My abortion story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Late term abortions are really rare, so probably not. Plus when the pregnancy threatens a woman’s health late in the game, delivery is an option.

[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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

Medical intervention sometimes requires risk assessment of what may happen even if it isn't happening yet. That is why an ectopic pregnancy should be removed upon identification rather than waiting it out - or maybe you would choose to for yourself, but that's you.

That is why high risk folks are advised to get vaccinated for COVID. Or why some women with high familial risk if breast cancer choose to undergo mastectomy. There are millions of ways people make medical decisions in consultation with their doctor and may take initiative to do something preemptively rather than ride it out.

When it comes to an unviable and potentially unsafe pregnancy, waiting it out may be ok or it may not. But a woman should be able to choose and just because you may choose differently for yourself what to do based on your beliefs or risk perception depending on the scenario does not give you the right to make that choice for another woman. You are also not a doctor - the only group who should be advising on the real risk to the woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

You need to get therapy. Your tragic loss does not universally define every loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

Medical intervention sometimes requires risk assessment of what may happen even if it isn't happening yet. That is why an ectopic pregnancy should be removed upon identification rather than waiting it out - or maybe you would choose to for yourself, but that's you.

That is why high risk folks are advised to get vaccinated for COVID. Or why some women with high familial risk if breast cancer choose to undergo mastectomy. There are millions of ways people make medical decisions in consultation with their doctor and may take initiative to do something preemptively rather than ride it out.

When it comes to an unviable and potentially unsafe pregnancy, waiting it out may be ok or it may not. But a woman should be able to choose and just because you may choose differently for yourself what to do based on your beliefs or risk perception depending on the scenario does not give you the right to make that choice for another woman. You are also not a doctor - the only group who should be advising on the real risk to the woman.

But people who get prophylactic mastectomies don't say that it saved their lives. It potentially saved their lives and gave them peace of mind. They cannot say definitively it saved their lives and neither can that person in the Twitter story. It's disingenuous and specious and not a good argument for choice. Either you believe in choice or you don't. The need to claim it saved your life (when there's no proof it did) certainly devalues the women who make that choice for other reasons. It seems like there are a few camps in the pro-abortion movement. Those who think it should be allowed only when it is needed to save or--in the OP's case, maybe possibly, in some universe, saves--the mother's life and those who think the choice should be a woman's no matter the circumstance. For the record, I am in the second camp and just over hearing from dramatic women whose arguments are specious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

Medical decisions are based on risk... Study shows if women proceed with pregnancy in this scenario, risk of x outcome is increased 50 percent vs performing abortion early. Does that mean sometimes women are ok when they choose to wait it out? Sure. Does that mean all women are ok when they wait it out? No, statically speaking, if study showed x risk, there will be women who weren't ok. It's all a game of risk, no guarantees, just people making the best decisions for themselves depending on the scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

Medical intervention sometimes requires risk assessment of what may happen even if it isn't happening yet. That is why an ectopic pregnancy should be removed upon identification rather than waiting it out - or maybe you would choose to for yourself, but that's you.

That is why high risk folks are advised to get vaccinated for COVID. Or why some women with high familial risk if breast cancer choose to undergo mastectomy. There are millions of ways people make medical decisions in consultation with their doctor and may take initiative to do something preemptively rather than ride it out.

When it comes to an unviable and potentially unsafe pregnancy, waiting it out may be ok or it may not. But a woman should be able to choose and just because you may choose differently for yourself what to do based on your beliefs or risk perception depending on the scenario does not give you the right to make that choice for another woman. You are also not a doctor - the only group who should be advising on the real risk to the woman.

But people who get prophylactic mastectomies don't say that it saved their lives. It potentially saved their lives and gave them peace of mind. They cannot say definitively it saved their lives and neither can that person in the Twitter story. It's disingenuous and specious and not a good argument for choice. Either you believe in choice or you don't. The need to claim it saved your life (when there's no proof it did) certainly devalues the women who make that choice for other reasons. It seems like there are a few camps in the pro-abortion movement. Those who think it should be allowed only when it is needed to save or--in the OP's case, maybe possibly, in some universe, saves--the mother's life and those who think the choice should be a woman's no matter the circumstance. For the record, I am in the second camp and just over hearing from dramatic women whose arguments are specious.

The end result is doctors being on situations that require a woman get sicker before they can save her based on risk assessment - which is how these decisions are made. Your argument sounds lime you support that - wait it out until she's lost enough blood, gotten an infection, become septic, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

DP but you are responding to someone talking about a non-viable baby not the health of the mother. It is beyond cruel to force someone to continue to carry and deliver a baby that will not live, if that is their choice. You need help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you asking if there were doctors who refused to perform an abortion because of abortion restrictions and because of that the mother died?

