My abortion story

[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.

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.

No. Roe wasn't overturned because pro-choicers had arguments that you didn't like or were hyperbolic or used words like "pregnant people." It's because white evangelicals played chess while the rest of us played...well...nothing. We sat on the sideline while they took over the judiciary. Which was a very smart thing to do because that is the one branch of government rarely accountable to the people, the majority of whom supported Wade.

People who support abortion rights at all better figure out how to be smarter instead of whining about the words others use.

[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.

Ohio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a medical abortion. The embryo heart stopped but because of other issues my body would not miscarry. I’m ever thankful that my doctor was kind and performed it before sepsis set in. People posting here know very little about the dangers of pregnancy.
I have had 3 friends with later MC who nearly bled to death. MC can be fatal.
Up until recently the main cause of death among women under 50 was childbirth or pregnancy complications of which there are many.
But nothing will change the pro choice attitude.

Yes this. It broke my heart to see abortion listed on my medical paperwork for a much wanted and desired pregnancy. But nothing was right with the pregnancy from the very first scans. I waited an agonizing 5 weeks for the heartbeat to stop. We all knew it would, it was just a matter of when. I was 11 weeks. Then my body would not give up the fetal tissue. I waited another two weeks to miscarry naturally and it would not happen. So I had a D&C. Traumatizing and the nurses didn’t help. I’d never had a general in my life and I woke up sobbing, to hear a nurse say “we’ve got a a weeper.”

What would have happened if I couldn’t get that D&C, even with a no longer viable pregnancy that had already lingered for weeks?

I am unaware of any state law that outlaws abortion for a non-viable pregnancy or one that is to protect the health of the mother.

Well, until Friday it was unconstitutional for such a law to exist.

Texas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Louisiana have no exceptions for health of the mother, for rape or incest, or for a fetus with conditions incompatible with life. I am not sure what you mean by non-viable pregnancy - doesn't matter in the above states unless the mother's life is in danger.

So now you are aware.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/abortion-laws-by-state-roe-v-wade-00037695

You appear to be contradicting yourself—see bolded above.

Exceptions for the life of the mother mean nothing when there is no doctor in your state who will perform the abortion .

Life of the mother exceptions also do not cover those fetuses who are incompatible with life (t-18 or heart defects, for example) because technically the mothers life isn’t in danger. The impact on NICUs and the trauma that will place on families who have to deliver a baby just to watch it die will be significant. Also, what happens to prenatal care like NIPT tests, amnio, or CVS if you don’t have a choice to terminate for medical reasons?

In many cases, NO ONE, even the doctor knows for sure that the baby isn’t compatible with life. Not every condition, or diagnosis made is automatically a death sentence. Down’s syndrome isn’t incompatible with life. Think of all the babies born with special needs and no one knows until they are born.

Yes, having a baby with special needs takes a lot of selflessness and so parents might choose to abort instead.

Even if a baby is likely to only live hours, many people choose to carry to term out of dignity for the baby because they do believe that baby is a life. And maybe they can hold that baby for a few hours or even a few days. But that’s a very courageous that not many can make.

I'm going to take issue with the bolded. Choosing not to carry a pregnancy to term because the child has special needs isn't selfish. It's all about knowing you and your family. I have a close friend whose second child has spina bifida. They chose to have that child. They even tried to get into a clinical trial where he would be operated on while still in utero to try to help him. They are lucky that they have great healthcare and are financially able to provide him with everything he needs and then some. He's a smart kid, but has learning disabilities and is on the autism spectrum, and has depression. He also can't walk, use the bathroom, etc. He has had to have major surgeries almost every summer he has been alive and spends weeks recovering. He is wheelchair bound.

She got pregnant with a third child and it turned out that baby had an even worse case of spina bifida. They chose to terminate, not because they weren't "selfless" enough, but because they could not see themselves knowingly bringing another child into the world with the challenges he would face, likely more than his brother, and they were also worried about the effect that would have on the two older children since they understood the time, attention, and care this child would need. Her husband's parents are no help with the kids in general (her MIL told her she should terminate the second pregnancy) and her own mother has the beginnings of dementia.

There's really a full spectrum of disability out there and the current trotting out of happy, functional children with Down Syndrome doesn't reflect reality for many, many families.

Such an important point. I work with children with severe disabilities. Some really suffer daily even with the best medical help and social support. Sometimes, only complex medical intervention made their survival possible. Families live in fear of how their loved one will be cared for after they pass away. Some students have severe autism which isn’t diagnosable in pre-natal tests. All parents take the risk of having a special needs child. It’s a profound privilege and joy to work with students who need so much care. But knowingly brining a child into the world with severe lifelong needs and poor quality of life isn’t something I would choose.

