My abortion story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New law: all pro-life women should be implanted with supernumerary embryos- particularly the defective ones - and forced to carry them to term. Then they can surrender them as Barrett said. Just take the nausea, the back-pain, the swelling and weight gain, the labor pain, the bleeding and perhaps the sorrow of giving birth to a dead baby.

If you are reaaaaly in danger we may consider termination but only if you are really 5 min from death…and if it’s too late, oh well, you’re going to Heaven so whatever right?

It is their body, but it’s in the interest of the state to get all those “domestic babies” born, so it’s the state choice.

That’s how insane the idea that the State can control a woman body is.

All of this actually happened to me--well, I wasn't 5 minutes from death, but did carry a baby whose condition was incompatible with life to term, and while not pro-life, I am still sickened by people's dramatic stories and arguments that are without fact and clearly devalue the overall issue at risk here: a woman's right to choose-- no matter what!

This literally makes no sense. Pregnancy can be very dangerous and kill women. Why would you think stories about medical emergencies “devalue” abortion rights? Is this some weird talking point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad you got the procedure but what of the abortions at 24 weeks that are done simply because the mother decides to choose to kill the fetus? I have a hard time with thinking that is right.

Because this is not a thing; it’s a scare tactic talking point. About 15 years ago, when I was in the midst of a very difficult pregnancy and I was trying to understand what might be in store and survival rates for micropreemies. I fell down the internet rabbit hole, and came across a NY Times article on late-term abortions. At that time there were exactly four doctors in the US who would do them. Only one would even consider anything vaguely resembling a “I don’t want to be pregnant any more reason”. The rest started spelling out all of the horrible, terrible, excruciating circumstances that had had women traveling across country with money they didn’t have to do,this thing that they never thought they would have to do for babies they really wanted to have. It was after reading that article that I - who had never cared about abortion much, thought it was ‘irresponsible’ and ‘making someone else pay for your actions’ - became a die hard advocate for protecting the ability for women to get necessary medical care when something awful has happened and all good options are off the table and you’re fishing around for the least bad option. And all the stories were slightly different and there’s no court on earth qualified to rule on each variation.

At least one of those doctors has died, and one of the others would have to be in their nineties now if they are still alive. This post-24 week abortion of viable fetuses to healthy mothers is not happening. It’s just floated out there to make people like you vote for things to keep other people in power because “they’re for the babies”. And if you’re a woman, you’re a also foolish and voting against your own interests.

wondering if you or anyone has a link to this article? I'd love to read it. (Asking in good faith lol. I'm pro-abortion.)

[Anonymous]

I had an abortion when I had IVF and wound up with triplets. Reduced to two.

[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.

Please point to the part of the bill that makes an exception for "legal, medical establishments"? It's not LEGAL to do abortions in Missouri anymore. They are banning the import of abortion-inducing drugs - you know, the same ones used for safely terminating an ectopic pregnancy - and making it a Class A felony to use the drugs to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. There is nothing misleading about the Hill headline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New law: all pro-life women should be implanted with supernumerary embryos- particularly the defective ones - and forced to carry them to term. Then they can surrender them as Barrett said. Just take the nausea, the back-pain, the swelling and weight gain, the labor pain, the bleeding and perhaps the sorrow of giving birth to a dead baby.

If you are reaaaaly in danger we may consider termination but only if you are really 5 min from death…and if it’s too late, oh well, you’re going to Heaven so whatever right?

It is their body, but it’s in the interest of the state to get all those “domestic babies” born, so it’s the state choice.

That’s how insane the idea that the State can control a woman body is.

All of this actually happened to me--well, I wasn't 5 minutes from death, but did carry a baby whose condition was incompatible with life to term, and while not pro-life, I am still sickened by people's dramatic stories and arguments that are without fact and clearly devalue the overall issue at risk here: a woman's right to choose-- no matter what!

This literally makes no sense. Pregnancy can be very dangerous and kill women. Why would you think stories about medical emergencies “devalue” abortion rights? Is this some weird talking point?

The point is that if you always focus on the cases where abortion was needed to protect the life of the mother, you suggest that where that isn't the case, it might ok to ban it.