What is throwing me off is when in your first paragraph you say "life of the mother" and in your second you say "health of the mother." Those are very different things. A doctor is much less likely to get prosecuted for performing an abortion to protect the health of the mother than she is for performing an abortion to protect the life of the mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

DP but you are responding to someone talking about a non-viable baby not the health of the mother. It is beyond cruel to force someone to continue to carry and deliver a baby that will not live, if that is their choice. You need help.

So that Twitter story person specifically said their life was at risk--that's an unknown. She's the one claiming PTSD and the necessity for therapy, etc. But I need help? I don't think so. I never ever said that women shouldn't choose to abort their pregnancy if a definitive diagnosis shows that the baby's condition is not compatible with life. One of my best friends made this choice in their 22nd week of pregnancy because of Trisomy 18, just months after I delivered my twins in the 20th week. And I was fully in support of her decision, and cried and empathized with her. I don't know why you jump to such crazy conclusions. I support women choosing abortion for whatever reason they wish. These dramatic women, making specious claims about how abortion saved their lives are what I take issue with. It completely devalues those who make the choice for other reasons, like my friend. Her life was not at risk. Her baby probably would have been born and lived a painful life for a short time. I want women like her to have that decision. And even want women like OP and that Twitter person to have that choice too--just to be honest and stop being so dramatic. They are the ones who need help, not me.

[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: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.

You really ought to read the entire conversation (the show previous quotes button) because no one is saying that everyone faced with a pregnancy where the fetus is going to be born with a birth defect or special needs will abort. This was in response to a poster saying some people aren't "selfless enough" to have a special needs kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

DP but you are responding to someone talking about a non-viable baby not the health of the mother. It is beyond cruel to force someone to continue to carry and deliver a baby that will not live, if that is their choice. You need help.

So that Twitter story person specifically said their life was at risk--that's an unknown. She's the one claiming PTSD and the necessity for therapy, etc. But I need help? I don't think so. I never ever said that women shouldn't choose to abort their pregnancy if a definitive diagnosis shows that the baby's condition is not compatible with life. One of my best friends made this choice in their 22nd week of pregnancy because of Trisomy 18, just months after I delivered my twins in the 20th week. And I was fully in support of her decision, and cried and empathized with her. I don't know why you jump to such crazy conclusions. I support women choosing abortion for whatever reason they wish. These dramatic women, making specious claims about how abortion saved their lives are what I take issue with. It completely devalues those who make the choice for other reasons, like my friend. Her life was not at risk. Her baby probably would have been born and lived a painful life for a short time. I want women like her to have that decision. And even want women like OP and that Twitter person to have that choice too--just to be honest and stop being so dramatic. They are the ones who need help, not me.

It’s your fixation on other women’s stories that’s obviously some major psychological projection on your part. you should ask yourself honestly why it triggers you to hear other women needing abortions for health reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

DP but you are responding to someone talking about a non-viable baby not the health of the mother. It is beyond cruel to force someone to continue to carry and deliver a baby that will not live, if that is their choice. You need help.

So that Twitter story person specifically said their life was at risk--that's an unknown. She's the one claiming PTSD and the necessity for therapy, etc. But I need help? I don't think so. I never ever said that women shouldn't choose to abort their pregnancy if a definitive diagnosis shows that the baby's condition is not compatible with life. One of my best friends made this choice in their 22nd week of pregnancy because of Trisomy 18, just months after I delivered my twins in the 20th week. And I was fully in support of her decision, and cried and empathized with her. I don't know why you jump to such crazy conclusions. I support women choosing abortion for whatever reason they wish. These dramatic women, making specious claims about how abortion saved their lives are what I take issue with. It completely devalues those who make the choice for other reasons, like my friend. Her life was not at risk. Her baby probably would have been born and lived a painful life for a short time. I want women like her to have that decision. And even want women like OP and that Twitter person to have that choice too--just to be honest and stop being so dramatic. They are the ones who need help, not me.

It’s your fixation on other women’s stories that’s obviously some major psychological projection on your part. you should ask yourself honestly why it triggers you to hear other women needing abortions for health reasons.

But that's not at all what you asked. You asked why I would dream of forcing a woman to carry a non-viable baby to term, which I never said. It's like you just keep putting words in my mouth. Why are you so triggered by me pointing out women making dramatic and specious arguments to justify their abortions? But to answer your question, again--because I think it's already been answered--their dramatic stories do nothing to advance the pro-choice cause. They share these dramatic stories, which belie the facts, implying "this is why we need abortion!" What about all the women out there who choose for other reasons, most less dramatic and usually because they're just not ready. This fight simply cannot be centered around the health or safety of the mother, especially when half of these stories are immaterial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

DP but you are responding to someone talking about a non-viable baby not the health of the mother. It is beyond cruel to force someone to continue to carry and deliver a baby that will not live, if that is their choice. You need help.

