Mother not informed that her daughter left school for an abortion

[Tea Time]

How was this abortion funded? Does anyone know? And in general how are these types of abortions funded? I tried to read all the posts to see if this was addressed. Sorry if I missed it.

 

Another question. When you have an outpatient procedure done you are usually required to have someone responsible to take you home. This is true for things that require some kinds of anesthetic. Also, you are given paperwork for various kinds of things that might go wrong. Of course the patient can take the paperwork and look for the signs, but you really need someone else, too, because if some of those things go wrong, then the patient might not be ABLE to seek help. Seems especially true for a minor child who might have a very hard time telling if they were having complications, especially if they were instucted to be secretive and were frightened. Did this young woman have someone for that?

 

I can't imagine how scary. My poor ds got woozy just trying to give blood.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Tea Time

[EthiopianFood]

Yes, I know. I used to remove the kids. Adoptions don't cost as much as you quoted when they adopt through the state, but then we are talking about the abused kids that most people don't want. (Which is what I was referring to in an earlier message I wrote about kids who would have been better off not being brought into the world just to be tortured.)

 

Not apples to oranges at all.

 

Right, but when someone says "abortions are wrong, why don't they just make an adoption plan," there is the assumption that the child WILL be a private placement, not adopted through the state. Unless I missed your point somehow in mentioning that statement.

 

In regards to your second statement, I think we should ask adults who had been abused if they wish they had never been born. I firmly believe that one person (including a parent) doesn't have the right to decide for another if their life is worth living. But this is getting way off topic, isn't it.... These are just issues that I have heard before, and I never hear anyone question them, so I guess I decided to change that. :001_smile:

[asta]

Wouldn't the Dr be responsible?

 

Someone asked earlier "who could she sue if somethin went wrong?"

 

The same person she would have sued either way: The Dr.

 

The MOM is the one "at fault" here. SHE signed her rights away.

 

From my post WAY back on page 4:

 

OK, I just found out that I spoke in error.

 

In Washington state, the consent form was irrelevant. The girl had the right to have the procedure done as long as she was 13 or older.

 

In the best of circumstances, a young woman would be able to talk to her parents about an abortion decision. For some young women, however, doing so would expose them to abuse from parents an- gered by the fact they have become sexually active. We cannot know the circumstances every young woman faces regarding an unwanted pregnancy, and thus, we cannot legislate what she should do.

 

Abortion is not the only area where state law allows a minor to be treated without parental consent. For example, minors over the age of 13 years can obtain outpatient treatment without parental consent for drug and alcohol dependency, mental health problems, and sexually transmitted diseases. In these areas, the disclosure to some parents could harm the minor, and the minor might not seek treatment if parental disclosure were required. The abortion decision raises similar issues for some young women.

source

 

All of this arguing is circular. This girl had the legal right to an abortion. Whether or not she regrets it now is irrelevant. Whether or not anonymous people on a message board think she shouldn't have done it is irrelevant. If people go to the link provided, they will read WHY the law was enacted in the first place.

 

-----------------------------

 

Finally, as my personal opinion, this whole "there are warm, loving families out there for every baby" thing is a myth. No, there are not. There are people who want to adopt a particular demographic within particular health guidelines. Extrapolating one's *personal* belief system that every baby is wanted, desired, and has a home *somewhere* does not magically make it so. As unfortunate as that is.

 

This isn't a story about half the things in this thread; it is a story about a young woman who felt she was in a situation that she was not ready to handle. At this point, it really doesn't matter how she got to that situation, as she has had the abortion, and has to deal with the emotional and physical ramifications for the rest of her life. At least it was done by a doctor rather than with a coat hanger, so perhaps when she is older, she will be able to have a safe pregnancy in a stable relationship.

 

None of us can affect that this situation, except to use it as a jumping off point for our own children, or to work towards helping other young women and men to make better choices rather than simply sitting in judgment of them. (eg working with education, not picketing and shoving flyers in peoples faces).

 

/rant

 

 

a

[EthiopianFood]

Finally, as my personal opinion, this whole "there are warm, loving families out there for every baby" thing is a myth. No, there are not. There are people who want to adopt a particular demographic within particular health guidelines. Extrapolating one's *personal* belief system that every baby is wanted, desired, and has a home *somewhere* does not magically make it so. As unfortunate as that is.

 

Most women don't do drugs or drink while pregnant, and most babies are born healthy. White babies are more highly desired than other babies, but I have never heard of healthy black newborns waiting in foster care because nobody came forward for a pregnant woman looking to place that child. Look at any domestic waiting child listing. They're not there.

