If you had an abortion you really didn't want to have

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting. I would not support the murder of a baby.

We sit silently while innocent children are slaughtered and then wonder why people have no respect for human life when someone beats up an old person or runs over a child and keeps driving.

Stop patting yourself on the back OP. You are a terrible friend and a sorry excuse for a human being.

When I see a post like this, I feel many emotions. Mostly I'm just thankful I'm not so stupid and closed minded. Good luck with your future, weirdo child-like person who thinks life is black and white.

Yes, I am closed-minded to the idea of killing babies.

A society that has no respect for the most innocent of lives is a very dangerous society.

+1000

So do you also condemn those who do IVF?

Pro-life poster, why do you keep avoiding this question? Did you yourself murder babies as part of the cost of getting the family you thought you deserved?

I'm pro life and don't consider that abortion. I guess we all have our own comfort level. Personally, I'm ok with the day/week after pill too.

So 0-7 days of life is fine. But 8 days? No, that's sacred. Seriously?

The decision to become a parent is HUGE. Would you ever want to be *forced* into adopting an unwanted baby?

12:02 again. No one forces anyone to adopt so I'm not sure where you are coming from with this. If anything, parents who wish to adopt wait a LONG time b/c there are, seemingly, not enough! And I did adopt one with special needs and our next one will have special needs too, and we are still waiting a LONG time, so don't tell me I just wasn't open to kids with special needs or some such thing.

It sounds as though you are ready to adopt unconditionally - you will accept and love the baby no matter what. FES, genetic issues, HIV infected, drug addicted...you will love and raise that child regardless.

In all fairness, do you think that all adoptive parents would accept such challenges? Or would the pool of such adoptive parents be fairly small and maybe not even available for some special needs babies..

Thank you. But you are in fact giving me more credit than is due. When you are adopting, you are allowed -- ENCOURAGED -- to consider which special needs you are open to and which you are not. For example, the special need our child has -- we said, "Yeah, we could do that. It's expensive, it'll take years (prob up to 18 or so) to work on, but we personally can do it." There were other SNs, however, we said, "You know what, we really couldn't." For example, we live in a townhouse with a lot of steps. So, we said, "You know what, we really couldn't realistically have a child who is in a wheelchair. NO harm no foul, but that just wouldn' work that well." SO, you can "pick and choose" (for lack of a better term) after a good deal of reflection, which would work for your family. It probably is different for everyone. Some people's medical insurance may cover this but it may not cover that. Some people say, "RAD is no big deal but I could never do cerebral palsy.:" Some people say, "I can do cerebral palsy but RAD scares the heck out of me." ETC.

So, in a long-winded answer to your question: adoptive parents (us included) do not have to be saints to accept blindly whatever comes along. But, yes, I must admit, I do think that my DH and I WERE more open to certain things, and hey, when you are biologically having a child, you have to be open to some sort of unexpected news anyway, so that is how we always looked at it.

Then in all fairness it is not as simple as the pregnant mom choosing an adoptive family for her baby. Her baby also has to be a good fit for the adoptive family, too.

Yes, and they are the ones who get to make this decision. It is entirely free and up to them. So, they can search for a family that fits with their background, morals, values, whatever is important to them. They think it would be cool for baby to have two dads? They can select the gay parents. They want a family who is church-going and Baptist? They can choose that family. Etc. They can ensure that the baby is brought up in a way that is consistent with the way they would want their child to be brought up.

Right, lots of choices here. Adoptive families can choose what kind of kids they are "open to," women who are giving up their kids for adoption can choose what kinds of parents they are open to, and other women are choosing to terminate their pregnancies. Everyone should make their own decisions about their families.

+1, and let's be realistic - these are the choices birth moms of white, non-SN kids get to make. If you have a SN kid, you're lucky if you can find an adoptive family at all - you're not getting to pick the family with your ideal religious background.

