is anyone more pro-life since becoming a parent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I have always been very pro-life, and, now, as a parent, I am just as strongly pro-life.

I am pro-choice . . .. before conception.

Hi Grandma!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you mean to quote the guy I quoted? Because you and I are saying the same thing.

Exactly. I just forgot the +1! Nobody's perfect. My other points still stand. He and the people who are relentlessly pro-"Life" no matter what the circumstances just don't grasp nuance and need to keep an open mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is that telling? We didn't find out the sex of the child for all three of our kids.

Different poster here: I had three kids and found out the sex of all of them. I fail to see why you are trying to imply that the sex/gender of the child dying in the womb had to do with the PP's decision to abort when PP made it clear that it was a "gut wrenching decision" over a "serious defect."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find this comment curious.
You do realize that once you are pregnant, that “little clump of cells” grows into a human being, right?
Not an amoeba, not a reptile, not an alien.
Pro lifers understand science quite well - we understand that an abortions destroys a human life.

But it's not, it's only a maybe. We don't count birthdays from conception, we don't get to claim fetuses as dependent a for tax purposes, etc. Pro-choicers rightly believe that forced pregnancy and birth can ruin an actual, existing, contributing human life.

And yet, in many states if a pregnant mother is murdered, it is capital murder because it counts as the taking of 2 lives, whether she is 4 weeks pregnant, 4 months pregnant or 9 months pregnant. How does that rationale work?

We've discussed this on here before and it's very simple.

If you put your penis in me because I ask you too, that is sex. If you put your penis in me when I don't want you to, that is rape. My intent is important; it defines whether what happens between us is legal, or illegal.

If you remove a fetus from my uterus because I ask you to, that should be a legal abortion. If you destroy my fetus without my consent, I have NO problem with you being prosecuted for feticide. Homicide, whatever you want to call it.

See that? Rationale; done.

I get it, I get it. I can kill my baby but no one else can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's actually not that rare. I had to end a very much wanted pregnancy at 20 weeks because of life-threatening complications. I know several women who discovered midway through the pregnancy that the fetus had defects that were incompatible with life. What I find very telling is that you put real life in quotes, as if you doubt this PP's story. Do you really believe that all pregnancies are sunshine and roses? Do you really believe that all pregnancies end with a healthy baby? Do you believe that women should be forced to carry all pregnancies to term, including those where the fetus will not survive or when the woman's health or life is at risk? You didn't answer PP's question. Should she have been forced to carry her pregnancy to term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is that telling? We didn't find out the sex of the child for all three of our kids.

Different poster here: I had three kids and found out the sex of all of them. I fail to see why you are trying to imply that the sex/gender of the child dying in the womb had to do with the PP's decision to abort when PP made it clear that it was a "gut wrenching decision" over a "serious defect."

The jerk PP was clearly implying that the reason the PP aborted her child was related to the gender of the child, implying that it was a selfish, vanity-related decision. Because the anti-choice crowd will literally say anything to paint women who get abortions as selfish monsters.

[Anonymous]

Enduring two losses and a complicated pregnancy has made me even more pro-choice than I was before having children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is that telling? We didn't find out the sex of the child for all three of our kids.

Different poster here: I had three kids and found out the sex of all of them. I fail to see why you are trying to imply that the sex/gender of the child dying in the womb had to do with the PP's decision to abort when PP made it clear that it was a "gut wrenching decision" over a "serious defect."

The jerk PP was clearly implying that the reason the PP aborted her child was related to the gender of the child, implying that it was a selfish, vanity-related decision. Because the anti-choice crowd will literally say anything to paint women who get abortions as selfish monsters.

How did you get that? That poster was questioning the truth of her story because she left out details, not insinuating that the abortion had anything to do with the sex of the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why on Earth is that "telling"? And while it may be rare, I know at least two friends who have had a similar tragedy. I know no one who has used abortion as "birth control".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why on Earth is that "telling"? And while it may be rare, I know at least two friends who have had a similar tragedy. I know no one who has used abortion as "birth control".

Oh I get it. PP was accusing the grieving mother of lying. Because he can't deal with reality. And he is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find this comment curious.
You do realize that once you are pregnant, that “little clump of cells” grows into a human being, right?
Not an amoeba, not a reptile, not an alien.
Pro lifers understand science quite well - we understand that an abortions destroys a human life.