 

 

None of us can affect that this situation, except to use it as a jumping off point for our own children, or to work towards helping other young women and men to make better choices rather than simply sitting in judgment of them. (eg working with education, not picketing and shoving flyers in peoples faces).

 

I thought everyone knew this was just a discussion, just like any other. Nobody on any message board can affect ANY situation just by posting their opinion. :confused:

[Ibbygirl]

source

 

Probably OT, but I was a bit shocked by this statement in the link you provided under the heading What about the ethical issues of abortion?

 

“Some anti-choice advocates, however, are doing their best to force their religious convictions on the entire country. Not only do they disapprove of abortion for themselves, they seek to decide this very personal decision for everybody else. Neither a church nor a government has the right to force a citizen to follow a particular religious or moral path.”

 

I'm really surprised that language like that would appear in that pamphlet. Not everyone who is opposed to abortion is so on a religious basis. Many do see it as an issue of the rights of the unborn regardless of their religious affiliation. And the whole "forcing a citizen to follow a religious or moral path" seems way off base in a pamphlet about abortion. Such broad brush statements that skirt the issue.

[asta]

It was the first thing I found that clearly stated the law in WA. I wasn't all that concerned about the rhetoric of the rest of it, only the law. The ACLU is a reputable source for stating law.

 

 

a

[Ibbygirl]

It was the first thing I found that clearly stated the law in WA. I wasn't all that concerned about the rhetoric of the rest of it, only the law. The ACLU is a reputable source for stating law.

 

 

a

 

No worries.:) I guess I was just surprised to see that is all.

[Mrs Mungo]

I definitely do not sit in judgment of anyone on something like this. I'm in no position to judge. I do think it is worth discussing what the laws are in various states and opinions on those laws. I often take heat for my pro-choice POV and I agree that it is better than a back alley abortion. I still think the medical concerns are valid.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Mrs Mungo
missed words, this is what happens when I post from my phone. :P

[Oak Knoll Mom]

I'm sorry you feel the need to turn this previously civil discussion into something incendiary.

 

You went there first.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

perhaps the girl was told that if she told her parents it wouldn't be free because insurance would be accepted if the parents were there, but a teenager presenting independently has no financial resources from which to draw to make payment, so payment is made through other funding sources.

[Carrie12345]

I'm not sure who to quote on this one, so anyone who has an interest, I welcome your comments. :)

 

If you are prochoice, but don't feel comfortable with teens being able to have an abortion without parental notification (for the reasons already stated, which are very valid, IMO), what would you like the law to require? If a parent can decide for the teen, doesn't that essentially make the girl's body into the parent's property? The more I try to figure out how to phrase my thoughts, the more I think there isn't a perfect solution, no matter what your beliefs are, but I'm still interested in others' ideas.

 

I'm not comfortable with the concept (of teens having secret abortions), but I don't wish for any legislation addressing that, specifically b/c of the concern you just mentioned.

 

It might be nice if we were able to legislate the quality of a relationship between a parent and a child (;)), but all we can really do is hope that all families will strive for close relationships on their own, and hope that it will work more times than not.

[babysparkler]

I have met a lot of kids who have been TORTURED in life. I can't help but think that not starting out in this life at all would have been a much better outcome for them. :(

 

Which is what I was referring to in an earlier message I wrote about kids who would have been better off not being brought into the world just to be tortured.

 

That is a judgement call that I don't think we are able to make. Assuming that it is left up to us, and according to your definition, *I* am considered one of those children some would say was "better off" not being born... but I'd beg to differ. I'm grateful to have been given the chance to live, with the "torture" of my childhood and all... and I can name many others in my life that are also grateful that someone else didn't take my chance at life away from me.

 

In regards to your second statement, I think we should ask adults who had been abused if they wish they had never been born. I firmly believe that one person (including a parent) doesn't have the right to decide for another if their life is worth living. But this is getting way off topic, isn't it.... These are just issues that I have heard before, and I never hear anyone question them, so I guess I decided to change that. :001_smile:

 

Thank you :)

Edited March 25, 2010 by babysparkler

[Lolly]

That is assuming that a young teen getting pregnant is a crime. I've never heard of the product of an abortion being used as evidence. Not saying that it couldn't happen, just havn't ever heard of it.

 

 

And, a PP is right in saying that a parent who has been through a traumatic illness with a child would probably NOT say publicly that they would have opted to abort, if they knew then what they know now.