+1 It's so easy to sit back and wax poetic about SN kids when you don't have any experience raising one, especially one with really serious needs that require 24/7 care. I find it to be the most disingenuous part of the anti-abortion movement, especially because most people who are anti-abortion are also against increasing state funding to help parents and caretakers with SN kids

Um I have a special needs kid and am friends with many sn parents and this is completely untrue. Many of us chose to have a baby

[Anonymous]

Tim Tebow was supposed to be aborted for birth defects

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tim Tebow was supposed to be aborted for birth defects

I wonder how many victims of war crimes we could have avoided if their perpetrators were aborted.

[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.

TFMR includes medical reasons due to complications with the fetus. PPs are talking about aborting due to the fetuses' medical conditions. This will NOT be allowed anymore in many states, even if the abnormality is incompatible with life.

What you're talking about is the allowance for abortion when THE MOTHER'S life/major organs are in danger.

We've already seen in just this thread that that seems to be subjective which is very scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a medical abortion. The embryo heart stopped but because of other issues my body would not miscarry. I’m ever thankful that my doctor was kind and performed it before sepsis set in. People posting here know very little about the dangers of pregnancy.
I have had 3 friends with later MC who nearly bled to death. MC can be fatal.
Up until recently the main cause of death among women under 50 was childbirth or pregnancy complications of which there are many.
But nothing will change the pro choice attitude.

Yes this. It broke my heart to see abortion listed on my medical paperwork for a much wanted and desired pregnancy. But nothing was right with the pregnancy from the very first scans. I waited an agonizing 5 weeks for the heartbeat to stop. We all knew it would, it was just a matter of when. I was 11 weeks. Then my body would not give up the fetal tissue. I waited another two weeks to miscarry naturally and it would not happen. So I had a D&C. Traumatizing and the nurses didn’t help. I’d never had a general in my life and I woke up sobbing, to hear a nurse say “we’ve got a a weeper.”

What would have happened if I couldn’t get that D&C, even with a no longer viable pregnancy that had already lingered for weeks?

I am unaware of any state law that outlaws abortion for a non-viable pregnancy or one that is to protect the health of the mother.

Well, until Friday it was unconstitutional for such a law to exist.

Texas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Louisiana have no exceptions for health of the mother, for rape or incest, or for a fetus with conditions incompatible with life. I am not sure what you mean by non-viable pregnancy - doesn't matter in the above states unless the mother's life is in danger.

So now you are aware.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/abortion-laws-by-state-roe-v-wade-00037695

You appear to be contradicting yourself—see bolded above.

Exceptions for the life of the mother mean nothing when there is no doctor in your state who will perform the abortion .

Life of the mother exceptions also do not cover those fetuses who are incompatible with life (t-18 or heart defects, for example) because technically the mothers life isn’t in danger. The impact on NICUs and the trauma that will place on families who have to deliver a baby just to watch it die will be significant. Also, what happens to prenatal care like NIPT tests, amnio, or CVS if you don’t have a choice to terminate for medical reasons?

In many cases, NO ONE, even the doctor knows for sure that the baby isn’t compatible with life. Not every condition, or diagnosis made is automatically a death sentence. Down’s syndrome isn’t incompatible with life. Think of all the babies born with special needs and no one knows until they are born.

Yes, having a baby with special needs takes a lot of selflessness and so parents might choose to abort instead.

Even if a baby is likely to only live hours, many people choose to carry to term out of dignity for the baby because they do believe that baby is a life. And maybe they can hold that baby for a few hours or even a few days. But that’s a very courageous that not many can make.

I'm going to take issue with the bolded. Choosing not to carry a pregnancy to term because the child has special needs isn't selfish. It's all about knowing you and your family. I have a close friend whose second child has spina bifida. They chose to have that child. They even tried to get into a clinical trial where he would be operated on while still in utero to try to help him. They are lucky that they have great healthcare and are financially able to provide him with everything he needs and then some. He's a smart kid, but has learning disabilities and is on the autism spectrum, and has depression. He also can't walk, use the bathroom, etc. He has had to have major surgeries almost every summer he has been alive and spends weeks recovering. He is wheelchair bound.

She got pregnant with a third child and it turned out that baby had an even worse case of spina bifida. They chose to terminate, not because they weren't "selfless" enough, but because they could not see themselves knowingly bringing another child into the world with the challenges he would face, likely more than his brother, and they were also worried about the effect that would have on the two older children since they understood the time, attention, and care this child would need. Her husband's parents are no help with the kids in general (her MIL told her she should terminate the second pregnancy) and her own mother has the beginnings of dementia.

There's really a full spectrum of disability out there and the current trotting out of happy, functional children with Down Syndrome doesn't reflect reality for many, many families.

