Jump to content

Menu

crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal


SparklyUnicorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

But you do believe that the pro-life movement has the right to ALWAYS choose which life (baby) trumps which life (woman), regardless of circumstances. The baby always trumps the mother. Doesn't matter if the mother might lose her job (2/3 of all disability claims are related to pregnancy), whether she is a 13-year-old girl whose uncle has been grunting away on top of her and so impregnated her (yes, that's crass, but that's what happens - had a foster child surviving just those circumstances), or a rape victim who was too ashamed or traumatized to get the Plan B in time, or to report the rape in time to satisfy the people who might get to judge whether the rape is "legitimate" enough to possibly allow an abortion.

 

I'm actually a wishy-washy type - I guess I'm pro-choice, but I don't mind legal restrictions that make it harder to get, nor do I mind CPC's that are honest. But even I can see the irony of pro-lifers who claim that they care about the woman but only allow ONE option in all circumstances. The needs and the fears and the wants and the desperation of the woman are not allowed to factor in the decision. There might be lots of flowery words and justifications and protestations to the contrary, but only one choice is allowed. For all women. All the time. 

 

And that the same people who claim to be so frothing-at-the-mouth-concerned about the baby also support cutting to the bone all the services necessary for that life to thrive after birth.....well, probably better I don't go there.  

Obviously you have me confused with someone else.  I have never said any of this stuff.  Never.  Enough of putting words into people's mouths already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am nothing but glad that I have my 12 year old. He was born at a time when I could be a better mom. I do not 'miss' my hypothetical 14 year old.

 

That was a hard time for me, but it isn't always. Plenty of women do not struggle with the choice.

 

Women hurt each other on this issue all the time. Some woman cared so little about me, and so much about my foetus, that she thought spitting on me was an awesome way to express sisterhood and get me to keep my baby.

Sorry , I did not mean that you need or should miss your hypothetical 14 year old . I was just sharing my family's experience , not trying to tell anyone else what they should feel/not feel. I know that women hurt each other on this all the time. I have seen it, they have definitely been vocal to my family.

I am tearing up picturing that happening to you. How could anyone one do that to another person? I am so sorry. Wow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am nothing but glad that I have my 12 year old. He was born at a time when I could be a better mom. I do not 'miss' my hypothetical 14 year old.

 

That was a hard time for me, but it isn't always. Plenty of women do not struggle with the choice.

 

Women hurt each other on this issue all the time. Some woman cared so little about me, and so much about my foetus, that she thought spitting on me was an awesome way to express sisterhood and get me to keep my baby.

WTH? That is terrible. What a rude, obnoxious, can't eventhink ofthe word person. I am sorry that happened to you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as way of information (I am NOT discounting your friend's experience or defending that awful former PP) I would like to address the u/s and heartbeat issue.

 

Because I miscarry so often, I have a lot of early u/s. Sometimes an early u/s shows a heartbeat

as early as 5-6 weeks. Sometimes it doesn't show up on an u/s until much later. It depends on where the embryo is implanted, the shape and position of the uterus, the skill of the worker performing the u/s and the quality of the machine. An u/s in a clinic office or a small midwifery office will usually be less accurate than the top of the line machines that a radiology office is more likely to have. Because small offices can't afford equipment upgrades as soon as they become available. It is highly possible for a heartbeat to not be visible when it "should" be visible. My younger son's was not clear until fairly late and that was on the spiffy new machine. We

despaired of him sticking around but he was there and kicking it 10 days later. OTOH, I've had and lost many pregnancies where a heartbeat was clearly visible very early but then ceased towards the end of the first trimester or the start of the second. I chart and my dates and usually ironclad. Of course the heartbeat is there in a viable pregnancy before it is visible on any u/s and they definitely should not have deceived her. That is wholly wrong.

Whether a heartbeat can be detected by ultrasound or not, if a heart is beating (based on gestational age), that should be disclosed honestly, particularly if the mother asks about this, as you say.  That was the original issue.

Edited by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did have a thread here maybe a year ago ? Based on an article written by a woman who regretted motherhood. It went much the way you'd imagine it would go :)

And let's not forget the barrage of nasty threats hurled down on Lindy West and Amelia Bonow over #shoutyourabortion

 

Women aren't supposed to talk about not feeling badly about abortions and when they do, people tend to lose their shit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered how pro-life people (collectively not uniamously) say life is so great for those not aborted yet when people die or a woman has a miscarriage, it is often said they are in a better place or God Knows Best or "everything happens for a reason". Maybe the woman decided to have an abortion for a reason? Why aren't these lives said to be "in a better place"?

 

And those are just three of the crappy things people have said to my face post miscarriage. There are so, so many more.

Hugs to you. People say terrible things when women miscarry.

Sharing the crappy things people say - I had someone tell me that in order to be a good mom to my older child I absolutely had to abort my younger one because he was going to have developmental and medical issues. When I told her I wasn't going to abort she told me I was selfish and would be a neglectful mother. Helpful. This is the same person who told me it was a blessing in disguise when the drs thought I was miscarrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self defense is often (not always) an exception. Killing someone on death row is not self defense.

I agree. If someone is in this moment trying to harm my kids, I will not be sorry smacking them upside the head with a bat. If someone was arrested after the fact for harming my kids and is sitting in jail or on bond awaiting trial, I am no longer morally or legally allowed to go after them with a bat. One is self defense or defense of others. The other is vengeance which is not morally acceptable to me.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of rape & incest.  I think they are very grave crimes that should be severely treated by the justice system.  There is serous need for improvement both in preventing these crimes & in handling them after the fact.  However, I don't think it's the fetuses fault that its mother was a victim.  Abortion in that situation does nothing to further justice.  A previous poster mentioned a woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy under theses circumstances risks becoming legally tethered to her abuser/rapist.  That is so wrong, and shouldn't be possible.  How a rapist could ever have parental rights is an abomination of the law.