Wrong. I do not think you have been in the adoption community and if you were, you would know that this is not the way it happens. There are emails and blog posts and such ALL the time of parent advocating for and choosing to adopt children of all ages, all races, special needs etc. One such forum is Rainbow Kids but there are lots of others. I know a lot of people who specifically go in looking for a child with Down Syndrome, for example. I know another family who had one child biologically who had Dwarfism and so they saw it wasn't such a big deal, they thought, "Why not adopt a child with this same SN?" and so that's what they did. You guys really don't know that swell of families who are looking to adopt! It's quite a heartening community, actually, if you just want to log on to some of these types of sites and lurk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today my friend who had an abortion says she wished her "support" person had made some effort to talk her out of it. There were other options.

She and a lot of people. Her voice won't drown out the extreme voices on either side. These women suffer silently and when she talks about it, it will be taboo. Her pro life friends will drown her with crap about Jesus and her pro choice friends will trivialize her feelings. Those with good professional experience like some OBs can understand. The pain is immense and she will never stop thinking about her child, her little friend, who only she knew.
The extreme views make it hard for any logic to come into this. In the end there are women who are being hurt by a system that refuses to be intellectually honest. There IS post abortion stress, no different than PTSD. And for some women, that is not worth it, they would have rather struggled with the child than live through that. And these are NOT religious people, they are just humans with normal emotions.

OP here. This is the category my friend falls into. She has always considered herself pro-choice but didn't think she could ever have an abortion personally. Then she got pregnant at a very inopportune time in an exceedingly bad relationship and health situation, and she made the choice that would spare the child a lifetime of difficulty. It was heartbreaking for her, and I doubt she will ever forget about the little life that was inside of her. There was another young woman in the waiting room who was also there to have an abortion. She started chatting with me while my friend was in the back. She was perfectly upbeat and it was pretty clear that this was just like any other doctor's appointment for her, she was just bummed that her boyfriend couldn't get off work so they could go to Five Guys after. There seems to be a huge range of feelings women have about this procedure. It doesn't do anyone any favors to diminish or hyperbolize the degree to which something like this can weigh on a person.

Why didn't she consider adoption?

Yeah. I am the 12:02 poster. Why DIDN'T she consider adoption? Why don't MORE women in this situation consider adoption? I am an adoptive mom of one, waiting on #2, and wonder this CONSTANTLY!!!!

She didn't consider adoption because [u]there is a huge difference between abandoning a live infant you have carried and loved for 9 months and ending a 5 week pregnancy. She has always wanted children and continues to want children, but the circumstances made it impossible for her to give that child the stable life it deserved. Just because she accidentally got pregnant doesn't mean she has to carry a baby to term and give it away to someone like you.

It would be a sacrifice indeed, but it is a shame that in fact she didn't even consider it. How sad. Such a momentous decision.

Sorry, how do you know she didn't consider it? It's not possible to get an abortion in this country without learning about the option of adoption. It's not possible to go through sixth grade without learning about adoption.

Well, she said right above (read the previous post): "She didn't consider adoption because. . . "

I don't think that was OP. I think that PP was suggesting that adoption wasn't on the table for OP's friend for a number of reasons. I can't imagine that any woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant does not know that adoption is an option. When I had a planned parenthood abortion many years ago there was adoption information and resources presents to me as part of the mandatory counseling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is a good thing, except if I get to choose between your life and death. No? Even if you're still in your mother.

Absolutely. We do not give people the right to choose to take others' lives, period. That is not in the Constitution, that is not natural law, that is against all of what human nature has ever stood for.

But we also don't force people to give up themselves for others.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Say you had a disease, and they only way you could survive was through a blood transfusion of a particular blood type. Say I was the only person who had that blood type. Would I be obligated, legally, morally, or otherwise, to donate blood to you?

That's the thing about pregnancy. A fetus can't survive outside a woman's body, so it is true that if you remove it, it will not live on it's own. But it doesn't follow that a woman has an absolute obligation to continue to be pregnant if she doesn't desire to.

Let me give you another hypothetical: no one would force you to protect your 4yo child, if he or she were in immediate danger, esp. if it meant that you would be harmed yourself in trying to protect him or her. But wouldn't you want to do it? Why would you, after the accident happened and your child lay in terrible agony or even was dead, say, "Oh good, well, at least I am fine."

I think people have a lack of imagination not to construe the two situations as one and the same. It is like a Doubting Thomas sort of problem. "IF the baby is not *here here*, and I cannot see it, it is not the same thing." It is like the Lorax: a person is a person no matter how small.