Such an important point. I work with children with severe disabilities. Some really suffer daily even with the best medical help and social support. Sometimes, only complex medical intervention made their survival possible. Families live in fear of how their loved one will be cared for after they pass away. Some students have severe autism which isn’t diagnosable in pre-natal tests. All parents take the risk of having a special needs child. It’s a profound privilege and joy to work with students who need so much care. But knowingly brining a child into the world with severe lifelong needs and poor quality of life isn’t something I would choose.

+1 It's so easy to sit back and wax poetic about SN kids when you don't have any experience raising one, especially one with really serious needs that require 24/7 care. I find it to be the most disingenuous part of the anti-abortion movement, especially because most people who are anti-abortion are also against increasing state funding to help parents and caretakers with SN kids

Um I have a special needs kid and am friends with many sn parents and this is completely untrue. Many of us chose to have a baby

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See, here's the thing. An "abortion story" that goes something like "I didn't want to have a baby so I had an abortion" is every bit as valid as all of these stories about fetal abnormalities and everything else because MY BODY MY CHOICE. Nothing else matters.

Why end the life of a tiny human being who no longer needs you? Allow her to continue her life without you. What’s the payoff in being violent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, here's the thing. An "abortion story" that goes something like "I didn't want to have a baby so I had an abortion" is every bit as valid as all of these stories about fetal abnormalities and everything else because MY BODY MY CHOICE. Nothing else matters.

Why end the life of a tiny human being who no longer needs you? Allow her to continue her life without you. What’s the payoff in being violent?

What’s the payoff for making an 11 year old rape victim give birth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, here's the thing. An "abortion story" that goes something like "I didn't want to have a baby so I had an abortion" is every bit as valid as all of these stories about fetal abnormalities and everything else because MY BODY MY CHOICE. Nothing else matters.

Why end the life of a tiny human being who no longer needs you? Allow her to continue her life without you. What’s the payoff in being violent?

What’s the payoff for making an 11 year old rape victim give birth?

Yes, pp, please answer this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, here's the thing. An "abortion story" that goes something like "I didn't want to have a baby so I had an abortion" is every bit as valid as all of these stories about fetal abnormalities and everything else because MY BODY MY CHOICE. Nothing else matters.

Why end the life of a tiny human being who no longer needs you? Allow her to continue her life without you. What’s the payoff in being violent?

Why are you lying? People don't get abortions on healthy pregnancies willy-nilly after the point of viability. They might end a pregnancy after 27 weeks for tragic reasons, but at that point the baby is delivered. Even in few weeks before viability, most pregnancies that are deliberately ended are tragic situations like this one. Read this woman's story. Even at 19.5 weeks it was a delivery, by c-section, not a D&E.

[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.

Ohio.

My best friend lives in Ohio and has a serious heart condition. She has been warned trying to carry a pregnancy to term could be fatal for her. Ohio's law is really extreme. I'm so thankful she scheduled an appointment to get her tubes tied even before this decision, but I'd 100% drive her to MD for an abortion and pay for it and never tell her Catholic husband if she got pregnant before the procedure. No question, no seeing how far she can get into the pregnancy before a heart attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, here's the thing. An "abortion story" that goes something like "I didn't want to have a baby so I had an abortion" is every bit as valid as all of these stories about fetal abnormalities and everything else because MY BODY MY CHOICE. Nothing else matters.

Why end the life of a tiny human being who no longer needs you? Allow her to continue her life without you. What’s the payoff in being violent?

If she can, take her out of my uterus and raise her. I don’t want to carry her though, l want her out when l want her out, viable or not. If l do not want to be *pregnant*, l should not be forced to. I’ll take a gun to my stomach and claim “stand your ground” home (body) invasion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See, here's the thing. An "abortion story" that goes something like "I didn't want to have a baby so I had an abortion" is every bit as valid as all of these stories about fetal abnormalities and everything else because MY BODY MY CHOICE. Nothing else matters.

Why end the life of a tiny human being who no longer needs you? Allow her to continue her life without you. What’s the payoff in being violent?

can a 4 week embryo live without the woman?

[Anonymous]

Serious question. Before the recent Court decision, 43 states had laws that limited late term abortion to some version of “only to protect the life of the mother.” Only seven states, plus DC have (and will continue to have) unlimited late term abortion. There are now some states that will choose to impose that same standard at an earlier point in the pregnancy.

Setting aside the “right to choose” argument for the moment, these states have decades of experience enforcing the “health of the mother” exception late in pregnancy. Is there evidence that women died because of the late term abortion restriction? Not medical malpractice — a woman was diagnosed with a life threatening complication and she died because no one would risk performing an abortion? What is the difference between applying the standard late in pregnancy vs. earlier? Haven’t Doctors been making these judgments for years?