 

In "life of the mother" circumstances, I am pro-choice.  The pregnant woman's life has value.  If a woman & her medical providers feel that an abortion is the best course of action, I can accept that decision without judgement.

 

I find it difficult to speak for the pro-life movement as a whole, because it seems many posters have had extremely negative experiences that are not in line with pro-life values as far as I see them.

 

On the topic of logical pro-life consistency, personally I am pro-life across the board (mostly).  So no death penalty, no war, no genocide/eugenics.  I say mostly because I do see some nuance.  I agree that the death penalty doesn't have anything to do with abortion, but it does have to do with the "life" part of pro-life.  I am against both for similar reasons.  Everyone's life should have value.  

I used to be against abortion in all circumstances. Then I met a woman who was gang raped at 13 and knifed in the privates and she had an abortion. It hit me that even though that is her child that neither I nor anyone else should be the one to tell her not to have an abortion. That decision should be between her and her doctor ideally with the support of family (but even that is not always feasible since some parents are the perpetrators:()

 

I also came to believe that a woman should not have to prove her case before a judge that she was raped or what not especially in light of the fact that rape is very difficult to prove according to a family member who served as a prosecutor for over 30 years.

 

Then there are those who say it is OK for a woman to have an abortion when her life is at stake. Again, why should a woman or doctor have to go to some authority such as judge to prove her case for permission?? 

 

Then there are those who say a woman should be barred from abortion even if continuing with the pregnancy may harm her health :svengo: I mean really??? A woman should have to sacrifice her health?? I have taken care of pregnant women who had heart failure, metastatic cancer, and other very serious life threatening conditions. Ideally I believe we should try to save both mother and baby but when we can't I believe mom always comes first.

 

Lastly, I think women deserve to be treated with dignity and allowed to have control of decisions affecting their lives. As such I am against legislating against abortion. The decision should be between a woman and her doctor IMHO. 

 

As for the case where woman abuse abortion and use it as birth control, I hate that too since I agree abortion is taking  human life. But to me focusing on that and trying to make abortion illegal is the wrong tact to make abortions rare. The right tact is universal sex ed, free and easy access birth control for all woman and teens, and free and easy access to Plan B emergency contraception. Also, mandate that every hospital and pharmacy make birth control and Plan B available with no opt outs for "conscience".

Edited by NoPlaceLikeHome
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if you are opposed to lying to women, are you in favor of changing the deceptive practices crisis pregnancy centers use to draw women in?

Rename "Pregnancy Choice Center" to "Pray with Me Pregnancy Center".

I am sure there are women who go to those places looking for support in pro-life stance. The centers do perform an appropriate service for those patients. Let them be the patients. Take down the billboards and ads that do not reveal that agenda.

I think maybe a bullet pointed list of services offered that doesn't mention or include abortion would be appropriate. Unless religious services are specifically offered I don't think pray with me centre is. I'm not a fan of deception on any front.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugs to you. People say terrible things when women miscarry.

Sharing the crappy things people say - I had someone tell me that in order to be a good mom to my older child I absolutely had to abort my younger one because he was going to have developmental and medical issues. When I told her I wasn't going to abort she told me I was selfish and would be a neglectful mother. Helpful. This is the same person who told me it was a blessing in disguise when the drs thought I was miscarrying.

There is no shortage of stupid people who try to control others. I'm sorry someone said that to you. This is why I think people should trust others to make their own best decisions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our discussion is about experiences at PP.

 

 

Let's go back to what you actually said and to which I responded:

"Abortion does hurt women. I'm a woman and abortion hurt me mentally, physically, emotionally profoundly. My experience matters even if it's not shared. But it is by many women out there and we matter."

 

The bolded is a matter of opinion based on your experiences. There are other women who have had abortions who disagree. The fact that you had a bad experiences does not mean other women should lose their right to have abortions, which is the end goal of those at the top of the Pro Life movement.

 

Your comment is in no way analogous to Black Lives Matter. Just stop.

This is a linguistic thing. Abortion does hurt women could be taken to mean it hurts all women but I think in this case it's meant to mean "some".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed with the bolded.

 

What do you mean by 'restricting her reproductive freedom for the duration of the pregnancy' ? 

 

Interestingly, from the foetus' pov ( not that I believe it has one), restrictions on the mothers behaviour when it is least a person ie the first trimester is likely to yield most benefit for that foetus.

 

The alcoholic drink you consume weeks 1-12 have more impact than the same alcoholic drink in week 40. 

 

So can we justify major restrictions at a time when a foetus is  least a person ?

 

Personally, I think support goes a lot further than restriction. And brings us back to good sex ed, understanding of consent, access to contraception, access to morning after pill, access to termination, universal health care, accessible pre and post natal care - so that the vast majority of developing foetuses and babies are developing in a healthy environment. 

 

By "restricting her reproductive freedom."  I mean that that there are additional ethical considerations, when a woman is pregnant that don't exist when she is not pregnant.  There are a great many things that we shouldn't do while pregnant that are acceptable when not pregnant: eat sushi & soft cheeses, drink coffee & alcoholic beverages, take certain medications, get X-rays.  Sometimes it may be the best option for a woman to receive and X-ray or take a potentially harmful medication when the benefits outweigh the risks on the balance.  Likewise while a woman may receive a D & C (for example) to treat gynecological problems or an incomplete miscarriage.  That isn't morally equivalent to a D & C used for pregnancy termination.  Sometimes yes, the moral choice might be to end a pregnancy.  I am saying yes, you are correct that I am in favor of restricting the pregnant woman's "right to choose abortion"  in favor of the rights of the fetus. 