[Anonymous]

13:21, I do not doubt that that community exists, and believe me that I think these people are amazing and honestly and example to us all. But surely you agree that these parents are not the norm in the adoption community. I'm not placing blame, here - I would not be in a position to adopt a child with substantial special needs. But you can't deny that a child with substantial special needs is considerably less likely to find an adoptive family, and considerably more likely to find him or herself in the foster care system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting. I would not support the murder of a baby.

We sit silently while innocent children are slaughtered and then wonder why people have no respect for human life when someone beats up an old person or runs over a child and keeps driving.

Stop patting yourself on the back OP. You are a terrible friend and a sorry excuse for a human being.

When I see a post like this, I feel many emotions. Mostly I'm just thankful I'm not so stupid and closed minded. Good luck with your future, weirdo child-like person who thinks life is black and white.

Yes, I am closed-minded to the idea of killing babies.

A society that has no respect for the most innocent of lives is a very dangerous society.

+1000

So do you also condemn those who do IVF?

Pro-life poster, why do you keep avoiding this question? Did you yourself murder babies as part of the cost of getting the family you thought you deserved?

I'm pro life and don't consider that abortion. I guess we all have our own comfort level. Personally, I'm ok with the day/week after pill too.

So 0-7 days of life is fine. But 8 days? No, that's sacred. Seriously?

The decision to become a parent is HUGE. Would you ever want to be *forced* into adopting an unwanted baby?

12:02 again. No one forces anyone to adopt so I'm not sure where you are coming from with this. If anything, parents who wish to adopt wait a LONG time b/c there are, seemingly, not enough! And I did adopt one with special needs and our next one will have special needs too, and we are still waiting a LONG time, so don't tell me I just wasn't open to kids with special needs or some such thing.

It sounds as though you are ready to adopt unconditionally - you will accept and love the baby no matter what. FES, genetic issues, HIV infected, drug addicted...you will love and raise that child regardless.

In all fairness, do you think that all adoptive parents would accept such challenges? Or would the pool of such adoptive parents be fairly small and maybe not even available for some special needs babies..

Thank you. But you are in fact giving me more credit than is due. When you are adopting, you are allowed -- ENCOURAGED -- to consider which special needs you are open to and which you are not. For example, the special need our child has -- we said, "Yeah, we could do that. It's expensive, it'll take years (prob up to 18 or so) to work on, but we personally can do it." There were other SNs, however, we said, "You know what, we really couldn't." For example, we live in a townhouse with a lot of steps. So, we said, "You know what, we really couldn't realistically have a child who is in a wheelchair. NO harm no foul, but that just wouldn' work that well." SO, you can "pick and choose" (for lack of a better term) after a good deal of reflection, which would work for your family. It probably is different for everyone. Some people's medical insurance may cover this but it may not cover that. Some people say, "RAD is no big deal but I could never do cerebral palsy.:" Some people say, "I can do cerebral palsy but RAD scares the heck out of me." ETC.

So, in a long-winded answer to your question: adoptive parents (us included) do not have to be saints to accept blindly whatever comes along. But, yes, I must admit, I do think that my DH and I WERE more open to certain things, and hey, when you are biologically having a child, you have to be open to some sort of unexpected news anyway, so that is how we always looked at it.

Then in all fairness it is not as simple as the pregnant mom choosing an adoptive family for her baby. Her baby also has to be a good fit for the adoptive family, too.

Yes, and they are the ones who get to make this decision. It is entirely free and up to them. So, they can search for a family that fits with their background, morals, values, whatever is important to them. They think it would be cool for baby to have two dads? They can select the gay parents. They want a family who is church-going and Baptist? They can choose that family. Etc. They can ensure that the baby is brought up in a way that is consistent with the way they would want their child to be brought up.

What if the pregnant mom chooses the perfect family for her baby, all goes well during the pregnancy, tests come back normal and - bam, something goes terribly wrong during the birth and the baby is left blind, maybe in a wheelchair, brain damaged? Or something like FES is evident at birth (maybe the mom drank during the first trimester) or some other unsuspected abnormality crops up?