 

I was speaking specifically about kids who have been abused.

 

I really hate hearing, ''but, there are so many parents who want to adopt!"

 

Then why do we still have so many kids in foster care? (the ones who are eligible for adoption, not the ones who are in the process of reunification.) There are so many kids waiting to be adopted!!

 

There are so many kids waiting to be adopted who are school age. This is true. These kids often/usually come with huge problems that most people just are not capable or willing to take on. There are very few infants, toddlers, or even preschool aged children available for adoption. My state would not even take an application for an adoption of a younger child.

[lionfamily1999]

Well said, Cortana.

So, can anyone answer my question: who would be held responsible for any complications arising from this girl's abortion? Who is it that is willing to assume the liability?

That's a big problem (imo) with the secrecy. What if she were to have complications that she didn't know were complications? I imagine an abortion would be a brutally painful thing to go through, I imagine there would be blood, and I have to wonder how much a teenager would question their symptons. So, if she had kept the secret, what are the odds her mom would've felt a temperature and given her Tylenol and sent her to bed. If she would've died, I guess they would do an examination to find cause of death. After that, well, if she didn't tell anyone how would they know who had done the procedure?

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf A summary chart of the laws in every state. If not on the list ,then there are no restrictions.

Here is the law in Washington state http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.02

Thank you Elizabeth :)

That is a judgement call that I don't think we are able to make. Assuming that it is left up to us, and according to your definition, *I* am considered one of those children some would say was "better off" not being born... but I'd beg to differ. I'm grateful to have been given the chance to live, with the "torture" of my childhood and all... and I can name many others in my life that are also grateful that someone else didn't take my chance at life away from me.

 

 

 

Thank you :)

That mentallity (better off dead) scares the bejeeminies out of me. How can anyone judge if another would be better off dead? Maybe I'm missing a connection there, though, because I would say "not born" = dead.

[msjones]

How was this abortion funded? Does anyone know? And in general how are these types of abortions funded? I tried to read all the posts to see if this was addressed. Sorry if I missed it.

 

Another question. When you have an outpatient procedure done you are usually required to have someone responsible to take you home. This is true for things that require some kinds of anesthetic. Also, you are given paperwork for various kinds of things that might go wrong. Of course the patient can take the paperwork and look for the signs, but you really need someone else, too, because if some of those things go wrong, then the patient might not be ABLE to seek help. Seems especially true for a minor child who might have a very hard time telling if they were having complications, especially if they were instucted to be secretive and were frightened. Did this young woman have someone for that?

 

I can't imagine how scary. My poor ds got woozy just trying to give blood.

 

These are the things that I'm wondering about. I don't tend to agree with, but understand the reasons for the no-parental-consent-required laws. But I don't know who then is responsible. And who paid for the procedure?

 

I'm going to see what I can find online today. I'd appreciate any info that any of you may have as well.

[mommaduck]

That's a big problem (imo) with the secrecy. What if she were to have complications that she didn't know were complications? I imagine an abortion would be a brutally painful thing to go through, I imagine there would be blood, and I have to wonder how much a teenager would question their symptons. So, if she had kept the secret, what are the odds her mom would've felt a temperature and given her Tylenol and sent her to bed. If she would've died, I guess they would do an examination to find cause of death. After that, well, if she didn't tell anyone how would they know who had done the procedure?

 

Thank you Elizabeth :)

 

That mentallity (better off dead) scares the bejeeminies out of me. How can anyone judge if another would be better off dead? Maybe I'm missing a connection there, though, because I would say "not born" = dead.

 

No flipping kidding!!! You know, there are some ppl that were horribly abused as a child, turned out to be wonderful ppl that helped others, and let me tell you, THEY don't think they would have been "better off aborted/dead"!

[Tea Time]

perhaps the girl was told that if she told her parents it wouldn't be free because insurance would be accepted if the parents were there, but a teenager presenting independently has no financial resources from which to draw to make payment, so payment is made through other funding sources.

 

What funding source?

 

These are the things that I'm wondering about. I don't tend to agree with, but understand the reasons for the no-parental-consent-required laws. But I don't know who then is responsible. And who paid for the procedure?

 

I'm going to see what I can find online today. I'd appreciate any info that any of you may have as well.

 

I'll try to look into this also, but it won't be until later today. I have already used my alotted computer time this morning and then some! ;)

[lionfamily1999]

No flipping kidding!!! You know, there are some ppl that were horribly abused as a child, turned out to be wonderful ppl that helped others, and let me tell you, THEY don't think they would have been "better off aborted/dead"!