 

To be clear I am not taking Mercy's position of "no abortions ever".  Nor am I advocating for making abortion illegal (I don't know).

 

I take your point about harmful substances being risker earlier in pregnancy.  I definitely think medical risk is a part of ethical determinations during pregnancy.  I think women should stick to pregnancy as if they were pregnant if they are trying to conceive or are leaving it up to chance/God.  Also a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant should immediately begin prenatal vitamins, pregnancy diet etc. because as you mentioned the first few weeks & months are the most important in terms of affecting fetal outcomes.

 

I strongly agree with your last paragraph.  Yes to all of that!  Including support & education before restriction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you're not being snarky. Yes, I am always against abortion. As you note, HELLP syndrome is rare before the third trimester. If it were to occur before viability (which thankfully keeps moving earlier and earlier), and if all possible treatments had been exhausted, and if the mother was in imminent danger of death, I would probably be in favor of early delivery and hope that all reasonable attempts were made to save the child's life. 

Forcing a delivery either through induction or c-section when a woman is in critical condition, increases the risk of death to a woman tremendously from what I understand. I think it is unreasonable to force a woman to sacrifice her life or health for an child who is yet to be. 

 

There actually was a case from what I recall of a woman who was at death's door with HELLP who was 14 weeks pregnant and at a Catholic hospital. The nun in charge allowed the abortion and was reprimanded. I believe the church was wrong in this case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "restricting her reproductive freedom."  I mean that that there are additional ethical considerations, when a woman is pregnant that don't exist when she is not pregnant.  There are a great many things that we shouldn't do while pregnant that are acceptable when not pregnant: eat sushi & soft cheeses, drink coffee & alcoholic beverages, take certain medications, get X-rays.  Sometimes it may be the best option for a woman to receive and X-ray or take a potentially harmful medication when the benefits outweigh the risks on the balance.  Likewise while a woman may receive a D & C (for example) to treat gynecological problems or an incomplete miscarriage.  That isn't morally equivalent to a D & C used for pregnancy termination.  Sometimes yes, the moral choice might be to end a pregnancy.  I am saying yes, you are correct that I am in favor of restricting the pregnant woman's "right to choose abortion"  in favor of the rights of the fetus. 

 

To be clear I am not taking Mercy's position of "no abortions ever".  Nor am I advocating for making abortion illegal (I don't know).

 

I take your point about harmful substances being risker earlier in pregnancy.  I definitely think medical risk is a part of ethical determinations during pregnancy.  I think women should stick to pregnancy as if they were pregnant if they are trying to conceive or are leaving it up to chance/God.  Also a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant should immediately begin prenatal vitamins, pregnancy diet etc. because as you mentioned the first few weeks & months are the most important in terms of affecting fetal outcomes.

 

I strongly agree with your last paragraph.  Yes to all of that!  Including support & education before restriction.

So how do you regulate restrictions on abortion? I am guessing the only way is that a woman should have to prove her case before some sort of authority figure such as a judge. I think this is quite intrusive and treats women as children.

Edited by NoPlaceLikeHome
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fetus is more important to some.

 

The woman is more important to others.

 

It's essentially impossible for someone to give each the exact same importance and value.

 

Perhaps.  Both are very important & their lives are precious.  Clearly when we must pick one, that is a hard choice.  It shouldn't be a choice a woman makes alone.  She should have the help of her medical providers, her loved ones, her priest, whoever else in making that decision. 

 

Usually when discussing abortion we aren't weighing the life of the mother v. the life of the child.  Usually we are weighing a perceived right to chose not to be pregnant & all the ensuing benefits to the woman of ending her pregnancy versus the life of the fetus.  If every pregnancy required the mother dying for her child the discussion would be very different.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps.  Both are very important & their lives are precious.  Clearly when we must pick one, that is a hard choice.  It shouldn't be a choice a woman makes alone.  She should have the help of her medical providers, her loved ones, her priest, whoever else in making that decision. 

 

Usually when discussing abortion we aren't weighing the life of the mother v. the life of the child.  Usually we are weighing a perceived right to chose not to be pregnant & all the ensuing benefits to the woman of ending her pregnancy versus the life of the fetus.  If every pregnancy required the mother dying for her child the discussion would be very different.

 

Hopefully she doesn't have to make it alone, but it has to be her choice in the end.

 

Also, "we" don't have to make a hard choice.  She does.

Edited by ChocolateReignRemix
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I am nothing but glad that I have my 12 year old. He was born at a time when I could be a better mom. I do not 'miss' my hypothetical 14 year old. 

 

That was a hard time for me, but it isn't always. Plenty of women do not struggle with the choice. 

 

Women hurt each other on this issue all the time. Some woman cared so little about me, and so much about my foetus, that she thought spitting on me was an awesome way to express sisterhood and get me to keep my baby.

 

I do feel uncomfortable, because of this issue.  I don't want to be hurtful.  I want to say that I understand that my words can be very powerful.  I am treading carefully.  I'm very aware that you, and probably other women who have already made this choice differently than I would, are reading my words.  I feel compassion for any pain others have caused you, and apologize for any I may have caused.  You have a right to feel angry about being mistreated & devalued. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously you have me confused with someone else.  I have never said any of this stuff.  Never.  Enough of putting words into people's mouths already.

 

Yes, you did.

 

You claimed that you did not believe that women are less valuable than babies, but then you do believe that you have the right to determine that EVERY woman in EVERY circumstance must carry that child to term, which by definition means the 'rights' of the baby trumps the woman, every time...hence, the woman has been deemed to be less important in this situation, every time.