Seriously, I really don't know what happens in a situation like that. Hopefully it is very rare when it does happen.

Sometimes it does happen. As I said, we are with Barker, and about a year or so ago I remember getting an email about AA boy twins who were available for adopton; born prematurely; one may have CP; not sure if there had been alcohol exposure. Adoptive parents face this decision all the time. A family in Colorado stepped forward and adopted them. You really are underestimating parents who choose to adopt these kids. They put a lot of time and reflection into it and then are happy and blessed to have them in their family. People say to my DD, "You are so lucky," as in, you are so lucky someone wanted to adopt you, you broken, not perfect kid, and it insults me a great deal and I reply with a smile and say, "Thank you, *we* are the lucky ones to have her," and then move on.

If the birth mother had, indeed, picked an adoptive family that must have fallen through upon the birth of her kids. Her babies then became available again and were soon placed with a loving family. It is good that this one particular story had a happy ending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today my friend who had an abortion says she wished her "support" person had made some effort to talk her out of it. There were other options.

She and a lot of people. Her voice won't drown out the extreme voices on either side. These women suffer silently and when she talks about it, it will be taboo. Her pro life friends will drown her with crap about Jesus and her pro choice friends will trivialize her feelings. Those with good professional experience like some OBs can understand. The pain is immense and she will never stop thinking about her child, her little friend, who only she knew.
The extreme views make it hard for any logic to come into this. In the end there are women who are being hurt by a system that refuses to be intellectually honest. There IS post abortion stress, no different than PTSD. And for some women, that is not worth it, they would have rather struggled with the child than live through that. And these are NOT religious people, they are just humans with normal emotions.

OP here. This is the category my friend falls into. She has always considered herself pro-choice but didn't think she could ever have an abortion personally. Then she got pregnant at a very inopportune time in an exceedingly bad relationship and health situation, and she made the choice that would spare the child a lifetime of difficulty. It was heartbreaking for her, and I doubt she will ever forget about the little life that was inside of her. There was another young woman in the waiting room who was also there to have an abortion. She started chatting with me while my friend was in the back. She was perfectly upbeat and it was pretty clear that this was just like any other doctor's appointment for her, she was just bummed that her boyfriend couldn't get off work so they could go to Five Guys after. There seems to be a huge range of feelings women have about this procedure. It doesn't do anyone any favors to diminish or hyperbolize the degree to which something like this can weigh on a person.

Why didn't she consider adoption?

Yeah. I am the 12:02 poster. Why DIDN'T she consider adoption? Why don't MORE women in this situation consider adoption? I am an adoptive mom of one, waiting on #2, and wonder this CONSTANTLY!!!!

She didn't consider adoption because [u]there is a huge difference between abandoning a live infant you have carried and loved for 9 months and ending a 5 week pregnancy. She has always wanted children and continues to want children, but the circumstances made it impossible for her to give that child the stable life it deserved. Just because she accidentally got pregnant doesn't mean she has to carry a baby to term and give it away to someone like you.

It would be a sacrifice indeed, but it is a shame that in fact she didn't even consider it. How sad. Such a momentous decision.

Sorry, how do you know she didn't consider it? It's not possible to get an abortion in this country without learning about the option of adoption. It's not possible to go through sixth grade without learning about adoption.

Well, she said right above (read the previous post): "She didn't consider adoption because. . . "

Obviously she considered it but it wasn't an option for her personally she because she would never be able to give up a live infant that she had carried to term. I think most people would have a much harder time doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is a good thing, except if I get to choose between your life and death. No? Even if you're still in your mother.

Absolutely. We do not give people the right to choose to take others' lives, period. That is not in the Constitution, that is not natural law, that is against all of what human nature has ever stood for.

But we also don't force people to give up themselves for others.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Say you had a disease, and they only way you could survive was through a blood transfusion of a particular blood type. Say I was the only person who had that blood type. Would I be obligated, legally, morally, or otherwise, to donate blood to you?

That's the thing about pregnancy. A fetus can't survive outside a woman's body, so it is true that if you remove it, it will not live on it's own. But it doesn't follow that a woman has an absolute obligation to continue to be pregnant if she doesn't desire to.

