My abortion story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you OP.

My abortion story is this:

I was 37. Married with two kids, age 11 and 8, using birth control. Got pregnant, decided I didn’t want to be pregnant, terminated the pregnancy.

My family is perfect as-is, and another one was not right for us. And I had kids young so that my middle aged years wouldn’t be spent caring for littles.

I personally do not believe a fetus (or an embryo) is a human being. I have a human right to make those choices for my life.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

Stories likes these hurt the cause and are exactly why conservatives push for restrictions. I feel so badly for the women who are at risk because of reasons like the above.

Are you the OP? Either way, this is why the whole premise of this thread is so damaging. OP and others don't reallly believe all women should have choice and control over their own bodies, only those whose lives may be in danger by carrying the pregnancy. It is a terrible argument for abortion rights.

PP who terminated a pregnancy here and I don't think OP's argument for abortion rights is terrible, but it is woefully incomplete. When we say "abortion is healthcare" that is true, but it leaves out the fact that abortion is also an exercise of your fundamental right to self-determination and, essentially, liberty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are now reports that Missouri doctors are forcing women with ectopic pregnancy to wait until the tube ruptures to do anything. So waiting until they are actively bleeding to death. Makes it much, much more likely they'll die and for a pregnancy that will never ever be viable, ever. Ectopic pregnancy has a 100% fatality rate if untreated. The chance of a baby being born is 0%.

This frankly is just senseless murder.

And even if they don't die, a ruptured fallopian tube can make it difficult/impossible to get pregnant again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the talk about why women have abortions, we haven’t talked about why women have babies. Let me share a family story. My grandma had 12 children, her siblings and friends also had tons. It’s a story that played out all over the “pro life” 1950s and continues in fringe Catholic and evangelical circles today.

Their children were brought into the world because their husband came home drunk or high on his one supply, rolled on top of them for 45 seconds, and knocked them up. The children from these pathetic liaisons aren’t particularly wanted, aren’t really loved, and are barely cared for by the older siblings and anyone who might take an interest, such as a pervert priest. Their children aren’t a blessing but a thing to be endured while on this earth in the hope that something better follows.

These women were and are miserable and suffering, and their kids were and are miserable and neglected - a misery that often gets passed own through generations. This is who is voting to end your choice- miserable people who made miserable decisions and want you to be miserable too.

Indeed. This is what Catholics actively want to happen.

And you're a disgusting and ignorant bigot who has no idea what you're talking about. The fact is that Catholics as a whole are no less prochoice than other Americans, and the states in this country that are most highly protective of abortion rights (Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, etc.) also have the largest proportion of Catholics. In contrast, states that are most restrictive of abortion rights have practically no Catholics.

What religion is Joe Biden, by the way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that this thread was taken over by the anti-abortion nuts.

It's important, IMO, for women to share their stories. My own mother, who is very conservative, was very anti-abortion until she was with me when I was faced with the reality of my life versus the life of the fetus.

#1 - I was 27 & the baby was very much wanted. We'd been married 3 years and TTC for about 18 months. I started spotting & then it quickly turned to heavy bleeding. Rushed to my OB who confirmed what I knew, I was miscarrying. I was only 9 weeks so the OB wasn't worried about me continuing at home on my own, so I was discharged. I had to get rushed back to the ER later in severe pain and got a D&C.

#2 - I was just shy of turning 29 the next time. I made it to 18 weeks that time. No heartbeat was detected during my scan. a D&C was done.

After #2, I found a specialist who diagnosed me with what several other OBs had missed: bicornuate uterus. Mine isn't as "split" or well-defined as a traditional bicornuate uterus, mine is more of a heart shape of sorts but there is separation.

I had one more miscarriage with D&C at age 32 and then my husband got a vasectomy. I couldn't go through it anymore.

D&C's are terrible and painful. No one is using abortions as a means of birth control.

2-3 people in the posts prior to yours admitted they'd done just that!

Do you have reading comprehension issues? The PP said she was using birth control but got pregnant anyway, not that she was having lots of unprotected sex and figured she could always abort if needed. It’s a backup. I agree it should not be a primary form of birth control, but most people would never use it as their primary because it’s not always easily accessible to everyone.

PP who terminated the pregnancy here.

Making the appointment was easy and the actual physical process wasn't. I was five weeks (so three weeks gestation) and it felt like very bad period.