 

No matter how you may claim otherwise, this is the underlying issue. 

 

Own it, as opposed to trying to push it off at "putting words into people's mouths."

 

 

 

 

 

I do not believe that women are less valuable than babi

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered how pro-life people (collectively not uniamously) say life is so great for those not aborted yet when people die or a woman has a miscarriage, it is often said they are in a better place or God Knows Best or "everything happens for a reason". Maybe the woman decided to have an abortion for a reason? Why aren't these lives said to be "in a better place"?

 

And those are just three of the crappy things people have said to my face post miscarriage. There are so, so many more.

I am so sorry for your losses. I know how painful that can be. I have lost a few early babies and we named them and pray for them daily like we do for our other children. Older people and people not in my Catholic church are sort of ..just forget it and move on with their mentality.

 

Why do people say stupid hurtful things when you have a painful loss...I don't know. I don't think it is just when you lose someone young,though. I heard a lot of it when we have older family members die as well. They are in a better place.." Well I hope and pray so, but that is not the most super comforting for those of us here on earth. It is comforting, but I think most of us are grieving because we miss the dead. Probably just looking for an ak owledge ent of our pain. I think people who comment this way just don't know what to say , or at least that is what I tell myself.

 

I know women who when asked if they have children will answer yes, 8 in heaven, 3 on earth. We are having a funeral this week for a 12 week gestational baby in my church. Some people get it, it is painful and grief involved. I always got a few sympathy cards and hugs and amzing support from women who also miscarried (that I had no idea until then).

Edited by Silver Brook
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my first multi-quote, so apologies if it doesn't work.

So how do you regulate restrictions on abortion? I am guessing the only is that a woman should have to prove her case before some sort of authority figure such as a judge. I think this is quite intrusive and treats women as children.

 

I don't know what the legal end of it should look like.  I think that a woman's doctor should determine medical reasons for & against abortion.  But I don't know what regulation should look like.  I wouldn't support any law requiring a judge to get involved in rape cases or mother's/ fetus's health cases.   Ideally, women would make a moral choice of their own volition.   I am cautious of compelling them through force of law. 

 

Hopefully she doesn't have to make it alone, but it has to be her choice in the end.

 

Also, "we" don't have to make a hard choice.  She does.

I agree that ultimately it has to be her choice.  I can't force a woman to remain pregnant.

 

Obviously, I disagree with your second line, I'm pro-life.  But I mean we as society when working out our collective morals have to make hard choices.  I'm not speaking about any one specific woman's decision to have abortions.  Rather I am speaking of the overarching morality under which decisions regarding abortion are made. 

 

Thanks. Nobody has caused me any pain in this thread. 

 

I do feel angry that the love and compassion many pro-lifers claim to offer doesn't really come across that way to the women they target. 

 

I assume nobody posting here is out picketing clinics, and spitting on people. I hope not, anyway.

 

I'm relieved to hear that.  No picketing or abuse from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For pro-lifers, it is not a matter of prioritizing one being's feelings over another, or one being's circumstances over another.    when you say "ALWAYS choose which life (baby) trumps which life (woman)," your examples that follow have a major logical inconsistency - the baby's life is over in case of abortion (as in, dead), while the mother's, in those circumstances, continues, albeit in varying levels of difficulty or misery.

 

 

 

 

I was referring to "life", as in more than biological life - I consider the circumstances that a desperate or ill or sexually abused woman to be part of 'life', and I don't mean that with snark. If I read you right, you think the baby's biological life is more important than any other factor in the woman's life. Which if fine. That is typically the pro-life position. 

 

The pro-life movement often proclaims that pro-choicers ignore that the fetus becomes a baby, and yes, in the typical "this complicated issue is only black and white" view, that is true. 

 

However, what the pro-lifers ignore is that a pregnant woman, to them, has to function solely as a womb with legs once she is pregnant. She is not allowed any other choice than to be a womb. All the hand-waving promises of "support" and "empathy" just make that fact sound better than what it is. 13-year-old impregnated by an uncle? That's just a "varying level of misery". Raped? Well, then apparently she needs a team of specialists to make up her mind for her, as she cannot possibly be responsible enough for her own mind  (slippery slope there, ladies...could easily stretch to "pregnant women are too hormonal too make major life decisions").

 

And, with that, this has to be my last post (and my last read). NO one is going to convince anyone else of anything on this issue. 

Edited by Happy2BaMom
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered how pro-life people (collectively not uniamously) say life is so great for those not aborted yet when people die or a woman has a miscarriage, it is often said they are in a better place or God Knows Best or "everything happens for a reason". Maybe the woman decided to have an abortion for a reason? Why aren't these lives said to be "in a better place"?

 

And those are just three of the crappy things people have said to my face post miscarriage. There are so, so many more.

Some women that have had abortions do say and believe those things. For some of those who do have regrets it is a way to deal with it - to believe that it was all in Gods will. Edited by Ausmumof3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering, Mercy, I appreciate it. As I've said before, I respect consistency in view point. 

 

I am shocked though, at the hubris behind expecting all women to carry a child to birth and deliver that child no matter the context or threat to herself.

 

You may be shocked that I was callously implicit in the killing of two innocent lives, but at least I confined my hubris to myself and those two foetuses. I don't presume to judge for any other woman. I would as happily support a woman having her 10th child as I would accompany a friend to an abortion clinic. 

 

You think you know best for all women of childbearing age! Even rape victims. Even women at risk of death. Even girls. I find that equally as shocking as you no doubt find my 'killing of innocents'.

 

What gives you the moral authority to do so ? If you don't even define yourself as a citizen, what gives your stance any authority over another citizen ? 