Let me give you another hypothetical: no one would force you to protect your 4yo child, if he or she were in immediate danger, esp. if it meant that you would be harmed yourself in trying to protect him or her. But wouldn't you want to do it? Why would you, after the accident happened and your child lay in terrible agony or even was dead, say, "Oh good, well, at least I am fine."

I think people have a lack of imagination not to construe the two situations as one and the same. It is like a Doubting Thomas sort of problem. "IF the baby is not *here here*, and I cannot see it, it is not the same thing." It is like the Lorax: a person is a person no matter how small.

Unless it is not a person. You are getting into the realm of "when does life begin" and many, many people, including a plurality of scientists and doctors, do not believe that an embryo is the same as a four-year-old. You will continue to be frustrated if you conflate your religious beliefs with science and expect others to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is a good thing, except if I get to choose between your life and death. No? Even if you're still in your mother.

Absolutely. We do not give people the right to choose to take others' lives, period. That is not in the Constitution, that is not natural law, that is against all of what human nature has ever stood for.

But we also don't force people to give up themselves for others.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Say you had a disease, and they only way you could survive was through a blood transfusion of a particular blood type. Say I was the only person who had that blood type. Would I be obligated, legally, morally, or otherwise, to donate blood to you?

That's the thing about pregnancy. A fetus can't survive outside a woman's body, so it is true that if you remove it, it will not live on it's own. But it doesn't follow that a woman has an absolute obligation to continue to be pregnant if she doesn't desire to.

Let me give you another hypothetical: no one would force you to protect your 4yo child, if he or she were in immediate danger, esp. if it meant that you would be harmed yourself in trying to protect him or her. But wouldn't you want to do it? Why would you, after the accident happened and your child lay in terrible agony or even was dead, say, "Oh good, well, at least I am fine."

I think people have a lack of imagination not to construe the two situations as one and the same. It is like a Doubting Thomas sort of problem. "IF the baby is not *here here*, and I cannot see it, it is not the same thing." It is like the Lorax: a person is a person no matter how small.

I largely agree with you, which is why I'd imagine myself unlikely to have an abortion (though I've never faced an unwanted or non-viable pregnancy, so I don't want to say for sure). But Just likely we don't legally require mothers to jump in traffic for their four year olds, we don't legally force them to remain pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"There are seemingly not enough!"

Are you serious with this? There are thousands of children awaiting homes. There just may not be enough pretty, non-disabled, white babies for you. I promise that if you want to adopt, there are foster children who would be placed in a hot minute. Don't ask me to incubate for you.

You don't have to incubate for ME. You do have to incubate for the child whom you have created, yes. I am pro-choice up to the moment of conception and then, after that, the choice has been made and, from there, you have a choice to keep the child and make an adoption plan. I am pro all either of these choices.

I don't think you understand what pro-choice means.

So you would never do IVF, either, correct?

(That was directed at pro-choice to moment of conception poster)

You are losing track of your posters. I (pp) am the poster (from 12:02) who said that we did IVF but accounted for every embryo. Full explanation at 12:02.

So you admit to murdering 5 babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is a good thing, except if I get to choose between your life and death. No? Even if you're still in your mother.

Absolutely. We do not give people the right to choose to take others' lives, period. That is not in the Constitution, that is not natural law, that is against all of what human nature has ever stood for.

But we also don't force people to give up themselves for others.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Say you had a disease, and they only way you could survive was through a blood transfusion of a particular blood type. Say I was the only person who had that blood type. Would I be obligated, legally, morally, or otherwise, to donate blood to you?

That's the thing about pregnancy. A fetus can't survive outside a woman's body, so it is true that if you remove it, it will not live on it's own. But it doesn't follow that a woman has an absolute obligation to continue to be pregnant if she doesn't desire to.

Let me give you another hypothetical: no one would force you to protect your 4yo child, if he or she were in immediate danger, esp. if it meant that you would be harmed yourself in trying to protect him or her. But wouldn't you want to do it? Why would you, after the accident happened and your child lay in terrible agony or even was dead, say, "Oh good, well, at least I am fine."