I think the disconnect is between people that believe that a. people have souls, b. they have those souls in utero, c. they don't get a "redo" if their life is ended, and d. that a life's worth can be measured by any human being. I think that for some it's where the justification for the "merciful angels," as they like to call themselves, comes from. The idea that they're putting someone out of their misery, or dealing them a mercy by cutting their life short. I can't believe, though, that the other poster meant it in such a way. I think, instead, she may not believe there is a soul involved where abortion is concerned, iykwIm. Maybe, there's a thought that they would've had a better life if they could've been born into a different body?

 

I don't know, I do think there's a difference between what was written and how I took it.

[Mejane]

You went there first.

 

Maybe so, but there's a huge difference between the language in the two opposing posts. Perhaps if people stopped using language like "kill their child" or "murder their child" (as in another thread), and stuck to "abort", these discussions could remain civil.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

That's a big problem (imo) with the secrecy. What if she were to have complications that she didn't know were complications? I imagine an abortion would be a brutally painful thing to go through, I imagine there would be blood, and I have to wonder how much a teenager would question their symptons. So, if she had kept the secret, what are the odds her mom would've felt a temperature and given her Tylenol and sent her to bed. If she would've died, I guess they would do an examination to find cause of death. After that, well, if she didn't tell anyone how would they know who had done the procedure?

 

You imagine, but you do not know. Most abortions are no more complicated than a D&C. In fact it is the same procedure performed on a woman for a "missed abortion" which is the medical term for miscarriage when the contents are not spontaneously expelled. General anesthesia is not even necessary.

[asta]

Yes. This is something I actually had to explain to my DH last night. Most women who are seeking an abortion are not showing up at a doctor well into a pregnancy. Most are showing up as soon as they have missed a period.

 

At that point, it is too late for "Plan B". The only alternative for them is an abortion if they wish to terminate the pregnancy. Want to know what is used? The equivalent of 4, full strength birth control pills to induce the shedding of the uterine lining. A follow-up appointment is scheduled to insure this has occurred properly. If it hasn't, a dilation and curettage is performed (scraping of the uterus - the same thing women who have had miscarriages have) to make sure there is no tissue remaining that could become infected.

 

As hard as it is for most people to separate emotion from medicine, I have always felt that it is entirely necessary in this case. If abortion is made illegal, insuring that a woman does not die from a miscarriage (eg: being allowed to perform a D&C) also becomes illegal, as a miscarriage (as has been stated) is a spontaneous abortion.

 

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. I don't want one. But I'm not everyone. And I only walk in my own shoes.

 

 

a

[LisaKinVA]

Maybe so, but there's a huge difference between the language in the two opposing posts. Perhaps if people stopped using language like "kill their child" or "murder their child" (as in another thread), and stuck to "abort", these discussions could remain civil.

 

:iagree: I am staunchly pro-life, but discussions like this get nowhere when bombs like that are thrown. They may be descriptive, and in one's mind accurate, but there is a saying..."you catch more flies with honey." Setting out to purposefully offend a person is a sure method to end civil discourse.

[Rosy]

I don't think it should be assumed that abortions happen in families where there isn't a good relationship between parents and children. 1 in 3 teen pregnancies is aborted. 2% of all teen girls (15-19) have an abortion every year. By the time women are 45, it is estimated that 1 in 4 have had an abortion. IMO, it is quite a leap to assume that all of these have strained relationships, abuse, poverty, etc.

 

I'm sure that many are just scared and/or not willing to deal with the social or personal ramifications of being pregnant.

[Rosy]

If abortion is made illegal, insuring that a woman does not die from a miscarriage (eg: being allowed to perform a D&C) also becomes illegal, as a miscarriage (as has been stated) is a spontaneous abortion.

 

 

I don't see how that could be true. Do you have a source for this?

[LisaKinVA]

As hard as it is for most people to separate emotion from medicine, I have always felt that it is entirely necessary in this case. If abortion is made illegal, insuring that a woman does not die from a miscarriage (eg: being allowed to perform a D&C) also becomes illegal, as a miscarriage (as has been stated) is a spontaneous abortion.

 

 

It *could* become illegal, depending upon how the language is written. I can already tell you that in my area, despite LEGAL abortions, a D&C for a miscarriage or missed miscarriage will not be done in our local hospitals. I had a choice between a local abortion clinic or an hour and a half commute to Richmond or DC.

 

I firmly believe this is due to the political nature of the abortion debate, rather than the procedure itself.