 

I need to respond to these posts quickly, so please forgive me if anything I say comes off as insensitive or isn't worded quite right.

 

No, I'm not shocked that you've aborted children. First, because you've shared about it before on the forum. Secondly, because I have friends and relatives who've aborted (some of whom are now involved in pro-life work), and I don't view them any differently than other people. Thirdly, because I've done plenty of things I consider morally equal to or worse than your abortions. Finally, because very little shocks me, ever. 

 

I would completely understand (and even agree with) your shock at my position if the pregnant woman were the only person involved in her decision to abort. She is not. There is another person to consider. The vast majority of the time the circumstances in the woman's life, serious though they may be, do not involve life and death, and that is not the case for her child.

 

What gives me the right? The same thing that gives you the right to saying murdering an infant is wrong, or raping a woman is wrong. It is wrong to intentionally hurt other human beings. I think we should all be concerned with preventing hurt and injustice.

 

(And just as a side note, I do define myself as a U.S. citizen, just not that first and foremost. Sorry I was unclear.)

 

I've always wondered how pro-life people (collectively not uniamously) say life is so great for those not aborted yet when people die or a woman has a miscarriage, it is often said they are in a better place or God Knows Best or "everything happens for a reason". Maybe the woman decided to have an abortion for a reason? Why aren't these lives said to be "in a better place"?

 

And those are just three of the crappy things people have said to my face post miscarriage. There are so, so many more.

 

I'm really sorry, Katie. People said things to me after my miscarriage and during my threatened miscarriage that still bother me now. I'm so sorry for your losses and sorry that people can be so stupid.

 

That said (and please understand I'm saying this gently), whether aborted children are in a better place or not really has nothing to do with whether or not it's right to kill them. Life can be hard for any child born into this world, but I don't believe it's up to us to decide that it's better to deprive them of their one chance to live it.

 

I do feel angry that the love and compassion many pro-lifers claim to offer doesn't really come across that way to the women they target. 

 

I assume nobody posting here is out picketing clinics, and spitting on people. I hope not, anyway.

 

I have picketed. I have seen babies saved because of it, so I can't say it was wrong.

 

My group's materials were spat upon, and I've had things thrown at me. I think that we can all agree that those actions aren't appropriate coming from either side. I'm sorry that you were treated in that way.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very sorry that those things were said to you though. It's one thing for a woman to define her experience that was and another thing totally die someone to do it for them. as a society we are terrible at dealing with death or miscarriage or tragedy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious to know what pro-lifers attitude is to restriction of a pregnant woman's rights in other areas. For example, to be logically consistent with the idea that the foetus from conception has equal rights to the pregnant woman, I'd assume you are in favour of restricting what she can do during pregnancy - what she drinks, eats, the kind of activities she engages in ?

 

How far do you think this restriction should extend ? Should bars have to deny a pregnant woman a drink, for example ? Should women who take drugs during pregnancy be charged with endangering the foetus ? Held liable for post-birth costs of dealing with a FAS baby ?

 

How do you reconcile restricting the woman's liberty for those nine months, given that liberty and the pursuit of happiness is at the core of your national character and strivings ?

I personally strongly feel that women should do the best they personally possibly can - sometimes the best might be changing a drug addiction for a cigarette one. I gave up coffee for two pregnancies and just couldn't for my third so understand personal limitation.

 

I don't think these are for legislation though and I don't think it's realistic to hold women liable for health care costs, mostly because the science is somewhat undecided anyway, and because in the case of drug addiction chances are the woman has no resources to pay for health care anyway. Generally we don't force people to pay for health care due to poor life choices. Smokers still get Lung cancer treatment and obese people still get healthcare.

 

I do see these things as different to deliberately and intentionally causing harm to a person. Whether or not a foetus is a person or at what point they become a person is the question I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point about stupid things being say to people in the wake of death or miscarriage is not that people are cruel to those who miscarry or have a family member die. It's that if people think so many things happen for a reason at are God's will, why not abortion? Abortion has existed since the beginning of time and was not actually illegal in large parts of this country until the 19th century.

 

Miscarrying is hard yet as I said before I don't equate it with me losing newborn after newborn. It's not the same thing (for me.) I have two kids. Not uh, a lot more.

 

It is not up to us to tell a woman she has to have a child, no matter the cost to her. I consider doing so as immoral as pro-life folks see abortion.

 

Seeing picketers at a clinic and outside my school was the first thing that challenged my prolife upbringing- I was disgusted and started to consider if I could possibly be on the same side as people harassing school children. I was not very old at this point. I was glad my mom astutely concluded that clinic picketing and pro life rallies were not something I needed to do or be taken to. (For the record, my mom was more of a vigil/rally person and didn't continue to picket clinics because of discomfort with the tactics and confrontation. She recognized there was a different between having an opinion and foistING that opinion onto others.)

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forcing a delivery either through induction or c-section when a woman is in critical condition, increases the risk of death to a woman tremendously from what I understand. I think it is unreasonable to force a woman to sacrifice her life or health for an child who is yet to be. 

 

There actually was a case from what I recall of a woman who was at death's door with HELLP who was 14 weeks pregnant and at a Catholic hospital. The nun in charge allowed the abortion and was reprimanded. I believe the church was wrong in this case.

 

I am not familiar with this story, but I am Catholic and I wouldn't expect the mother to carry on with the pregnancy if she was literally going to die/potentially going to die. Maybe I am missing details. I've always heard "a life for a life" as far as exceptions on dying. Self defense in certain cases as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point about stupid things being say to people in the wake of death or miscarriage is not that people are cruel to those who miscarry or have a family member die. It's that if people think so many things happen for a reason at are God's will, why not abortion? Abortion has existed since the beginning of time and was not actually illegal in large parts of this country until the 19th century.

