is anyone more pro-life since becoming a parent?

[Anonymous]

guy here - no kids. as i get older i get more pro-life.

BUT i also realize this is not my battle and I work in progressive dem politics. So i kind of uncomfortably sit silent.

BUT, i would never voice my increasingly pro-life attitudes unless we have an extremely rich safety net and very robust adoption mechanism.

If I was a politician with a seat that I could defend comfortably, I would vote for ban after 20 weeks unless for the normal exceptions.

Don't hate me ladies!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At 10 weeks, the fetus is ~ 1.2 inches long. The eyelids are still forming. Ears are formed but not in their final location. The head makes up half the fetus and the forehead is still bulging. The neck is just beginning to grow. You cannot tell what your child will look like beyond the shape of any human.

And yet, I was able to. I saw him in profile and could make out his features.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I've become even more pro choice since becoming pregnant. It wasn't until I understood when testing could take place and how that corresponded with so-called "late term abortion" that I got it. You only potentially find out about things at 20 weeks, may need to get an amnio to confirm, and by then you're pushing the 23 week deadline.

What is CVS for $20, Alex..

CVS can be done early in pregnancy (earlier than amniocentesis), and results are usually obtained within 10 days. Getting this kind of information early allows a woman to make choices in the beginning stage of her pregnancy. If a woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy after receiving abnormal test results, the termination will be safer than if she waits until later for amniocentesis results.

What is "irrelevant" for $1000?, Alex.

Most women do not just have CVS routinely as it carries the risk of miscarriage. And not every condition arises early enough or is otherwise detected by that test. I am so glad that you haven't had personal experience with some of the monstrously sad conditions that can only be spotted after 20 weeks.

And in those cases, abortion is a consideration. Abortion as a form of birth control? No. And that's how it's being used today - as birth control.

[Anonymous]

A ban after 20 weeks would be a great compromise but then stop with wait periods and make them cheap and accessible so women don't have to travel and save lots of money as the clock ticks away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I've become even more pro choice since becoming pregnant. It wasn't until I understood when testing could take place and how that corresponded with so-called "late term abortion" that I got it. You only potentially find out about things at 20 weeks, may need to get an amnio to confirm, and by then you're pushing the 23 week deadline.

What is CVS for $20, Alex..

CVS can be done early in pregnancy (earlier than amniocentesis), and results are usually obtained within 10 days. Getting this kind of information early allows a woman to make choices in the beginning stage of her pregnancy. If a woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy after receiving abnormal test results, the termination will be safer than if she waits until later for amniocentesis results.

What is "irrelevant" for $1000?, Alex.

Most women do not just have CVS routinely as it carries the risk of miscarriage. And not every condition arises early enough or is otherwise detected by that test. I am so glad that you haven't had personal experience with some of the monstrously sad conditions that can only be spotted after 20 weeks.

And in those cases, abortion is a consideration. Abortion as a form of birth control? No. And that's how it's being used today - as birth control.

Do you have ANY evidence for this assertion? This kind of misinformation does not help. I do not think the vast majority of women, no matter their circumstances, take abortion quite so lightly. This effort to demonize women who have abortions and women who are pro-choice seems very sinister to me. It suggests that a lot of the pro-life movement is not entirely about saving babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A ban after 20 weeks would be a great compromise but then stop with wait periods and make them cheap and accessible so women don't have to travel and save lots of money as the clock ticks away.

At 22 weeks, we found out that our child, who was very much planned for and wanted, had a serious defect that was almost a guarantee of being born still-born, or dying in the womb, and we made the gut-wrenching decision to abort.

So tell me: should I have been forced to carry that pregnancy to term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I had an ultrasound at 7 weeks. While I didn't see limbs flapping, I did see the heart flickering. And then I heard it beating. I could never terminate my own child and I feel sad for those babies who are terminated, but I also understand everyone has different circumstances.

I also feel that abortions after 16 weeks should be limited to those in which there is a medical reason (mother's life is endangered or baby is found to have some issue with a poor prognosis).

I'm in the same camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A ban after 20 weeks would be a great compromise but then stop with wait periods and make them cheap and accessible so women don't have to travel and save lots of money as the clock ticks away.