I think people have a lack of imagination not to construe the two situations as one and the same. It is like a Doubting Thomas sort of problem. "IF the baby is not *here here*, and I cannot see it, it is not the same thing." It is like the Lorax: a person is a person no matter how small.

C'mon! That's Hornton!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pro-life troll, please answer. Do you feel the same way about the baby killing bitches doing IVF?

NP. And please tell us how you feel about the baby-killing bitches like me who have terminated ectopic pregnancies.

Another pro-life poster. Aborting an ectopic pregnancy is nothing like aborting a normal healthy pregnancy. Do you honestly believe that pro-lifers would view it the same way?

Yes. Or is it "justifiable murder?" Either you're taking a life, or you're not. Or you're saying it's ok to take a life when x or y happens, but not z. You hypocrites.

The embryo in an ectopic pregnancy has NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL. Do you really think pro-lifers are that stupid?

Er, yes they are. Plenty of pro-lifers want ectopic pregnancies to take their natural course. The health of the mother is of no consequence.

Liar. You're full of shit. I don't believe you have ever heard a pro-life person anywhere say that.

Yes, there are a number of pro-life people who believe that abortion should be prohibited under all circumstances, even ectopic pregnancy. I've included links in case you want to see for yourself. From the website of American Right to Life:

"Abortion has so hardened the heart of the medical community that no thought is given to the unborn child who is growing outside of the uterus. While government and medical industry websites claim that the baby cannot survive ectopic pregnancy, in truth, hundreds of such babies are reported as surviving abdominal, ovarian, and tubal ectopic pregnancies. For the documentation of these babies wonderful survival, see the impeccably referenced meta study: Ectopic Personhood, by Bill Fortenberry. In situ and even by transplant to the uterus (as documented below), the ectopic child often can survive. In so many cases though, the child will die and so might the mother unless a physician intervenes. Those who desire to justify abortion claim that such a complication proves their point because proper medical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy requires the intentional killing of the embryo. As demonstrated extensively by a number of medical studies, by Fortenberry, and uniquely, below, this is not true. But consider their motivation and the form of their argument." http://americanrtl.org/life-of-the-mother-exception

From Bill Fortenberry's article on the Personhood Initiative website:

"As we can see, ectopic pregnancies are not necessarily fatal for either the mother or the child. The mother’s survival is almost certain, and the survival of the child is at least possible if not probable. Dr. Koop was correct. The personhood of the unborn child does not conflict with the need to protect the life of the mother for the simple reason that abortion is never necessary for that protection. There are other solutions available. More than one obstetrician has recommended that women with ectopic pregnancies should be placed under the constant vigil of a well equipped hospital until their children have developed enough to be delivered alive rather than sacrificed unnecessarily.[34] Ectopic pregnancies can be survived, and we can prohibit all abortions without any exceptions." http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html

I'm the original ectopic pregnancy poster, and all I can say to that is WOW. I wonder at what point these people would have suggested a doctor transfer my abnormally-developing embryo from my Fallopian tube to my uterus during my first ectopic pregnancy. When I was hemorrhaging during my emergency laparotomy? I suppose with my second ectopic that a transfer of that abnormally-developing embryo should have been performed, and I should have spent the next 7.5 months in the hospital "under constant vigil", unable to take care of my toddler or work to support out family. That sounds like a recipe for success all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disgusting. I would not support the murder of a baby.

We sit silently while innocent children are slaughtered and then wonder why people have no respect for human life when someone beats up an old person or runs over a child and keeps driving.

Stop patting yourself on the back OP. You are a terrible friend and a sorry excuse for a human being.

When I see a post like this, I feel many emotions. Mostly I'm just thankful I'm not so stupid and closed minded. Good luck with your future, weirdo child-like person who thinks life is black and white.

Yes, I am closed-minded to the idea of killing babies.

A society that has no respect for the most innocent of lives is a very dangerous society.

+1000

So do you also condemn those who do IVF?

Pro-life poster, why do you keep avoiding this question? Did you yourself murder babies as part of the cost of getting the family you thought you deserved?

I'm pro life and don't consider that abortion. I guess we all have our own comfort level. Personally, I'm ok with the day/week after pill too.

So 0-7 days of life is fine. But 8 days? No, that's sacred. Seriously?