I screened positive for a genetic defect with my second pregnancy. If the screening was accurate, the child would have likely been severely disabled. I had another child and need to work to support my family, and I was going to terminate if it was confirmed by amniocentesis (it wasn't, it was a false positive). There was no threat to my life but my life would have been severely messed up if I wasn't able to make that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had an abortion when I had IVF and wound up with triplets. Reduced to two.

How did/do you feel about it, if you feel comfortable sharing?

I think that would be a difficult position to be in, and you likely made the best choice for your health and that of your babies.

But I can also imagine it being something that could be bittersweet given that your children were planned, wanted, loved.

When I think of abortion, I never think of your scenario.

Life is complicated and being a parent is hard. I'm glad you got to be one.

[Anonymous]

The most vocal pro-birthers I know were also the most vocal about school closures. They want more children, they just don’t want them at home all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an abortion when I had IVF and wound up with triplets. Reduced to two.

How did/do you feel about it, if you feel comfortable sharing?

I think that would be a difficult position to be in, and you likely made the best choice for your health and that of your babies.

But I can also imagine it being something that could be bittersweet given that your children were planned, wanted, loved.

When I think of abortion, I never think of your scenario.

Life is complicated and being a parent is hard. I'm glad you got to be one.

I was ok with it. I know that by carrying 3 I greatly increased the risk to all of them and to myself. I did and do not shed tears about it. I'm lucky to have lovely twins.
There were also embryos left over that were destroyed - so to the extent that people consider embryos to be people, those were also killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an abortion when I had IVF and wound up with triplets. Reduced to two.

How did/do you feel about it, if you feel comfortable sharing?

I think that would be a difficult position to be in, and you likely made the best choice for your health and that of your babies.

But I can also imagine it being something that could be bittersweet given that your children were planned, wanted, loved.

When I think of abortion, I never think of your scenario.

Life is complicated and being a parent is hard. I'm glad you got to be one.

I was ok with it. I know that by carrying 3 I greatly increased the risk to all of them and to myself. I did and do not shed tears about it. I'm lucky to have lovely twins.
There were also embryos left over that were destroyed - so to the extent that people consider embryos to be people, those were also killed.

Here's some good literature about this issue:

"Fetal and Newborn Complications
Although uncommon in twin deliveries, about 20% of triplet pregnancies will result in the delivery of at least one child with a major long-term handicap. Preterm delivery places an infant at increased risk for severe complications or early death. A baby’s lungs, brain, circulatory system, intestinal system, and eyes may be not fully developed."
https://www.reproductivefacts.org/news-and-publications/patient-fact-sheets-and-booklets/documents/fact-sheets-and-info-booklets/multiple-pregnancy-and-birth-twins-triplets-and-high-order-multiples-booklet/#:~:text=Fetal%20and%20Newborn%20Complications,severe%20complications%20or%20early%20death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New law: all pro-life women should be implanted with supernumerary embryos- particularly the defective ones - and forced to carry them to term. Then they can surrender them as Barrett said. Just take the nausea, the back-pain, the swelling and weight gain, the labor pain, the bleeding and perhaps the sorrow of giving birth to a dead baby.

If you are reaaaaly in danger we may consider termination but only if you are really 5 min from death…and if it’s too late, oh well, you’re going to Heaven so whatever right?

It is their body, but it’s in the interest of the state to get all those “domestic babies” born, so it’s the state choice.

That’s how insane the idea that the State can control a woman body is.

All of this actually happened to me--well, I wasn't 5 minutes from death, but did carry a baby whose condition was incompatible with life to term, and while not pro-life, I am still sickened by people's dramatic stories and arguments that are without fact and clearly devalue the overall issue at risk here: a woman's right to choose-- no matter what!

This literally makes no sense. Pregnancy can be very dangerous and kill women. Why would you think stories about medical emergencies “devalue” abortion rights? Is this some weird talking point?

The point is that if you always focus on the cases where abortion was needed to protect the life of the mother, you suggest that where that isn't the case, it might ok to ban it.