At 22 weeks, we found out that our child, who was very much planned for and wanted, had a serious defect that was almost a guarantee of being born still-born, or dying in the womb, and we made the gut-wrenching decision to abort.

So tell me: should I have been forced to carry that pregnancy to term?

Nope and yours is the best example of why this decision should be left to patients and their doctors. I am very sorry for your loss. Very.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I've become even more pro choice since becoming pregnant. It wasn't until I understood when testing could take place and how that corresponded with so-called "late term abortion" that I got it. You only potentially find out about things at 20 weeks, may need to get an amnio to confirm, and by then you're pushing the 23 week deadline.

What is CVS for $20, Alex..

CVS can be done early in pregnancy (earlier than amniocentesis), and results are usually obtained within 10 days. Getting this kind of information early allows a woman to make choices in the beginning stage of her pregnancy. If a woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy after receiving abnormal test results, the termination will be safer than if she waits until later for amniocentesis results.

What is "irrelevant" for $1000?, Alex.

Most women do not just have CVS routinely as it carries the risk of miscarriage. And not every condition arises early enough or is otherwise detected by that test. I am so glad that you haven't had personal experience with some of the monstrously sad conditions that can only be spotted after 20 weeks.

And in those cases, abortion is a consideration. Abortion as a form of birth control? No. And that's how it's being used today - as birth control.

As a PP noted, there are no/few statistics on this. You seem like you do not know that the abortion rate - as well as the teen pregnancy rate - has been going down for years, so I don't buy the "kids these days" implications of "that's how it's being used today." But even if you're right, I really can't think of a better reason to have an abortion than if you don't want to give birth to a child. So birth control as a reason works for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:guy here - no kids. as i get older i get more pro-life.

BUT i also realize this is not my battle and I work in progressive dem politics. So i kind of uncomfortably sit silent.

BUT, i would never voice my increasingly pro-life attitudes unless we have an extremely rich safety net and very robust adoption mechanism.

If I was a politician with a seat that I could defend comfortably, I would vote for ban after 20 weeks unless for the normal exceptions.

Don't hate me ladies!

So you don't have children and can not get pregnant or give birth, so you don't really have any understanding of the permanent toll pregnancy and birth can take on your body. I would continue to sit silently, but listen and learn. Even "easy" pregnancies and births can leave lasting damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A ban after 20 weeks would be a great compromise but then stop with wait periods and make them cheap and accessible so women don't have to travel and save lots of money as the clock ticks away.

At 22 weeks, we found out that our child, who was very much planned for and wanted, had a serious defect that was almost a guarantee of being born still-born, or dying in the womb, and we made the gut-wrenching decision to abort.

So tell me: should I have been forced to carry that pregnancy to term?

That example would be very, very, rare. What I find telling though is that you give this 'real life' scenario but you don't identify the sex of the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A ban after 20 weeks would be a great compromise but then stop with wait periods and make them cheap and accessible so women don't have to travel and save lots of money as the clock ticks away.

At 22 weeks, we found out that our child, who was very much planned for and wanted, had a serious defect that was almost a guarantee of being born still-born, or dying in the womb, and we made the gut-wrenching decision to abort.

So tell me: should I have been forced to carry that pregnancy to term?

No, I was attempting to compromise with a PP. When you compromise, you don't get everything you want- I am personally extremely pro choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:guy here - no kids. as i get older i get more pro-life.

BUT i also realize this is not my battle and I work in progressive dem politics. So i kind of uncomfortably sit silent.

BUT, i would never voice my increasingly pro-life attitudes unless we have an extremely rich safety net and very robust adoption mechanism.

If I was a politician with a seat that I could defend comfortably, I would vote for ban after 20 weeks unless for the normal exceptions.

Don't hate me ladies!

So you don't have children and can not get pregnant or give birth, so you don't really have any understanding of the permanent toll pregnancy and birth can take on your body. I would continue to sit silently, but listen and learn. Even "easy" pregnancies and births can leave lasting damage.

Can you see why it's hard not to hate you?