 

Miscarrying is hard yet as I said before I don't equate it with me losing newborn after newborn. It's not the same thing (for me.) I have two kids. Not uh, a lot more.

 

It is not up to us to tell a woman she has to have a child, no matter the cost to her. I consider doing so as immoral as pro-life folks see abortion.

 

Seeing picketers at a clinic and outside my school was the first thing that challenged my prolife upbringing- I was disgusted and started to consider if I could possibly be on the same side as people harassing school children. I was not very old at this point. I was glad my mom astutely concluded that clinic picketing and pro life rallies were not something I needed to do or be taken too. (For the record, my mom was vigil/rally person and didn't continue to picket clinics because of discomfort with the tactics and confrontation. She recognized there was a different between having an opinion and foistING that opinion onto others.)

Idk. I mean I may think "it all happened for a reason" about losing someone I loved from cancer but it doesn't mean I think the medically negligent dr who didn't correctly diagnose or listen to her was right or excuse his lack of listening and concern.

 

As far as picketing, I think debate and legislation, if it exists, needs to be around providers not vulnerable women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 then you do believe that you have the right to determine that EVERY woman in EVERY circumstance must carry that child to term, which by definition means the 'rights' of the baby trumps the woman, every time...

No, I never said anything of the sort, nor do I believe this.  In fact, I have said things in this very thread contradicting this.  Stop putting words in my mouth.  Don't tell me what I think.  Tell me what you think, if you want, but don't tell me what I think--it's ridiculous and very rude.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point about stupid things being say to people in the wake of death or miscarriage is not that people are cruel to those who miscarry or have a family member die. It's that if people think so many things happen for a reason at are God's will, why not abortion? Abortion has existed since the beginning of time and was not actually illegal in large parts of this country until the 19th century.

 

Miscarrying is hard yet as I said before I don't equate it with me losing newborn after newborn. It's not the same thing (for me.) I have two kids. Not uh, a lot more.

 

It is not up to us to tell a woman she has to have a child, no matter the cost to her. I consider doing so as immoral as pro-life folks see abortion.

 

Seeing picketers at a clinic and outside my school was the first thing that challenged my prolife upbringing- I was disgusted and started to consider if I could possibly be on the same side as people harassing school children. I was not very old at this point. I was glad my mom astutely concluded that clinic picketing and pro life rallies were not something I needed to do or be taken to. (For the record, my mom was more of a vigil/rally person and didn't continue to picket clinics because of discomfort with the tactics and confrontation. She recognized there was a different between having an opinion and foistING that opinion onto others.)

 

I don't believe God wills anyone to sin. I believe killing is sin. That said, I know God is able to use sin I've committed for His own purposes (Genesis 50:20, Romans 8:28).

 

I fully recognize (partly from my own experiences) that there is a difference between losing a child early in pregnancy or later in life. I don't think the difference is cause to protect one child and not the other, however.

 

I understand your position, but can't share it.

 

I'm sorry if picketing disgusts you. I saw it as one last chance to reach a woman with whom I might not be able to have a conversation. Not everyone has the information they need, and both information and appeals to the conscience can be powerful.

 

Thank you for your response, Katie. I'm glad to know you and the others contributing to the thread.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, making an idol of the child. You have to weigh up all the harm you are doing by picketing, not just hyperfocus on the harm to the foetus and ignore the harm to the woman. I'd still like the get to the bottom of this idea that the woman lacks innocence, and hence is undeserving of protection from harm.

 

I don't accept your equation of first trimester foetus with born child, so your suggestion that I would ( harass, lie to, manipulate ) to protect a child is meaningless to me.

For me it has nothing to do with the innocence of the woman. It is because the issue for the woman is a quality of life issue whereas the issue for the foetus is a life itself issue.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, making an idol of the child. You have to weigh up all the harm you are doing by picketing, not just hyperfocus on the harm to the foetus and ignore the harm to the woman. I'd still like the get to the bottom of this idea that the woman lacks innocence, and hence is undeserving of protection from harm.

 

I don't accept your equation of first trimester foetus with born child, so your suggestion that I would ( harass, lie to, manipulate ) to protect a child is meaningless to me. 

 

I am secure in my relationship with God and am confident that I have not made an idol of unborn children. Other things, yes, at times, and of course I can't speak for anyone else.

 

I never said or nor do I believe that any human being is undeserving of having their life protected, with the possible exception of someone caught in the act of harming someone else. That said, someone losing their life is more significant to me than someone being potentially emotionally hurt. 

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: the only differences between a first trimester fetus and an infant are their level of development, their degree of dependence, and their environment. I don't believe any of those differences are sufficient justification to deprive someone of their right to life. 

 

My suggestion that you consider what you might do to save a born child was only an (obviously ineffectual) attempt to help you try see things from my point of view. [ETA: And I have never and would never defend lying to anyone.] Like most people, I don't enjoy feeling misunderstood or looked down upon, but it's okay.

 

I need to head to bed. Have a good night.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a kid I joined a church line to hold signs (not at a clinic) for a pro-life stance and I didn't like all the signs. I would not then nor now hold up certain ones. I think some people still don't get that if you really want someone to "make a change of heart" (not sure how else to word this) then calling them names or using certain jarring language isn't the best way to do it. I think there are ways to talk to someone without harassing them.

 

I kind of believe that the way to change abortion isn't through legislature. It's through a change of perspective. Again, not sure the right words to use. There's a quote by a nun in which she describes a lot of people as merely "pro-birth" not "pro-life." I agree that is something that needs to be addressed.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am secure in my relationship with God and am confident that I have not made an idol of unborn children. Other things, yes, at times, and of course I can't speak for anyone else.

