strengthen your position. Oh, and you didn't answer my other question. What would be a less extreme anti-abortion stance?

All of these quality of life arguments seem to me to be beside the point. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong regardless of quality of life. Where we're sticking is whether (or at what point) the foetus is a person.
So why do these arguments keep getting brought up?

When a pro-lifer is told "The baby would have had a shitty life anyway, no one wanted him." she finds this absurd because to her the foetus was already a living human. It is analogous in her mind to the killing of a child out of the womb which cannot be condoned no matter how shitty his life was.

When a pro-choicer is told "Think of all the wasted potential, what these children could have become." she find this absurd because there are millions of actual living children who are being ignored by the person saying this. Why focus on the potential of a child when you can focus on humans who are already living?

So why do we dwell on these arguments? They have absolutely no chance of changing anyone's mind because they do not address the real crux of the issue.

Very interesting points, ROU_Xenophobe.
posted by ODiV at 1:36 PM on January 26, 2004

What would be a less extreme anti-abortion stance?

"I revile abortion and therefore support minimizing the number of abortions that occur by teaching young people about their contraceptive options and making contraceptives readily available, and by raising living standards for lower- and middle-class Americans."

Where we're sticking is whether (or at what point) the foetus is a person.

No, where we're sticking is how that person's right to life is to be balanced against its mother's right not to be injured and possibly killed during its birth, and inconvenienced before and afterwards. As I'm getting tired of pointing out, Roe vs. Wade sensibly weighs the mother's rights much greater in the first trimester, less so in the second, and equal to the fetus' in the third.

But even once their rights are equal, Roe requires that states allow a woman to abort a child whose birth is likely to injure or kill her. This is fair, considering that even when one adult is threatening the physical well-being of another, that person may legally use all necessary and reasonable force in his defense, regardless of the intent of the attacker.

I think the real problem anti-choice folks have with Roe is that it balances the rights of the two parties without blaming the woman for being pregnant; without considering her the party guilty of having sex, and the fetus as innocent.
posted by nicwolff at 6:03 PM on January 26, 2004

Well, OK, "minimizing the number of abortions" would be done by instituting a theocracy, or killing all the women, or something. I mean "reducing the number of abortions".
posted by nicwolff at 6:08 PM on January 26, 2004

Do you consider the decision of many women (in ancient Greece for example) to leave their children on hillsides to starve, or do drown them in rivers, equally defensible as modern western women chosing to abort?

In a word, yes. It was appropriate for the morals of the time. Doesn't work so well in our time.

ODiv: because the buggers are trying to limit my rights based on their morals -- yet won't live up to those morals for themselves.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:12 PM on January 26, 2004

this thread is making me angry. in order to not shit on the thread, i will make my points brief.

abortions have taken place practically since the beginning of time (thank you, amberglow), and the only difference between modern termination of pregnancy and the act of same in ancient times is that it is medically safer to abort now than it was then. whether women imbibed pennyroyal or used menstrual extraction to end a pregnancy, they were taking their lives into their own hands. you've all heard about the use of rusty wire hangers to abort a pregnancy, and i won't trot them out again now...but abortion and pregnancy are both risky ventures, and if you truly believe that abortion is murder, then what do you call the death a woman receives (not sure of the correct verb there) after having a rusty piece of wire shoved up her very sensitive nether regions?

since these anecdotes have proven powerful, this seems like a relevant link (from this week's boston globe magazine). you might also want to read the story of gerri santoro (warning: image NSFW), the victim of a botched abortion who was trying to escape her husband.

if you truly call yourself "pro-life", don't stand around in front of abortion clinics picketing. educate your children about sex...not just abstinence, either. work towards a good reproductive ed program in schools. try and help get this problem under control and make abortion rarer, rather than passing judgement on the women that do get it.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:30 PM on January 26, 2004

I am firmly pro-choice. I think the problem isn't that we have the choice to have an abortion or not; the problem is that we don't have enough choices. Too many of my friends felt that they had to choose between providing a comfortable home for future children and living a life of poverty and deprivation if they continued with their pregnancy and tried to raise a child on their own. If I had known at the time of a reputable organization that would have helped them through the pregnancy and provided assistance with housing, healthcare, education and childcare, I would have happily recommended it to them.

It seems, however, that so many of the organizations that call themselves pro-life are more interested in scaring and shaming or force-feeding religion to the women who come to them for help. If the folks holding up placards condemning abortion outside clinics spent more of their time and resources providing a judgement and religion free alternative, there'd be a lot less abortions.

What really pisses me off is pro-life parents (like mine) telling their children, "If you get pregnant, you're out of my house." That was an common experience for most of my peers growing up. I wonder how many abortions resulted from teens who thought they had to choose between homelessness and living with their parents?

If I'd gotten pregnant as a teen I probably would have had an abortion rather than face a beating and being thrown out of my parent's house. The potential for a beating was a very real one - I was told more than a few times with one parental fist held up to my face and the other one pulling my hair. If I had gotten pregnant, I would have had an abortion I didn't really want because I was so afraid of my parents.

As for the conservative Catholic community I grew up in, unwed teen mothers were regarded with scorn and open hostility. If I had a dollar for every girl I knew who was accosted and verbally abused by someone who mistook them for a teen mother while they were either babysitting or caring for younger sibling, I'd be a rich woman. Of course, most of those folks looking down their noses at the unfortunate girl would have described themselves as strongly pro-life, but seemed to believe that pregnancy and the subsequent community scorn was an appropriate punishment for the sin of having premarital sex. I'm sure there were dozens of secret abortions amongst my peers, girls who couldn't bring themselves to continue a pregnancy in such an unforgiving environment.

It's a big part of why I'm pro-choice - I don't think any of the pro-life people I met growing up had any real compassion or concern for girls who found themselves pregnant. It seemed to be more about punishment, self-righteousness, and getting girls to give up their babies for adoption. I'm sure there lot of pro-life people who simply want to help women through unplanned pregnancies by providing resources and a sympathetic ear, but there are far too many who see pregnancy as just desserts for "immoral behavior".
posted by echolalia67 at 6:43 PM on January 26, 2004

nicwolf:I was referring to this thread, for the where we seem to be sticking. I saw a lot of arguments brought up along those lines and was describing why I thought they weren't having any success at getting through to anyone. I thought it might be some help. I'm sorry for frustrating you.

Thanks for answering my question on what a less extreme anti-abortion stance might be. I wouldn't be surprised if some people in the thread who are against abortion would agree with your exact wording.

FFF: Okay, that makes sense. I understand now. Sorry, I don't automatically equate pro-lifers with trying to limit your rights. Maybe I should start. I've been half labeling myself as pro-life. I feel that if I was responsible in the conception of a child that I would be committed to its life and well being. I don't really care what other people do on this issue (which seems pretty hypocritical now that I spell it out). So what does this make me?
posted by ODiV at 6:56 PM on January 26, 2004

If it helps define things for you any, ODiV, my wife and I would not choose abortion for ourselves.

Nonetheless, I get very angry with the anti-abortion crowd, which I feel has a misogynistic distrust of women's ability to choose wisely for themselves.

Pregnancy and childrearing are not choices to be made lightly and I find it utterly obscene that anyone would feel they have the right to force a woman to give birth.

And I have these strong emotions the same time that I find abortion to be abhorrent on a personal level.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:14 PM on January 26, 2004