The decision to become a parent is HUGE. Would you ever want to be *forced* into adopting an unwanted baby?

12:02 again. No one forces anyone to adopt so I'm not sure where you are coming from with this. If anything, parents who wish to adopt wait a LONG time b/c there are, seemingly, not enough! And I did adopt one with special needs and our next one will have special needs too, and we are still waiting a LONG time, so don't tell me I just wasn't open to kids with special needs or some such thing.

It sounds as though you are ready to adopt unconditionally - you will accept and love the baby no matter what. FES, genetic issues, HIV infected, drug addicted...you will love and raise that child regardless.

In all fairness, do you think that all adoptive parents would accept such challenges? Or would the pool of such adoptive parents be fairly small and maybe not even available for some special needs babies..

Thank you. But you are in fact giving me more credit than is due. When you are adopting, you are allowed -- ENCOURAGED -- to consider which special needs you are open to and which you are not. For example, the special need our child has -- we said, "Yeah, we could do that. It's expensive, it'll take years (prob up to 18 or so) to work on, but we personally can do it." There were other SNs, however, we said, "You know what, we really couldn't." For example, we live in a townhouse with a lot of steps. So, we said, "You know what, we really couldn't realistically have a child who is in a wheelchair. NO harm no foul, but that just wouldn' work that well." SO, you can "pick and choose" (for lack of a better term) after a good deal of reflection, which would work for your family. It probably is different for everyone. Some people's medical insurance may cover this but it may not cover that. Some people say, "RAD is no big deal but I could never do cerebral palsy.:" Some people say, "I can do cerebral palsy but RAD scares the heck out of me." ETC.

So, in a long-winded answer to your question: adoptive parents (us included) do not have to be saints to accept blindly whatever comes along. But, yes, I must admit, I do think that my DH and I WERE more open to certain things, and hey, when you are biologically having a child, you have to be open to some sort of unexpected news anyway, so that is how we always looked at it.

Then in all fairness it is not as simple as the pregnant mom choosing an adoptive family for her baby. Her baby also has to be a good fit for the adoptive family, too.

Yes, and they are the ones who get to make this decision. It is entirely free and up to them. So, they can search for a family that fits with their background, morals, values, whatever is important to them. They think it would be cool for baby to have two dads? They can select the gay parents. They want a family who is church-going and Baptist? They can choose that family. Etc. They can ensure that the baby is brought up in a way that is consistent with the way they would want their child to be brought up.

What if the pregnant mom chooses the perfect family for her baby, all goes well during the pregnancy, tests come back normal and - bam, something goes terribly wrong during the birth and the baby is left blind, maybe in a wheelchair, brain damaged? Or something like FES is evident at birth (maybe the mom drank during the first trimester) or some other unsuspected abnormality crops up?

Seriously, I really don't know what happens in a situation like that. Hopefully it is very rare when it does happen.

Sometimes it does happen. As I said, we are with Barker, and about a year or so ago I remember getting an email about AA boy twins who were available for adopton; born prematurely; one may have CP; not sure if there had been alcohol exposure. Adoptive parents face this decision all the time. A family in Colorado stepped forward and adopted them. You really are underestimating parents who choose to adopt these kids. They put a lot of time and reflection into it and then are happy and blessed to have them in their family. People say to my DD, "You are so lucky," as in, you are so lucky someone wanted to adopt you, you broken, not perfect kid, and it insults me a great deal and I reply with a smile and say, "Thank you, *we* are the lucky ones to have her," and then move on.

If the birth mother had, indeed, picked an adoptive family that must have fallen through upon the birth of her kids. Her babies then became available again and were soon placed with a loving family. It is good that this one particular story had a happy ending.

Adding - it's also nice to hear how many adoptive parents are willing to consider special needs kids.

[Anonymous]

I wanted to chime on on the "WHY DID SHE NOT JUST CHOOSE ADOPTION?" issue.

I had an abortion last year after my birth control failed (I was using it correctly, before you ask). I considered all my options. I considered continuing the pregnancy and raising the child, but financially, it would have been next to impossible. I considered continuing the pregnancy and putting the child up for adoption, but my assessment was that that would have been confusing and difficult for my daughter. Ultimately, I decided to terminate the pregnancy.