But I had to take a day off, drive 40 minutes to Maryland (because I wanted one right away and that's where I could get one right away), pay $500, drive back 40 minutes, fill my prescription for painkillers, then of course take the pills. This is a much easier process than some people have to go through to get an abortion, but compared to birth control it is expensive and complicated as hell. I can't imagine anybody is going to say "yes, that is the birth control method I'm choosing, something that costs $500 dollars, is painful enough to justify opiates, and requires making an appointment, taking a day off work, and driving far away."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that this thread was taken over by the anti-abortion nuts.

It's important, IMO, for women to share their stories. My own mother, who is very conservative, was very anti-abortion until she was with me when I was faced with the reality of my life versus the life of the fetus.

#1 - I was 27 & the baby was very much wanted. We'd been married 3 years and TTC for about 18 months. I started spotting & then it quickly turned to heavy bleeding. Rushed to my OB who confirmed what I knew, I was miscarrying. I was only 9 weeks so the OB wasn't worried about me continuing at home on my own, so I was discharged. I had to get rushed back to the ER later in severe pain and got a D&C.

#2 - I was just shy of turning 29 the next time. I made it to 18 weeks that time. No heartbeat was detected during my scan. a D&C was done.

After #2, I found a specialist who diagnosed me with what several other OBs had missed: bicornuate uterus. Mine isn't as "split" or well-defined as a traditional bicornuate uterus, mine is more of a heart shape of sorts but there is separation.

I had one more miscarriage with D&C at age 32 and then my husband got a vasectomy. I couldn't go through it anymore.

D&C's are terrible and painful. No one is using abortions as a means of birth control.

2-3 people in the posts prior to yours admitted they'd done just that!

Do you have reading comprehension issues? The PP said she was using birth control but got pregnant anyway, not that she was having lots of unprotected sex and figured she could always abort if needed. It’s a backup. I agree it should not be a primary form of birth control, but most people would never use it as their primary because it’s not always easily accessible to everyone.

PP who terminated the pregnancy here.

Making the appointment was easy and the actual physical process wasn't. I was five weeks (so three weeks gestation) and it felt like very bad period.

But I had to take a day off, drive 40 minutes to Maryland (because I wanted one right away and that's where I could get one right away), pay $500, drive back 40 minutes, fill my prescription for painkillers, then of course take the pills. This is a much easier process than some people have to go through to get an abortion, but compared to birth control it is expensive and complicated as hell. I can't imagine anybody is going to say "yes, that is the birth control method I'm choosing, something that costs $500 dollars, is painful enough to justify opiates, and requires making an appointment, taking a day off work, and driving far away."

Wasn't bad, I meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is what people voted for- particularly in Missouri….now they see this, will they change their voting habits or no? I despair that people still won’t care.

Who are the doctors who are refusing to treat women with ectopic pregnancies?

The law is NOT ambiguous on this. Which state doesn't provide an exemption for ectopic pregnancy?

I am pro-choice but these stories, and their circulation in pro-choice circles, and their "this is what YOU voted for," makes me fearful that there is a certain contingent of adamantly pro-choice medical providers who are trying to prove a point.

I am very, very dubious that any ob/gyn would be fearful of prescribing methotrexate for an ectopic pregnancy based upon current laws-- or, if needed, performing laparoscopy.

Expectant management IS considered a valid treatment for ectopic pregnancy in the early stages, FWIW. About half of ectopic pregnancies resolve on their own.

Sorry but you give anti-choice people WAY too much credit. Missouri Republicans actually want to ban abortion SPECIFICALLY for life-threatening ectopic pregnancies. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/597911-missouri-bill-seeks-to-ban-terminating-fatal-ectopic-pregnancies/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that this thread was taken over by the anti-abortion nuts.

It's important, IMO, for women to share their stories. My own mother, who is very conservative, was very anti-abortion until she was with me when I was faced with the reality of my life versus the life of the fetus.

#1 - I was 27 & the baby was very much wanted. We'd been married 3 years and TTC for about 18 months. I started spotting & then it quickly turned to heavy bleeding. Rushed to my OB who confirmed what I knew, I was miscarrying. I was only 9 weeks so the OB wasn't worried about me continuing at home on my own, so I was discharged. I had to get rushed back to the ER later in severe pain and got a D&C.

#2 - I was just shy of turning 29 the next time. I made it to 18 weeks that time. No heartbeat was detected during my scan. a D&C was done.