[asta]

I don't think it should be assumed that abortions happen in families where there isn't a good relationship between parents and children. 1 in 3 teen pregnancies is aborted. 2% of all teen girls (15-19) have an abortion every year. By the time women are 45, it is estimated that 1 in 4 have had an abortion. IMO, it is quite a leap to assume that all of these have strained relationships, abuse, poverty, etc.

 

I'm sure that many are just scared and/or not willing to deal with the social or personal ramifications of being pregnant.

 

Kinda sorta a tangent to this...

 

My dad was an OB/GYN.

 

Before he passed (a long, long time ago, I might add), I was doing a school research report on his profession and asked him if he performed abortions.

 

<< insert heavy dad sigh here >>

 

He said to me, "let me give you an example. I have one patient - a very well to do woman. She has a family, a rich husband, everything most people want. She shows up at my office in a flurry because 'she was so busy she forgot to take her birth control pills' and now she wants an abortion. I tell her to get out of my office. I have another patient - a migrant farm worker. She has five children. She has always been a devout Catholic and has never believed in birth control of any kind. Her husband has just beaten her within an inch of her life and returned to Mexico without her. She has no way to provide for the children she has, much less one more. I give her an abortion. I don't know if that answers your question, but it is the answer I have for you."

 

Thirty-one years later, and I still remember it practically verbatim.

 

It is one thing to proselytize, wax poetic about adoption, or spew a hundred other "what ifs". It's another to have to make real choices.

 

 

asta

 

(who still, obviously, misses him)

[asta]

It *could* become illegal, depending upon how the language is written. I can already tell you that in my area, despite LEGAL abortions, a D&C for a miscarriage or missed miscarriage will not be done in our local hospitals. I had a choice between a local abortion clinic or an hour and a half commute to Richmond or DC.

 

I firmly believe this is due to the political nature of the abortion debate, rather than the procedure itself.

 

No source, but I guess Lisa could be an example.

 

 

a

[Mrs Mungo]

 

I firmly believe this is due to the political nature of the abortion debate, rather than the procedure itself.

 

Exactly. I mentioned before my friend who need one dead baby removed so that her other two babies could live, she had to pay for it out of her pocket because their government insurance wouldn't pay for it.

[EthiopianFood]

Exactly. I mentioned before my friend who need one dead baby removed so that her other two babies could live, she had to pay for it out of her pocket because their government insurance wouldn't pay for it.

 

I'm prolife, but I am completely shocked that provisions aren't made for such a situation. :001_huh: This is really atrocious.

[msjones]

Well, I'm done teaching for the day, and had some time to dig around online trying to answer my question about who pays for and is responsible for the possible complications of an abortion performed on a non-paying minor.

 

The Planned Parenthood site doesn't come right out and state it, but suggests that if you can't pay, they have a fund available to cover the cost of your abortion.

 

I didn't see anything about who is held responsible for the health of the minor who has the abortion.

 

I know how much my OB-GYN friend pays for liability insurance, so it amazes me that a little clinic would be willing to 'take on' minors with no insurance.

[HRAAB]

I have a question. Are parents allowed to force their underage teens to carry a pregnancy to full term against their wishes? Is that why the laws (ones that allow underage teens to have abortions without parental consent) are in place? Or are they there so the teens can avoid an unpleasant conversation with their parents?

 

It's a very fine line here, between parental rights and the rights of the teenagers. I can see both sides of the situation.

 

I've wondered about this - what recourse would the girl have if her parents were insisting she continue the pregnancy. A young girl (12/13???) in our state was pregnant with twins by her step-father/mother's boyfriend, and as I understood it, she was continuing with the pregnancy. I'm not sure of the particulars right now because my memory is getting old!! It really brought it home for me because I have a girl about that age, and as I like to think issues through from all sides, I put myself in the position of it being my dd. Wow! Not easy. When I was younger, life was so black and white for me; now it seems to be gray much of the time.

 

Anyway, I was wondering if a girl in this situation would have recourse through the courts perhaps to get an abortion if her parents were refusing?

 

I'm just asking, not making any moral statements on the issue.

[Perry]

 

I know how much my OB-GYN friend pays for liability insurance, so it amazes me that a little clinic would be willing to 'take on' minors with no insurance.

I can't answer the rest, but I wanted to point out that the reason for the extremely high malpractice insurance for OBs is because of the frequency of lawsuits related to adverse birth outcomes, and the very high awards given when those suits are successful.

 

Abortion providers don't have those issues.