 

I never said or nor do I believe that any human being is undeserving of having their life protected, with the possible exception of someone caught in the act of harming someone else. That said, someone losing their life is more significant to me than someone being potentially emotionally hurt. 

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: the only differences between a first trimester fetus and an infant are their level of development, their degree of dependence, and their environment. I don't believe any of those differences are sufficient justification to deprive someone of their right to life. 

 

My suggestion that you consider what you might do to save a born child was only an (obviously ineffectual) attempt to help you try see things from my point of view. Like most people, I don't enjoy feeling misunderstood or looked down upon, but it's okay.

 

I need to head to bed. Have a good night.

 

Those are fairly large differences.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re weighing competing interests of both parties:

For me it has nothing to do with the innocence of the woman. It is because the issue for the woman is a quality of life issue whereas the issue for the foetus is a life itself issue.

 

I actually agree with this.

 

(It's been a long thread: Safe, legal and rare = where I ultimately net out.  And I really, truly, do LONG for rare.  I am not personally comfortable.)

 

 

That is also true of Person A who needs a blood marrow transplant, and Person B who turns out to be a match... or Person C who needs a kidney / lung and Person D who has one to spare... or Person E who urgently needs Type 0- blood, and Person F who is in a position to donate it.

 

Yet in weighing those competing interests, we do not compel (legally, socially, morally) those who could sustain life to do so.  That willingness to compel one person to cede bodily autonomy for the sake of another is a special kind of intrusion we reserve just for women.  

 

It's rooted in a very long history of uneasiness about women's autonomy over their own bodies and their own decision-making agency. 

Edited by Pam in CT
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re weighing competing interests of both parties:

 

I actually agree with this.

 

(It's been a long thread: Safe, legal and rare = where I ultimately net out. And I really, truly, do LONG for rare. I am not personally comfortable.)

 

 

That is also true of Person A who needs a blood marrow transplant, and Person B who turns out to be a match... or Person C who needs a kidney / lung and Person D who has one to spare... or Person E who urgently needs Type 0- blood, and Person F who is in a position to donate it.

 

Yet in weighing those competing interests, we do not compel (legally, socially, morally) those who could sustain life to do so. That willingness to compel one person to cede bodily autonomy for the sake of another is a special kind of intrusion we reserve just for women.

 

It's rooted in a very long history of uneasiness about women's agency of their own bodies and their own agency.

I suspect I also fall into the safe legal rare camp though I didn't know the name.

 

The organ donation situation is similar but not quite the same because the situation is a loss of life as a result of inaction whereas the other is as a result of a direct action. It's a small difference but I do feel there is a difference. It is not that we require it but that it is inherent in the nature of pregnancy or birth. It's not like saying to a woman - hey this foetus will die without you so we're going to implant in in your womb. It's already there and it takes an action on the part of woman and caregivers to remove it. The only way I can really reconcile it in my own conscience is to think of a foetus as a non person which I find very hard to do beyond around the six to eight week mark. Definitely I can't see it in that light when it's at an age where others have survived outside the womb.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never visited a Planned Parenthood at all, so I don't know the answer to this. Does PP offer services to pregnant women in obtaining financial resources, collecting maternity or baby clothes, and finding housing for prospective moms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never visited a Planned Parenthood at all, so I don't know the answer to this. Does PP offer services to pregnant women in obtaining financial resources, collecting maternity or baby clothes, and finding housing for prospective moms?

 

I don't think so  But, the vast majority of PP patients are not pregnant. Its focus is almost entirely on STD treatment, contraception and cancer screenings.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about this thread this morning while I was walking to the shops, and honestly ? It's been one of the less bad ones here.

 

I do feel that people who are on the extreme end of the pro-life agenda - no exemptions, lying and harassment OK in service of the innocent - are in danger of making an idol out of the foetus. 

 

Agreed. I'd also say though that the other extreme, no moral issues attached to abortion for any reason up to 20 weeks, are also dangerously out of touch with reality. There IS something tragic about killing an 18 week old fetus, and even when people think that is the best option I think it does no good to say there is nothing of consequence to it, and that it should be fine to do no matter what the reason as one person has said. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re inaction v direct action:

I suspect I also fall into the safe legal rare camp though I didn't know the name.

The organ donation situation is similar but not quite the same because the situation is a loss of life as a result of inaction whereas the other is as a result of a direct action. It's a small difference but I do feel there is a difference. It is not that we require it but that it is inherent in the nature of pregnancy or birth. It's not like saying to a woman - hey this foetus will die without you so we're going to implant in in your womb. It's already there and it takes an action on the part of woman and caregivers to remove it. The only way I can really reconcile it in my own conscience is to think of a foetus as a non person which I find very hard to do beyond around the six to eight week mark. Definitely I can't see it in that light when it's at an age where others have survived outside the womb.

 

 

Yes, this is the distinction between passive and active decisions that Bluegoat was making upthread, and is absolutely among the distinctions that philosophers and ethicists have long mused over.

 

Other distinctions such folks muse over when weighing competing-interest ethical analogies include who matters more (younger or older?  educated or illiterate?  physically fit for hard work or disabled? fertile or menopausal?)  Such considerations get pretty awful pretty quickly... but at some level the abortion language of "innocence" (with the concurrent implication, even if not stated, that the woman is something else) is moving towards this frame.  (In thinking of the abortion issue in these terms I part ways with many conservatives.)