After #2, I found a specialist who diagnosed me with what several other OBs had missed: bicornuate uterus. Mine isn't as "split" or well-defined as a traditional bicornuate uterus, mine is more of a heart shape of sorts but there is separation.

I had one more miscarriage with D&C at age 32 and then my husband got a vasectomy. I couldn't go through it anymore.

D&C's are terrible and painful. No one is using abortions as a means of birth control.

2-3 people in the posts prior to yours admitted they'd done just that!

Maybe if pro-life people were actually more open about sex and birth control there would be less abortions. My very Catholic mother never talked to me about sex, relationships, respect, personal boundaries, just nothing. She never bothered to take me to a gynecologist even though I had severe bleeding with my periods. This is the norm for many girls growing up in ulta conservative, Christian households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is what people voted for- particularly in Missouri….now they see this, will they change their voting habits or no? I despair that people still won’t care.

Who are the doctors who are refusing to treat women with ectopic pregnancies?

The law is NOT ambiguous on this. Which state doesn't provide an exemption for ectopic pregnancy?

I am pro-choice but these stories, and their circulation in pro-choice circles, and their "this is what YOU voted for," makes me fearful that there is a certain contingent of adamantly pro-choice medical providers who are trying to prove a point.

I am very, very dubious that any ob/gyn would be fearful of prescribing methotrexate for an ectopic pregnancy based upon current laws-- or, if needed, performing laparoscopy.

Expectant management IS considered a valid treatment for ectopic pregnancy in the early stages, FWIW. About half of ectopic pregnancies resolve on their own.

Sorry but you give anti-choice people WAY too much credit. Missouri Republicans actually want to ban abortion SPECIFICALLY for life-threatening ectopic pregnancies. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/597911-missouri-bill-seeks-to-ban-terminating-fatal-ectopic-pregnancies/

This is utter, complete disinformation. I cannot believe The Hill ran that headline or the first few paragraphs. It is 100% false and only takes 30 second to read the bill to understand that. He is banner the illegal trafficking and use of devices and medications used for abortion. This has nothing to do with treatment of ectopic pregnancy in legal, medical establishments. This is basically to deter sex trafficker from performing abortions, because it's incredibly dangerous, particularly because they are unable to detect ectopic pregnancies. It's also to deter dangerous abortions being performed outside of medical establishments in general. Stop spreading these lies. It does not help the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is what people voted for- particularly in Missouri….now they see this, will they change their voting habits or no? I despair that people still won’t care.

Who are the doctors who are refusing to treat women with ectopic pregnancies?

The law is NOT ambiguous on this. Which state doesn't provide an exemption for ectopic pregnancy?

I am pro-choice but these stories, and their circulation in pro-choice circles, and their "this is what YOU voted for," makes me fearful that there is a certain contingent of adamantly pro-choice medical providers who are trying to prove a point.

I am very, very dubious that any ob/gyn would be fearful of prescribing methotrexate for an ectopic pregnancy based upon current laws-- or, if needed, performing laparoscopy.

Expectant management IS considered a valid treatment for ectopic pregnancy in the early stages, FWIW. About half of ectopic pregnancies resolve on their own.

People who *might* get pregnant but WHO ARE NOT ALREADY PREGNANT are already being taken off methotrexate for various autoimmune disorders because it *might* harm a fetus and their doctors don't want to be in legal jeopardy. And you think docs will be comfortable prescribing it to people who ARE pregnant?!

https://twitter.com/acrowandthedead/status/1541602157492948994

https://twitter.com/Vinminen/status/1540437651198824448

[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: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.

This is what people voted for- particularly in Missouri….now they see this, will they change their voting habits or no? I despair that people still won’t care.

Who are the doctors who are refusing to treat women with ectopic pregnancies?

The law is NOT ambiguous on this. Which state doesn't provide an exemption for ectopic pregnancy?

I am pro-choice but these stories, and their circulation in pro-choice circles, and their "this is what YOU voted for," makes me fearful that there is a certain contingent of adamantly pro-choice medical providers who are trying to prove a point.

I am very, very dubious that any ob/gyn would be fearful of prescribing methotrexate for an ectopic pregnancy based upon current laws-- or, if needed, performing laparoscopy.

Expectant management IS considered a valid treatment for ectopic pregnancy in the early stages, FWIW. About half of ectopic pregnancies resolve on their own.