[LisaKinVA]

I'm prolife, but I am completely shocked that provisions aren't made for such a situation. :001_huh: This is really atrocious.

 

You aren't alone in that opinion.

 

What many pro-life people don't understand is that many times abortion statistics are based upon the number of D&C's done, and does not reflect the "why." I do believe that in some cases, and in some places they do distinguish, but I'm not certain if that is universal.

 

There is a LOT of disinformation/misinformation out there (I have a book from the 80's that is just FILLED with information about how the two most popular forms of BC are really just a monthly abortion), mind you there were no actual studies behind it, just assumptions... but oh the guilt!

 

Some of the most "rabid" pro-life groups are against ANY exceptions for abortion...and some people mistakenly believe that a woman's body takes care of IUFD on its own (sometimes it does not).

 

It's just sad...

[LisaKinVA]

I can't answer the rest, but I wanted to point out that the reason for the extremely high malpractice insurance for OBs is because of the frequency of lawsuits related to adverse birth outcomes, and the very high awards given when those suits are successful.

.

 

As a whole, many Americans have forgotten that sometimes, bad things happen.

 

Even when everything "goes perfectly" -- something may still happen one doesn't forsee. (hehehe, sound like I'm making an argument against homebirth and I have 4 born at home) No one can guarantee outcomes.

 

However, I will say that I do believe an "over-reliance" on medical technology and interventions may have led to a higher propensity for negative outcomes and c-sections.

[Mrs Mungo]

There is a LOT of disinformation/misinformation out there (I have a book from the 80's that is just FILLED with information about how the two most popular forms of BC are really just a monthly abortion), mind you there were no actual studies behind it, just assumptions... but oh the guilt!

 

Many, many people believe this. In fact, the most conservative of the pro-life movement want hormonal birth control to be illegal.

[LisaKinVA]

Many, many people believe this. In fact, the most conservative of the pro-life movement want hormonal birth control to be illegal.

 

You and I are probably talking about the same group :D Happens to be based in Virginia...

[elizabeth]

Yes. This is something I actually had to explain to my DH last night. Most women who are seeking an abortion are not showing up at a doctor well into a pregnancy. Most are showing up as soon as they have missed a period.

 

At that point, it is too late for "Plan B". The only alternative for them is an abortion if they wish to terminate the pregnancy. Want to know what is used? The equivalent of 4, full strength birth control pills to induce the shedding of the uterine lining. A follow-up appointment is scheduled to insure this has occurred properly. If it hasn't, a dilation and curettage is performed (scraping of the uterus - the same thing women who have had miscarriages have) to make sure there is no tissue remaining that could become infected.

 

As hard as it is for most people to separate emotion from medicine, I have always felt that it is entirely necessary in this case. If abortion is made illegal, insuring that a woman does not die from a miscarriage (eg: being allowed to perform a D&C) also becomes illegal, as a miscarriage (as has been stated) is a spontaneous abortion.

 

Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. I don't want one. But I'm not everyone. And I only walk in my own shoes.

 

 

a

 

Thanks for posting so eloquently and factually about this sensitive issue. Beautifully stated .

[Mrs Mungo]

Kinda sorta a tangent to this...

 

My dad was an OB/GYN.

 

Before he passed (a long, long time ago, I might add), I was doing a school research report on his profession and asked him if he performed abortions.

 

<< insert heavy dad sigh here >>

 

He said to me, "let me give you an example. I have one patient - a very well to do woman. She has a family, a rich husband, everything most people want. She shows up at my office in a flurry because 'she was so busy she forgot to take her birth control pills' and now she wants an abortion. I tell her to get out of my office. I have another patient - a migrant farm worker. She has five children. She has always been a devout Catholic and has never believed in birth control of any kind. Her husband has just beaten her within an inch of her life and returned to Mexico without her. She has no way to provide for the children she has, much less one more. I give her an abortion. I don't know if that answers your question, but it is the answer I have for you."

 

Thirty-one years later, and I still remember it practically verbatim.

 

It is one thing to proselytize, wax poetic about adoption, or spew a hundred other "what ifs". It's another to have to make real choices.

 

 

asta

 

(who still, obviously, misses him)

 

Thanks for sharing, I think this is a wonderful explanation.

[Orthodox6]

:iagree: I am staunchly pro-life, but discussions like this get nowhere when bombs like that are thrown. They may be descriptive, and in one's mind accurate, but there is a saying..."you catch more flies with honey." Setting out to purposefully offend a person is a sure method to end civil discourse.

