My abortion story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why we cannot have nice things. These argumentative threads all across America right now do no good. Get out there and do grassroots campaigning, gather voting power, speak out, write speeches, share stories nationally to ears that actually matter. If you feel passionate about this, get to it, Stop wasting time on this forum. And, I can say this, as I am not pro-abortion do to my own reasons. But, I applaud women for speaking out for what they believe in.

Stop with the "pro-abortion" talking point, it just makes you sound stupid. Nobody is pro-abortion, people are pro-choice. You are not pro-life, you are anti-choice. If you were pro-life, you would be outraged about the lack of gun restrictions, you would be for free pre- and post-natal care, you would be all for subsidized childcare and pre-K for all. But you're not, are you? You just parrot stupid talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Yep. My little second cousin got pregnant at 14, gave birth at 15 to a disabled child. My father said, this makes me believe in abortion. His opinion was only temporary, but I remember.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Your mom is wrong, which is why I wanted to share my story (op)

Here you go being all nonsensical again OP. Congratulations. Your abortion story wins, okay?

You still don’t get it. TFMR is abortion, and it will go away where abortions are disallowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Your mom is wrong, which is why I wanted to share my story (op)

Here you go being all nonsensical again OP. Congratulations. Your abortion story wins, okay?

You still don’t get it. TFMR is abortion, and it will go away where abortions are disallowed.

Which states are outlawing abortion in the case of medical emergencies?

I know the law in Texas, for example, explicitly states, that an abortion may be performed "to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

These are similar to provisions in European countries where abortion is forbidden, except for medical reasons, beyond the first trimester (or somewhat later, but in most countries not beyond 12-14 weeks). Even in Poland, where abortions are completely forbidden and (the media I've seen confirms) ob/gyns are more hesitant to provide them even though there is a provision for medical emergencies, maternal mortality is quite low (indicating that these procedures are being performed when needed).

I think some people are genuinely fearful and panicked about this issue, and I'd like to reassure them that this is very likely just a pro-choice talking point. If you are pro-choice, you know that even if you could be reassured that in 100% of medical emergencies (and even 100% of cases of rape and incest) we could guarantee that women would have access to abortion, that is not your goal. I am not saying that's a bad thing-- I think, for example, the rules in much of Europe where abortion can be obtained for any reason within the first trimester and for medical reasons beyond then, are reasonable. But part of the reason we are having this debate is because a very small minority of pro-choice activists in the U.S. aren't willing to compromise on a position most people support because they want abortion to be legal, with zero restrictions, up until the moment a woman gives birth. They have to use other arguments-- "If we don't allow this, women will be denied abortions even when there is a clear medical reason!"-- because this position appears so radical even to most people who consider themselves pro-choice.

[Anonymous]

Old boomers and genx that aren't even of child birth age are the most vocal

All younger folks are fine and responsible so they are in BC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Your mom is wrong, which is why I wanted to share my story (op)

Here you go being all nonsensical again OP. Congratulations. Your abortion story wins, okay?

You still don’t get it. TFMR is abortion, and it will go away where abortions are disallowed.

Which states are outlawing abortion in the case of medical emergencies?

I know the law in Texas, for example, explicitly states, that an abortion may be performed "to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

These are similar to provisions in European countries where abortion is forbidden, except for medical reasons, beyond the first trimester (or somewhat later, but in most countries not beyond 12-14 weeks). Even in Poland, where abortions are completely forbidden and (the media I've seen confirms) ob/gyns are more hesitant to provide them even though there is a provision for medical emergencies, maternal mortality is quite low (indicating that these procedures are being performed when needed).

I think some people are genuinely fearful and panicked about this issue, and I'd like to reassure them that this is very likely just a pro-choice talking point. If you are pro-choice, you know that even if you could be reassured that in 100% of medical emergencies (and even 100% of cases of rape and incest) we could guarantee that women would have access to abortion, that is not your goal. I am not saying that's a bad thing-- I think, for example, the rules in much of Europe where abortion can be obtained for any reason within the first trimester and for medical reasons beyond then, are reasonable. But part of the reason we are having this debate is because a very small minority of pro-choice activists in the U.S. aren't willing to compromise on a position most people support because they want abortion to be legal, with zero restrictions, up until the moment a woman gives birth. They have to use other arguments-- "If we don't allow this, women will be denied abortions even when there is a clear medical reason!"-- because this position appears so radical even to most people who consider themselves pro-choice.

As a lawyer I can tell you that “health exception” is intended to make women wait until they are almost dead to get an abortion, and some will die. and it completely negates the ability of a woman to make her own health decisions. for example, if you had a prior pregnancy with placebta accreta or previa, or severe pre-eclampsia, and you did not want to take the risk again? no dice, you have to stay pregnant until you are almost dead. Or if you have cancer and want to get treatment? Sorry. Or if you have a heart condition and doctor says “you have a 90% of dying if you stay pregnant. You’re stable now in 1st tri, but greater burden of 3rd could kill you.” Still no abortion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Old boomers and genx that aren't even of child birth age are the most vocal

All younger folks are fine and responsible so they are in BC

Guess who wants to get rid of the birth control mandate!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Your mom is wrong, which is why I wanted to share my story (op)

Here you go being all nonsensical again OP. Congratulations. Your abortion story wins, okay?