I wanted to say that specifically with regard to the adoption issue, it is not as easy as "just have the baby and put the baby up for adoption". My daughter is 4. She would have had a really hard time understanding why I was pregnant and then she didn't get a younger sibling. Pregnancy is also a physical event for the woman in question. It is not always easy, and those physical issues have ramifications on family life. When I was pregnant with DD, I was exhausted all the time for about 28 weeks. After she was born, it took me several weeks to recover physically from birth. I am trying to speak purely to the physical aspects that affect other people than me, because all to often I hear women who do not want to experience pregnancy and birth condemned as selfish for that desire.

Financially, a $400 abortion was cheaper than the $700 deductible I would have needed to pay to have the baby, or the numerous $20 office visit copays, or the rhogam shots, or anything else. If that had been the only issue, I would have figured out a way to make it work, but it wasn't.

I have observed that sometimes adoptive families think it's as easy as just deciding not to abort and then living life as usual for the next however many months. I had a relatively easy pregnancy the first time, but it was not without consequence to my life at that time either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to chime on on the "WHY DID SHE NOT JUST CHOOSE ADOPTION?" issue.

I had an abortion last year after my birth control failed (I was using it correctly, before you ask). I considered all my options. I considered continuing the pregnancy and raising the child, but financially, it would have been next to impossible. I considered continuing the pregnancy and putting the child up for adoption, but my assessment was that that would have been confusing and difficult for my daughter. Ultimately, I decided to terminate the pregnancy.

I wanted to say that specifically with regard to the adoption issue, it is not as easy as "just have the baby and put the baby up for adoption". My daughter is 4. She would have had a really hard time understanding why I was pregnant and then she didn't get a younger sibling. Pregnancy is also a physical event for the woman in question. It is not always easy, and those physical issues have ramifications on family life. When I was pregnant with DD, I was exhausted all the time for about 28 weeks. After she was born, it took me several weeks to recover physically from birth. I am trying to speak purely to the physical aspects that affect other people than me, because all to often I hear women who do not want to experience pregnancy and birth condemned as selfish for that desire.

Financially, a $400 abortion was cheaper than the $700 deductible I would have needed to pay to have the baby, or the numerous $20 office visit copays, or the rhogam shots, or anything else. If that had been the only issue, I would have figured out a way to make it work, but it wasn't.

I have observed that sometimes adoptive families think it's as easy as just deciding not to abort and then living life as usual for the next however many months. I had a relatively easy pregnancy the first time, but it was not without consequence to my life at that time either.

That's depressing. You had an abortion because it was about $500 cheaper than the abortion? Why not get your tubes tied if you absolutely can't stand the physical part of the pregnancy? I just can't understand why intelligent, educated women who do not want to get pregnant do in fact get pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choice is a good thing, except if I get to choose between your life and death. No? Even if you're still in your mother.

Absolutely. We do not give people the right to choose to take others' lives, period. That is not in the Constitution, that is not natural law, that is against all of what human nature has ever stood for.

But we also don't force people to give up themselves for others.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Say you had a disease, and they only way you could survive was through a blood transfusion of a particular blood type. Say I was the only person who had that blood type. Would I be obligated, legally, morally, or otherwise, to donate blood to you?

That's the thing about pregnancy. A fetus can't survive outside a woman's body, so it is true that if you remove it, it will not live on it's own. But it doesn't follow that a woman has an absolute obligation to continue to be pregnant if she doesn't desire to.

Let me give you another hypothetical: no one would force you to protect your 4yo child, if he or she were in immediate danger, esp. if it meant that you would be harmed yourself in trying to protect him or her. But wouldn't you want to do it? Why would you, after the accident happened and your child lay in terrible agony or even was dead, say, "Oh good, well, at least I am fine."

I think people have a lack of imagination not to construe the two situations as one and the same. It is like a Doubting Thomas sort of problem. "IF the baby is not *here here*, and I cannot see it, it is not the same thing." It is like the Lorax: a person is a person no matter how small.

Just FYI, that's from Horton Hears A Who, and I believe Dr. Seuss was pissed enough about this use of his words that he threatened to sue the anti-choice group that was using it.