 

First off, I do understand the point offered for consideration. Language choices obviously affect auditors' responses.

 

I'm still going to land in support of individuals who openly speak of abortion as a form of murder. The word "abortion" has a technical meaning, and everybody knows that meaning. I agree that the surgical procedure should be called by its medical term. At the same time, there is no reason for people who oppose abortion to be forced into speaking in what they deem "waffle-y" phrases which attempt to neutralize the bottom-line (from their viewpoint) reality that a human being is killed. People who endorse (or tolerate) abortion will continue to refer to "tissue removal", and to other descriptions of what occurs during an abortion. Talk like that repulses me just as much as references to abortion being the murder of babies repulses abortion supporters. Yet in that such speech conforms to their personal beliefs, I support their right to use it.

 

I'm writing with the same intent as when I posted earlier that both sides of a divisive issue absolutely retain the right to speak as befits the POV held.

[Mrs Mungo]

First off, I do understand the point offered for consideration. Language choices obviously affect auditors' responses.

 

I'm still going to land in support of individuals who openly speak of abortion as a form of murder.

 

I have to disagree because from the perspective of government insurance an abortion doesn't always kill a living baby. Sometimes, it's the removal of a baby that is already dead. Many sets of abortion statistics *include* those procedures.

[Tea Time]

Exactly. I mentioned before my friend who need one dead baby removed so that her other two babies could live, she had to pay for it out of her pocket because their government insurance wouldn't pay for it.

 

That is interesting. I am assuming military government insurance, yes? I had a friend who had a miscarriage that did not spontaneous pass. All her care was 100% covered. It would be hard to speculate on how these things play out. Removing a dead fetus while preserving two others is a more complex procedure than a simple D&C following a miscarriage.

 

Sometimes I think it boils down to two things, 1) How well you advocate for your health care needs 2) the common sense of the medical/professional providers in your immediate circumstances.

[Orthodox6]

I have to disagree because from the perspective of government insurance an abortion doesn't always kill a living baby. Sometimes, it's the removal of a baby that is already dead. Many sets of abortion statistics *include* those procedures.

 

You are right, of course, about this. Nonetheless, I believe that you understood what I clearly meant. I obviously was not discussing insurance policies.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Orthodox6

[Mrs Mungo]

Sometimes I think it boils down to two things, 1) How well you advocate for your health care needs 2) the common sense of the medical/professional providers in your immediate circumstances.

 

I think this is very true.

[Mrs Mungo]

You are right, of course, about this. Nonetheless, I believe that you understood what I clearly meant. Response seems nit-picky.

 

Well...I didn't just mean it to *you*, I meant it to people who are using the terms synonymously. Not trying to be nit-picky, just trying to make sure everyone understands that not all abortions are baby murder, even according to the people who are on the far-right on this issue.

[Orthodox6]

We both are quick-on-the-type this evening ! :) Please go back to my post, which I already had edited to remove the phrase, hoping that I would succeed before you read it and felt some justifiable discomfort.

 

As one who has lost a child before its birth, I'm painfully aware of this medical use of the term.

 

Well...I didn't just mean it to *you*, I meant it to people who are using the terms synonymously. Not trying to be nit-picky, just trying to make sure everyone understands that not all abortions are baby murder, even according to the people who are on the far-right on this issue.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Orthodox6

[Mejane]

.

 

I'm still going to land in support of individuals who openly speak of abortion as a form of murder. The word "abortion" has a technical meaning, and everybody knows that meaning. I agree that the surgical procedure should be called by its medical term. At the same time, there is no reason for people who oppose abortion to be forced into speaking in what they deem "waffle-y" phrases which attempt to neutralize the bottom-line (from their viewpoint) reality that a human being is killed. People who endorse (or tolerate) abortion will continue to refer to "tissue removal", and to other descriptions of what occurs during an abortion. Talk like that repulses me just as much as references to abortion being the murder of babies repulses abortion supporters. Yet in that such speech conforms to their personal beliefs, I support their right to use it.

 

I'm writing with the same intent as when I posted earlier that both sides of a divisive issue absolutely retain the right to speak as befits the POV held.

 

Well, since we're being "technical"... technically it's a fetus, not a baby.

 

I undertand the board rules to mean we are to be respectful of other members. Imo, callling other board members (some of whom have had abortions) "murderers" is disrespectful and incendiary. The passion with which we believe in a cause doesn't excuse bad behavior in its name.