So that Twitter story person specifically said their life was at risk--that's an unknown. She's the one claiming PTSD and the necessity for therapy, etc. But I need help? I don't think so. I never ever said that women shouldn't choose to abort their pregnancy if a definitive diagnosis shows that the baby's condition is not compatible with life. One of my best friends made this choice in their 22nd week of pregnancy because of Trisomy 18, just months after I delivered my twins in the 20th week. And I was fully in support of her decision, and cried and empathized with her. I don't know why you jump to such crazy conclusions. I support women choosing abortion for whatever reason they wish. These dramatic women, making specious claims about how abortion saved their lives are what I take issue with. It completely devalues those who make the choice for other reasons, like my friend. Her life was not at risk. Her baby probably would have been born and lived a painful life for a short time. I want women like her to have that decision. And even want women like OP and that Twitter person to have that choice too--just to be honest and stop being so dramatic. They are the ones who need help, not me.

It’s your fixation on other women’s stories that’s obviously some major psychological projection on your part. you should ask yourself honestly why it triggers you to hear other women needing abortions for health reasons.

But that's not at all what you asked. You asked why I would dream of forcing a woman to carry a non-viable baby to term, which I never said. It's like you just keep putting words in my mouth. Why are you so triggered by me pointing out women making dramatic and specious arguments to justify their abortions? But to answer your question, again--because I think it's already been answered--their dramatic stories do nothing to advance the pro-choice cause. They share these dramatic stories, which belie the facts, implying "this is why we need abortion!" What about all the women out there who choose for other reasons, most less dramatic and usually because they're just not ready. This fight simply cannot be centered around the health or safety of the mother, especially when half of these stories are immaterial.

You have issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Oh good, yet another story just like the OP's with absolutely zero evidence or indication that mother's life was remotely in jeopardy. Pregnancies end spontaneously at many points in pregnancy and end naturally without danger to the mother--sorry, pregnant person--all the time. And by the way, if the fetus is just a sack of cells and only a "potential for life" as most posters on here keep claiming, why all the worry about the "baby" "suffering, suffocating?" You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's only a "potentail for life" and then claim it's to prevent their suffering in the uterus if it's not really a person. I speak from experience very much like this story. I was never in danger, the pregnancy ended on its own. My twins lived and breathed in my arms for a short time on earth. My healthcare takers knew better than to sedate me, knowing that it was important for me to be in the moment and remember my children. I don't have the PTSD that the storyteller here does--and I didn't even have a child to go home to. Just an empty sad house. But hard things happen to us, and if you're a normal person, you grieve and move on. This story is BS.

Medical intervention sometimes requires risk assessment of what may happen even if it isn't happening yet. That is why an ectopic pregnancy should be removed upon identification rather than waiting it out - or maybe you would choose to for yourself, but that's you.

That is why high risk folks are advised to get vaccinated for COVID. Or why some women with high familial risk if breast cancer choose to undergo mastectomy. There are millions of ways people make medical decisions in consultation with their doctor and may take initiative to do something preemptively rather than ride it out.

When it comes to an unviable and potentially unsafe pregnancy, waiting it out may be ok or it may not. But a woman should be able to choose and just because you may choose differently for yourself what to do based on your beliefs or risk perception depending on the scenario does not give you the right to make that choice for another woman. You are also not a doctor - the only group who should be advising on the real risk to the woman.

But people who get prophylactic mastectomies don't say that it saved their lives. It potentially saved their lives and gave them peace of mind. They cannot say definitively it saved their lives and neither can that person in the Twitter story. It's disingenuous and specious and not a good argument for choice. Either you believe in choice or you don't. The need to claim it saved your life (when there's no proof it did) certainly devalues the women who make that choice for other reasons. It seems like there are a few camps in the pro-abortion movement. Those who think it should be allowed only when it is needed to save or--in the OP's case, maybe possibly, in some universe, saves--the mother's life and those who think the choice should be a woman's no matter the circumstance. For the record, I am in the second camp and just over hearing from dramatic women whose arguments are specious.

The end result is doctors being on situations that require a woman get sicker before they can save her based on risk assessment - which is how these decisions are made. Your argument sounds lime you support that - wait it out until she's lost enough blood, gotten an infection, become septic, etc.

+1 That’s happening right now.