Sorry but you give anti-choice people WAY too much credit. Missouri Republicans actually want to ban abortion SPECIFICALLY for life-threatening ectopic pregnancies. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/597911-missouri-bill-seeks-to-ban-terminating-fatal-ectopic-pregnancies/

This is utter, complete disinformation. I cannot believe The Hill ran that headline or the first few paragraphs. It is 100% false and only takes 30 second to read the bill to understand that. He is banner the illegal trafficking and use of devices and medications used for abortion. This has nothing to do with treatment of ectopic pregnancy in legal, medical establishments. This is basically to deter sex trafficker from performing abortions, because it's incredibly dangerous, particularly because they are unable to detect ectopic pregnancies. It's also to deter dangerous abortions being performed outside of medical establishments in general. Stop spreading these lies. It does not help the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights movement.

So to promote the safety of women who are being sex trafficked, he wants to make sure they die if they get an ectopic pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is what people voted for- particularly in Missouri….now they see this, will they change their voting habits or no? I despair that people still won’t care.

Who are the doctors who are refusing to treat women with ectopic pregnancies?

The law is NOT ambiguous on this. Which state doesn't provide an exemption for ectopic pregnancy?

I am pro-choice but these stories, and their circulation in pro-choice circles, and their "this is what YOU voted for," makes me fearful that there is a certain contingent of adamantly pro-choice medical providers who are trying to prove a point.

I am very, very dubious that any ob/gyn would be fearful of prescribing methotrexate for an ectopic pregnancy based upon current laws-- or, if needed, performing laparoscopy.

Expectant management IS considered a valid treatment for ectopic pregnancy in the early stages, FWIW. About half of ectopic pregnancies resolve on their own.

Sorry but you give anti-choice people WAY too much credit. Missouri Republicans actually want to ban abortion SPECIFICALLY for life-threatening ectopic pregnancies. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/597911-missouri-bill-seeks-to-ban-terminating-fatal-ectopic-pregnancies/

This is utter, complete disinformation. I cannot believe The Hill ran that headline or the first few paragraphs. It is 100% false and only takes 30 second to read the bill to understand that. He is banner the illegal trafficking and use of devices and medications used for abortion. This has nothing to do with treatment of ectopic pregnancy in legal, medical establishments. This is basically to deter sex trafficker from performing abortions, because it's incredibly dangerous, particularly because they are unable to detect ectopic pregnancies. It's also to deter dangerous abortions being performed outside of medical establishments in general. Stop spreading these lies. It does not help the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights movement.

So to promote the safety of women who are being sex trafficked, he wants to make sure they die if they get an ectopic pregnancy?

You people are obtuse. Again, not the point. You think sex traffickers know how to treat an eptopic pregnancy? But more importantly, people are spreading this bill around with completely false information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are now reports that Missouri doctors are forcing women with ectopic pregnancy to wait until the tube ruptures to do anything. So waiting until they are actively bleeding to death. Makes it much, much more likely they'll die and for a pregnancy that will never ever be viable, ever. Ectopic pregnancy has a 100% fatality rate if untreated. The chance of a baby being born is 0%.

This frankly is just senseless murder.

Cite?

[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.

So, if Ohio changes that provision and clarifies that ending non-viable pregnancies is not “abortion” (which is clearly specified in at least some other states’ laws, btw), are you ok with the Ohio law? No? You better make that case now.

The problem I see here is that there is so much focus on these edge cases that can be easily excepted that very few, if any, are actually making the case for choice overall. A lot of these state laws were passed as political statements at a time when few thought they would ever come into force. What you’ll see is states revisiting them to clarify & address these concerns without changing the underlying restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, if Ohio changes that provision and clarifies that ending non-viable pregnancies is not “abortion” (which is clearly specified in at least some other states’ laws, btw), are you ok with the Ohio law? No? You better make that case now.

The problem I see here is that there is so much focus on these edge cases that can be easily excepted that very few, if any, are actually making the case for choice overall. A lot of these state laws were passed as political statements at a time when few thought they would ever come into force. What you’ll see is states revisiting them to clarify & address these concerns without changing the underlying restrictions.

I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time -- I have no problem arguing that women should have the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term (yes, even if she's a big slutty slut and yes, even if the fetus is "a baby" (it's not, but even if it was)) AND point out the absolutely horrific edge-case consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The exact wording of the law varies from state to state, so you can answer with cases from either. There are 43 states that have bans on late term abortions with some exception for the those needed to protect the health of the mother (however it is worded) for decades. Is there data showing women have died because doctors have refused to perform these procedures because of risk of prosecution?