[Mrs Mungo]

We both are quick-on-the-type this evening ! :) Please go back to my post, which I already had edited to remove the phrase, hoping that I would succeed before you read it and felt some justifiable discomfort.

 

It's still afternoon here-I had a large latte before dropping eldest off at her teen event, took cold medicine (I still get colds in Hawaii, I'm blaming the tourists) and just had a soda. I'm kind of hyper. I'm slower in the evenings.

 

As one who has lost a child before its birth, I'm painfully aware of this medical use of the term.

 

I'm very sorry. I can't imagine what that must feel like.

[Tea Time]

Kinda sorta a tangent to this...

 

My dad was an OB/GYN.

 

Before he passed (a long, long time ago, I might add), I was doing a school research report on his profession and asked him if he performed abortions.

 

<< insert heavy dad sigh here >>

 

He said to me, "let me give you an example. I have one patient - a very well to do woman. She has a family, a rich husband, everything most people want. She shows up at my office in a flurry because 'she was so busy she forgot to take her birth control pills' and now she wants an abortion. I tell her to get out of my office. I have another patient - a migrant farm worker. She has five children. She has always been a devout Catholic and has never believed in birth control of any kind. Her husband has just beaten her within an inch of her life and returned to Mexico without her. She has no way to provide for the children she has, much less one more. I give her an abortion. I don't know if that answers your question, but it is the answer I have for you."

 

Thirty-one years later, and I still remember it practically verbatim.

 

It is one thing to proselytize, wax poetic about adoption, or spew a hundred other "what ifs". It's another to have to make real choices.

 

 

asta

 

(who still, obviously, misses him)

 

So sorry about the loss of your father. He obviously was a compassionate person and clearly shared that with you.

 

This story is very compelling, so how can I approach this without throwing bombs? That is not my intent!

 

His story represents the far extremes, and many abortions do not fit into these extremes. It is not my job to pass judgment on anyone for the choices that they make. And everyone who is pro-life is not trying to sit in judgment. But that does not mean that we should shrug our shoulders and simply say, "Oh well. That is just how it is." For many of us, that would be exactly like people living prior to the civil war saying, "Oh well, some slave are treated badly, but most have it pretty good, and that is just the way it is." You may not agree; you may think that is a totally different thing. But if someone is convinced that a fetus is a person, then it is absolutely the same thing.

 

I had an acquaintance who got pregnant when she was a teenager. She gave that child up for adoption. She went on to college, married, and had two beautiful children by the time I met her. She chose to keep in touch with her adopted child and their family. It was amazing and beautiful.

 

That is a better outcome for everyone involved. I do not think it is judgmental to plainly state that some choices are better than others.

 

I am pro-life in the consistent way, so I also do not believe in capital punishment, but if a society decides it is going to go there, then I would also be there to remind it constantly of the grave nature of this path, and that it must never, never forget capital punishment (a nice word for killing a person) is anything but the lesser of two evils. It must never forget its own partaking of evil, even if it is doing so for the sake of good. You see?

 

Sadly, I think that our culture goes beyond wanting to make abortion regrettable but safe and legal and wants to totally remove any stigma and allow people to boldly and arrogantly flaunt it. Big, big difference. I will never say that is okay.

 

So maybe for those of you who seem to despise the pro-life position and people who defend it, perhaps it might help just to think of them as guardians of conscience. Painful reminders never to forget and never to go too far.

 

Everyone proselytizes something. It is not fair or accurate to imply that people who are pro-life are just very naive and unrealistic. And to stop waxing poetic might be the most fearful idea of all. After all, your post was wildly poetic, and poetry holds deep truths. I am glad you shared it to remind us of the complexities of this issue. Hopefully you can see that reminders from the other side should be equally welcome.

[Orthodox6]

In techno-speak, yes he or she is a fetus. In common parlance, he or she is a baby.

 

I recognize that you consider me disrespectful. I also recognize your freedom to think so.

 

Well, since we're being "technical"... technically it's a fetus, not a baby.

 

I undertand the board rules to mean we are to be respectful of other members. Imo, callling other board members (some of whom have had abortions) "murderers" is disrespectful and incendiary. The passion with which we believe in a cause doesn't excuse bad behavior in its name.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Orthodox6

[sheryl]

Illegal? Of course not----now if a teacher had DARE to utter a prayer in class or she had learned the Judeo-Christian heritage of America's founding father ins depth---now THAT would have been illegal and grounds for an uprising!! :glare:

 

Seriously sick.

 

:iagree:

 

How very sad....truly "signs of the times"