You still don’t get it. TFMR is abortion, and it will go away where abortions are disallowed.

Which states are outlawing abortion in the case of medical emergencies?

I know the law in Texas, for example, explicitly states, that an abortion may be performed "to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

These are similar to provisions in European countries where abortion is forbidden, except for medical reasons, beyond the first trimester (or somewhat later, but in most countries not beyond 12-14 weeks). Even in Poland, where abortions are completely forbidden and (the media I've seen confirms) ob/gyns are more hesitant to provide them even though there is a provision for medical emergencies, maternal mortality is quite low (indicating that these procedures are being performed when needed).

I think some people are genuinely fearful and panicked about this issue, and I'd like to reassure them that this is very likely just a pro-choice talking point. If you are pro-choice, you know that even if you could be reassured that in 100% of medical emergencies (and even 100% of cases of rape and incest) we could guarantee that women would have access to abortion, that is not your goal. I am not saying that's a bad thing-- I think, for example, the rules in much of Europe where abortion can be obtained for any reason within the first trimester and for medical reasons beyond then, are reasonable. But part of the reason we are having this debate is because a very small minority of pro-choice activists in the U.S. aren't willing to compromise on a position most people support because they want abortion to be legal, with zero restrictions, up until the moment a woman gives birth. They have to use other arguments-- "If we don't allow this, women will be denied abortions even when there is a clear medical reason!"-- because this position appears so radical even to most people who consider themselves pro-choice.

As a lawyer I can tell you that “health exception” is intended to make women wait until they are almost dead to get an abortion, and some will die. and it completely negates the ability of a woman to make her own health decisions. for example, if you had a prior pregnancy with placebta accreta or previa, or severe pre-eclampsia, and you did not want to take the risk again? no dice, you have to stay pregnant until you are almost dead. Or if you have cancer and want to get treatment? Sorry. Or if you have a heart condition and doctor says “you have a 90% of dying if you stay pregnant. You’re stable now in 1st tri, but greater burden of 3rd could kill you.” Still no abortion!

Also nobody believes you that this is a “pro-choice talking point.” I know exactly who you are - you are an anti-abortion activist trying to assuage what you have done. Women know that they are going to end up risking their bodies because of Dobbs. Now instead of getting to make a choice about our health, the law makes it for us. We know you’re lying, and you better be ready when all the terrible, true stories about dead women start receiving notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Your mom is wrong, which is why I wanted to share my story (op)

Here you go being all nonsensical again OP. Congratulations. Your abortion story wins, okay?

You still don’t get it. TFMR is abortion, and it will go away where abortions are disallowed.

Which states are outlawing abortion in the case of medical emergencies?

I know the law in Texas, for example, explicitly states, that an abortion may be performed "to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

These are similar to provisions in European countries where abortion is forbidden, except for medical reasons, beyond the first trimester (or somewhat later, but in most countries not beyond 12-14 weeks). Even in Poland, where abortions are completely forbidden and (the media I've seen confirms) ob/gyns are more hesitant to provide them even though there is a provision for medical emergencies, maternal mortality is quite low (indicating that these procedures are being performed when needed).

I think some people are genuinely fearful and panicked about this issue, and I'd like to reassure them that this is very likely just a pro-choice talking point. If you are pro-choice, you know that even if you could be reassured that in 100% of medical emergencies (and even 100% of cases of rape and incest) we could guarantee that women would have access to abortion, that is not your goal. I am not saying that's a bad thing-- I think, for example, the rules in much of Europe where abortion can be obtained for any reason within the first trimester and for medical reasons beyond then, are reasonable. But part of the reason we are having this debate is because a very small minority of pro-choice activists in the U.S. aren't willing to compromise on a position most people support because they want abortion to be legal, with zero restrictions, up until the moment a woman gives birth. They have to use other arguments-- "If we don't allow this, women will be denied abortions even when there is a clear medical reason!"-- because this position appears so radical even to most people who consider themselves pro-choice.

Np Where are the pro-birthers idea on compromise? Many believe women raped should carry the babies to term. Or incest. Or if the baby has no brain. Very few people believe in abortion "up to the point of birth" but, you keep insisting that we are the unreasonable ones. Look if your neighbor has an abortion it does not affect you personally and yet if you prevent legal abortions many women will die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Your mom is wrong, which is why I wanted to share my story (op)

Here you go being all nonsensical again OP. Congratulations. Your abortion story wins, okay?

You still don’t get it. TFMR is abortion, and it will go away where abortions are disallowed.