 

Another ethical consideration in competing-interest questions is who has standing to make the decision?  There are all sorts of competing-interest questions in which society has staked out a public interest in staking out and enforcing a legislative stand, and those lines have evolved substantially over time -- slavery, the 'rights' of husbands to enforce conjugal 'discipline', child abuse, workplace safety laws, smoking in public places -- in all of these issues, the historical "rights" of one group have been curtailed by the state's decision to protect those of another less privileged group.  Parental vs child rights in areas like education and medical decision making is an area now emerging in our society.  (In thinking of abortion in these terms I part ways with many liberals, lol.)  

 

IME many Americans on both sides of our Cultural Divide are deeply uncomfortable "holding" and thinking about issues in a competing-interest framework; we seem to long, culturally, to revert to absolute blacks and whites.  Certainly this is the case with our dissonance on abortion, where both sides regularly erase the existence of one of the competing interests.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other distinctions such folks muse over when weighing competing-interest ethical analogies include who matters more (younger or older?  educated or illiterate?  physically fit for hard work or disabled? fertile or menopausal?)  Such considerations get pretty awful pretty quickly... but at some level the abortion language of "innocence" (with the concurrent implication, even if not stated, that the woman is something else) is moving towards this frame.  (In thinking of the abortion issue in these terms I part ways with many conservatives.)

 

Just to be clear, Pam, when I use the term "innocent" it is not at all in the context of an "innocent" baby versus a "guilty" mother. To be honest, I was surprised and a little taken aback when people took it that way, although I can understand why they did. The language of innocence, for me, has everything to do with humans being summarily executed without regard to their rights, and nothing to do with other actions the mother may or may not have taken.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so But, the vast majority of PP patients are not pregnant. Its focus is almost entirely on STD treatment, contraception and cancer screenings.

How would you know this? PP itself doesn't track how many pregnant women it sees.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forcing a delivery either through induction or c-section when a woman is in critical condition, increases the risk of death to a woman tremendously from what I understand. I think it is unreasonable to force a woman to sacrifice her life or health for an child who is yet to be. 

 

There actually was a case from what I recall of a woman who was at death's door with HELLP who was 14 weeks pregnant and at a Catholic hospital. The nun in charge allowed the abortion and was reprimanded. I believe the church was wrong in this case.

 

Isn't the normal treatment for HELLP to end the pregnancy though?  There aren't really options for doing that other than surgical or chemical induction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you know this? PP itself doesn't track how many pregnant women it sees.

 

But I expect they know what kinds of services they provide, I have never heard of any kind of clinic that has no way to track that.  I suppose a pregnant women might come for STD testing and not tell them she was pregnant, but that would still be a non-pregnancy related medical service.

 

PP here doesn't have abortion services at all, apart from refering people to a doctor if they ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you know this? PP itself doesn't track how many pregnant women it sees.

Over 70% of its business is contraception and std treatment. Is it not logical to assume that's not mostly non pregnant women? I know you can be pregnant and have - say - herpes. Or HIV . But I really don't think tons of pregnant women are going there secretly.

 

PP does not , as far as I know, provide ongoing obstetrics treatment and it does not have delivery or midwifery services. Women who get a positive pregnancy test are referred to an OB. Or abortion services. Planned Parenthood's statistics indicate that 3% of the services it provides are abortions.

Edited by poppy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re language of "innocence":

 

Just to be clear, Pam, when I use the term "innocent" it is not at all in the context of an "innocent" baby versus a "guilty" mother. To be honest, I was surprised and a little taken aback when people took it that way, although I can understand why they did. The language of innocence, for me, has everything to do with humans being summarily executed without regard to their rights, and nothing to do with other actions the mother may or may not have taken.

 

I believe you.  And I respect the consistency of your perspective.  I also expect that if you and I sat down face-to-face over a cup of tea, or wine, or any other beverage of your choice :laugh:  , we'd manage to find a good deal of common ground.

 

 

That said, there is a sub-set of pro-life advocates in the US who do use the language of innocence as code, framing pregnant women, particularly unmarried ones, in contrast to "innocent" fetuses.  

 

It is also true that many (not all) pro-life advocates also oppose a number of legal forms of contraception, and access to contraception, and education about contraception, and insurance coverage of contraception, and federal support of contraception; and support policy measures to enforce such opposition.  While I do understand that such opinions may be rooted in sincerely held religious beliefs, the infusion of such beliefs into the policy arena to me represents an inappropriate overstep in a different competing-interest arena: freedom of religion (to practice as I see fit) vs. freedom from religion (to demand others behave in a way I see fit).  (FTR, I do not see abortion itself in those terms.)  

 

Many oppose services and supports that benefit mothers and children after birth (not talking about vitamins and diapers here, but rather ongoing structural supports like child care and pre-K programs and training/income supports etc) as well.

 

The fusion of a good portion of the pro-life community with a broader policy agenda to limit women's decision-making in other ways as well, and the uneasiness of many within in to accept women's agency in other areas relating to sex, or even women's practical ability to raise children if they choose to have them, definitely affects my understanding of abortion policy.  

 

So too do a host of social problems that overwhelmingly and disproportionately affect women, many of which have already been enumerated in this thread: the incidence of rape, the social dynamics that discourage reporting rape, the social dynamics that result in many people not BELIEVING that rape has occurred when it is reported, the incidence of domestic violence, the social and legal dynamics discouraging the reporting of DV and the doubt/blame/judgment sometimes cast on its victims... and so much more, also affect my lens.  It is rare, that pro-life discussions move into these areas, yet (as seen on this thread) they very much affect how often and why abortion is contemplated.

 

So, yes, the language of "innocence" does set off red flags for me.  I totally accept that you never meant to open such a can of worms!!   :lol:   But yeah.  The worms are definitely there, squirming and churning.  

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...