You have no idea what it's like to have pre-eclampsia. You have no idea how scary bed rest is or placental abruption is or what a third degree tear feels like. You don't know how the moment that your nuchal translucency comes up with a "vague" result requiring more tests. To face rare disorders like Thalassemia? Downs syndrome? Tay Sachs? Chromosomal abnormalities? You don't even know what it's like to be a prospective father watching this go on.

You've never lost a baby at 20 weeks, as some of us on this board have, only to be told "You can try again soon, honey" by a well meaning E.R. nurse.

Yet, you want to vote for a ban after 20 weeks?

If you feel so strongly about babies, have one. If you can't because of various reasons, you will find sympathy and empathy all over this board. If you want to hear heart wrenching stories, look on the threads about people facing difficulties trying to conceive and maintain pregnancies, but the irony is that reproductive freedom allowed growth of reproductive technologies to allow more people to have children through IVF and egg harvesting.

By limiting reproductive choices to terminate pregnancies, "pro-life" groups often opt to limit reproductive choices to create them, especially for LGBT families and singles. Who knows? In a couple of years, you may meet the right man, woman or transgender person for your life and you may want to use some new technologies (like three party conception which right now is mostly speculative) to add to your family.

Protecting the right to choose protects your right to choose too.

Keep an open mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:guy here - no kids. as i get older i get more pro-life.

BUT i also realize this is not my battle and I work in progressive dem politics. So i kind of uncomfortably sit silent.

BUT, i would never voice my increasingly pro-life attitudes unless we have an extremely rich safety net and very robust adoption mechanism.

If I was a politician with a seat that I could defend comfortably, I would vote for ban after 20 weeks unless for the normal exceptions.

Don't hate me ladies!

So you don't have children and can not get pregnant or give birth, so you don't really have any understanding of the permanent toll pregnancy and birth can take on your body. I would continue to sit silently, but listen and learn. Even "easy" pregnancies and births can leave lasting damage.

Can you see why it's hard not to hate you?

You have no idea what it's like to have pre-eclampsia. You have no idea how scary bed rest is or placental abruption is or what a third degree tear feels like. You don't know how the moment that your nuchal translucency comes up with a "vague" result requiring more tests. To face rare disorders like Thalassemia? Downs syndrome? Tay Sachs? Chromosomal abnormalities? You don't even know what it's like to be a prospective father watching this go on.

You've never lost a baby at 20 weeks, as some of us on this board have, only to be told "You can try again soon, honey" by a well meaning E.R. nurse.

Yet, you want to vote for a ban after 20 weeks?

If you feel so strongly about babies, have one. If you can't because of various reasons, you will find sympathy and empathy all over this board. If you want to hear heart wrenching stories, look on the threads about people facing difficulties trying to conceive and maintain pregnancies, but the irony is that reproductive freedom allowed growth of reproductive technologies to allow more people to have children through IVF and egg harvesting.

By limiting reproductive choices to terminate pregnancies, "pro-life" groups often opt to limit reproductive choices to create them, especially for LGBT families and singles. Who knows? In a couple of years, you may meet the right man, woman or transgender person for your life and you may want to use some new technologies (like three party conception which right now is mostly speculative) to add to your family.

Protecting the right to choose protects your right to choose too.

Keep an open mind.

^ THIS! Most informed and truly insightful thing that's been posted here in a long while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I've become even more pro choice since becoming pregnant. It wasn't until I understood when testing could take place and how that corresponded with so-called "late term abortion" that I got it. You only potentially find out about things at 20 weeks, may need to get an amnio to confirm, and by then you're pushing the 23 week deadline.

What is CVS for $20, Alex..

CVS can be done early in pregnancy (earlier than amniocentesis), and results are usually obtained within 10 days. Getting this kind of information early allows a woman to make choices in the beginning stage of her pregnancy. If a woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy after receiving abnormal test results, the termination will be safer than if she waits until later for amniocentesis results.

What is "irrelevant" for $1000?, Alex.

Most women do not just have CVS routinely as it carries the risk of miscarriage. And not every condition arises early enough or is otherwise detected by that test. I am so glad that you haven't had personal experience with some of the monstrously sad conditions that can only be spotted after 20 weeks.

And in those cases, abortion is a consideration. Abortion as a form of birth control? No. And that's how it's being used today - as birth control.

Says you. How are you an expert?