Which states are outlawing abortion in the case of medical emergencies?

I know the law in Texas, for example, explicitly states, that an abortion may be performed "to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

These are similar to provisions in European countries where abortion is forbidden, except for medical reasons, beyond the first trimester (or somewhat later, but in most countries not beyond 12-14 weeks). Even in Poland, where abortions are completely forbidden and (the media I've seen confirms) ob/gyns are more hesitant to provide them even though there is a provision for medical emergencies, maternal mortality is quite low (indicating that these procedures are being performed when needed).

I think some people are genuinely fearful and panicked about this issue, and I'd like to reassure them that this is very likely just a pro-choice talking point. If you are pro-choice, you know that even if you could be reassured that in 100% of medical emergencies (and even 100% of cases of rape and incest) we could guarantee that women would have access to abortion, that is not your goal. I am not saying that's a bad thing-- I think, for example, the rules in much of Europe where abortion can be obtained for any reason within the first trimester and for medical reasons beyond then, are reasonable. But part of the reason we are having this debate is because a very small minority of pro-choice activists in the U.S. aren't willing to compromise on a position most people support because they want abortion to be legal, with zero restrictions, up until the moment a woman gives birth. They have to use other arguments-- "If we don't allow this, women will be denied abortions even when there is a clear medical reason!"-- because this position appears so radical even to most people who consider themselves pro-choice.

Many of these states do not have exceptions for abortion due to fetal anomalies. Those will be prohibited. Even when the life of the mother is at risk, that decision will need to be made by judges and lawyers, not doctors and patients. If you think this isn’t going to happen and women aren’t going to die, you’re wrong.

[Anonymous]

How many other countries in the world did people have the constitutional right for an abortion? Ive seen it said the the US was the only one. Is this true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Your mom is wrong, which is why I wanted to share my story (op)

Here you go being all nonsensical again OP. Congratulations. Your abortion story wins, okay?

You still don’t get it. TFMR is abortion, and it will go away where abortions are disallowed.

Which states are outlawing abortion in the case of medical emergencies?

I know the law in Texas, for example, explicitly states, that an abortion may be performed "to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

These are similar to provisions in European countries where abortion is forbidden, except for medical reasons, beyond the first trimester (or somewhat later, but in most countries not beyond 12-14 weeks). Even in Poland, where abortions are completely forbidden and (the media I've seen confirms) ob/gyns are more hesitant to provide them even though there is a provision for medical emergencies, maternal mortality is quite low (indicating that these procedures are being performed when needed).

I think some people are genuinely fearful and panicked about this issue, and I'd like to reassure them that this is very likely just a pro-choice talking point. If you are pro-choice, you know that even if you could be reassured that in 100% of medical emergencies (and even 100% of cases of rape and incest) we could guarantee that women would have access to abortion, that is not your goal. I am not saying that's a bad thing-- I think, for example, the rules in much of Europe where abortion can be obtained for any reason within the first trimester and for medical reasons beyond then, are reasonable. But part of the reason we are having this debate is because a very small minority of pro-choice activists in the U.S. aren't willing to compromise on a position most people support because they want abortion to be legal, with zero restrictions, up until the moment a woman gives birth. They have to use other arguments-- "If we don't allow this, women will be denied abortions even when there is a clear medical reason!"-- because this position appears so radical even to most people who consider themselves pro-choice.

See, you lost all credibility with this nonsense. It's false, it's what you right wingers keep yelling despite being told time and again this is false, because you hope it sticks.

Go away. You are not the reasonable person you are pretending to be and we see through you.

p.s. women have been denied abortions even when there is clear medical reason. This has happened. Women have died because of it, or nearly died. These bills are poorly written, and they take medical decisions out of the hands of medical professionals and put them in the hands of lawyers and politicians. Horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not me but my sister's friend had an abortion last year in her late 30's . It was a very much wanted pregnancy, but after a heartbreaking prenatal diagnosis they made the difficult choice to terminate.

My very pro-life mother was telling about this and understood why the woman made this choice and supported this choice. I then told her "this is why I support a woman's right to have an abortion." To which my mother told me "This isn't an abortion, This is different." Make it make sense.

Your mom is wrong, which is why I wanted to share my story (op)

Here you go being all nonsensical again OP. Congratulations. Your abortion story wins, okay?

You still don’t get it. TFMR is abortion, and it will go away where abortions are disallowed.

Who says I don't get it? Of course aborting for medical reasons is still aborting. But OP's story and her follow up posts are not an argument for abortion. She's just not very smart and is hurting the cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many other countries in the world did people have the constitutional right for an abortion? Ive seen it said the the US was the only one. Is this true?

It has never been a constitutional right. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many other countries in the world did people have the constitutional right for an abortion? Ive seen it said the the US was the only one. Is this true?

It has never been a constitutional right. Educate yourself.

Says who, an random person who has never even been close to being a Supreme Court justice?