But it's not, it's only a maybe. We don't count birthdays from conception, we don't get to claim fetuses as dependent a for tax purposes, etc. Pro-choicers rightly believe that forced pregnancy and birth can ruin an actual, existing, contributing human life.

And yet, in many states if a pregnant mother is murdered, it is capital murder because it counts as the taking of 2 lives, whether she is 4 weeks pregnant, 4 months pregnant or 9 months pregnant. How does that rationale work?

We've discussed this on here before and it's very simple.

If you put your penis in me because I ask you too, that is sex. If you put your penis in me when I don't want you to, that is rape. My intent is important; it defines whether what happens between us is legal, or illegal.

If you remove a fetus from my uterus because I ask you to, that should be a legal abortion. If you destroy my fetus without my consent, I have NO problem with you being prosecuted for feticide. Homicide, whatever you want to call it.

See that? Rationale; done.

I get it, I get it. I can kill my baby but no one else can.

Well, yes. When the baby is inside of YOU, YOU can decide whether to remove it. Kill it. Abort it. Call it what you want.

YOU also get to decide if I can have any of your other organs. Or even a blood transfusion from you. Even if my life depends on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's actually not that rare. I had to end a very much wanted pregnancy at 20 weeks because of life-threatening complications. I know several women who discovered midway through the pregnancy that the fetus had defects that were incompatible with life. What I find very telling is that you put real life in quotes, as if you doubt this PP's story. Do you really believe that all pregnancies are sunshine and roses? Do you really believe that all pregnancies end with a healthy baby? Do you believe that women should be forced to carry all pregnancies to term, including those where the fetus will not survive or when the woman's health or life is at risk? You didn't answer PP's question. Should she have been forced to carry her pregnancy to term?

Also one in 50 pregnancies are Ectopic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find this comment curious.
You do realize that once you are pregnant, that “little clump of cells” grows into a human being, right?
Not an amoeba, not a reptile, not an alien.
Pro lifers understand science quite well - we understand that an abortions destroys a human life.

But it's not, it's only a maybe. We don't count birthdays from conception, we don't get to claim fetuses as dependent a for tax purposes, etc. Pro-choicers rightly believe that forced pregnancy and birth can ruin an actual, existing, contributing human life.

And yet, in many states if a pregnant mother is murdered, it is capital murder because it counts as the taking of 2 lives, whether she is 4 weeks pregnant, 4 months pregnant or 9 months pregnant. How does that rationale work?

We've discussed this on here before and it's very simple.

If you put your penis in me because I ask you too, that is sex. If you put your penis in me when I don't want you to, that is rape. My intent is important; it defines whether what happens between us is legal, or illegal.

If you remove a fetus from my uterus because I ask you to, that should be a legal abortion. If you destroy my fetus without my consent, I have NO problem with you being prosecuted for feticide. Homicide, whatever you want to call it.

See that? Rationale; done.

I get it, I get it. I can kill my baby but no one else can.

No, no one can kill a baby. A baby is a person that has been born. Abortion is removing cells living inside someone else's body. If that body is mine, I can do with them whatever I want.

[Anonymous]

A late-term fetus is more than a sum of its cells. A viable being is a human. The rest is semantics.

BTW, I am pro-choice (although I am not as rabid as some in this thread.) However, I am a firm believer in making choices and owning your choices. If you choose to deprive your offspring of being born, own your choice. Don't mince words, it's annoying. Your choice took a life, it's a fact. Stop trying to alleviate your guilt by using euphemisms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A late-term fetus is more than a sum of its cells. A viable being is a human. The rest is semantics.

BTW, I am pro-choice (although I am not as rabid as some in this thread.) However, I am a firm believer in making choices and owning your choices. If you choose to deprive your offspring of being born, own your choice. Don't mince words, it's annoying. Your choice took a life, it's a fact. Stop trying to alleviate your guilt by using euphemisms.

The language you use is so terribly fraught with judgment that I do not believe you are pro-choice, "rabid" (which PPs have been "rabid"?). Never having had an abortion, I'm relying on what I've read and the experiences of my friends's abortions. They knew what they were doing and had feelings according to their situation. I guess I'm sorry for you that you think my friend who was pregnant with her first cousin's baby - this from a family with a "complex" family tree, shall we say - or that my friend who was told her baby had extreme malformations incompatible with life "chose to deprive their offspring of being born." That's just cold.