I screened positive for a genetic defect with my second pregnancy. If the screening was accurate, the child would have likely been severely disabled. I had another child and need to work to support my family, and I was going to terminate if it was confirmed by amniocentesis (it wasn't, it was a false positive). There was no threat to my life but my life would have been severely messed up if I wasn't able to make that choice.

except nobody is suggesting that here. people are telling a variety of stories, and the ones about medical emergencies/needs are part of the whole picture. I feel like this is some triangulation or language control bullsh*t that always undermines the left. we need to get out of our own way. I had an abortion purely because I did not want to have a baby. I also had a baby, and I know intimidately the strain even a healthy pregnancy puts on your body, and I ended up with pre-eclampsia later. I think many/most women instinctively feel the danger of pregnancy, so the inability to get an abortion when our health/lives are at stake is very salient. As for messaging, my understanding is that Savita is a huge reason Ireland voted to legalize abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New law: all pro-life women should be implanted with supernumerary embryos- particularly the defective ones - and forced to carry them to term. Then they can surrender them as Barrett said. Just take the nausea, the back-pain, the swelling and weight gain, the labor pain, the bleeding and perhaps the sorrow of giving birth to a dead baby.

If you are reaaaaly in danger we may consider termination but only if you are really 5 min from death…and if it’s too late, oh well, you’re going to Heaven so whatever right?

It is their body, but it’s in the interest of the state to get all those “domestic babies” born, so it’s the state choice.

That’s how insane the idea that the State can control a woman body is.

All of this actually happened to me--well, I wasn't 5 minutes from death, but did carry a baby whose condition was incompatible with life to term, and while not pro-life, I am still sickened by people's dramatic stories and arguments that are without fact and clearly devalue the overall issue at risk here: a woman's right to choose-- no matter what!

This literally makes no sense. Pregnancy can be very dangerous and kill women. Why would you think stories about medical emergencies “devalue” abortion rights? Is this some weird talking point?

The point is that if you always focus on the cases where abortion was needed to protect the life of the mother, you suggest that where that isn't the case, it might ok to ban it.

I screened positive for a genetic defect with my second pregnancy. If the screening was accurate, the child would have likely been severely disabled. I had another child and need to work to support my family, and I was going to terminate if it was confirmed by amniocentesis (it wasn't, it was a false positive). There was no threat to my life but my life would have been severely messed up if I wasn't able to make that choice.

Well said.

I think it is a huge accident to go straight to "medical emergencies" (or even rape and incest) to try to convince people on this issue.

The problem is not that people will disagree with you. It's that almost everybody agrees on these points.

So what you have, instead of an argument that favors abortion as a choice, is a large group of people willing to work with you on how to improve the laws so that they can ensure that women with medical emergencies (or victims) can access them.

No pro-choice person actually, legitimately, wants to work on this issue. They want to say it is impossible to create such laws, but this is almost like a challenge to people who are pro-life. Do we want to challenge these people to create these kinds of laws?

No, let's be honest about what we want. We do not want someone in the position of having to terminate for medical reasons or for any other reasons to have to prove herself. But most of us (statistically in the U.S., I don't know about this forum) don't actually want women to be able to elect to abort healthy a healthy baby at 16 weeks or more. Looking at abortion laws from a global perspective, it would be absolutely reasonable to say abortion for any reason until 15 weeks, and after then for medical emergencies.

The fact that the extremes on both sides are so polarized that this is considered an unacceptable compromise on both sides is so damned frustrating to me. It's not helping anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New law: all pro-life women should be implanted with supernumerary embryos- particularly the defective ones - and forced to carry them to term. Then they can surrender them as Barrett said. Just take the nausea, the back-pain, the swelling and weight gain, the labor pain, the bleeding and perhaps the sorrow of giving birth to a dead baby.

If you are reaaaaly in danger we may consider termination but only if you are really 5 min from death…and if it’s too late, oh well, you’re going to Heaven so whatever right?

It is their body, but it’s in the interest of the state to get all those “domestic babies” born, so it’s the state choice.

That’s how insane the idea that the State can control a woman body is.

All of this actually happened to me--well, I wasn't 5 minutes from death, but did carry a baby whose condition was incompatible with life to term, and while not pro-life, I am still sickened by people's dramatic stories and arguments that are without fact and clearly devalue the overall issue at risk here: a woman's right to choose-- no matter what!

This literally makes no sense. Pregnancy can be very dangerous and kill women. Why would you think stories about medical emergencies “devalue” abortion rights? Is this some weird talking point?

The point is that if you always focus on the cases where abortion was needed to protect the life of the mother, you suggest that where that isn't the case, it might ok to ban it.

I screened positive for a genetic defect with my second pregnancy. If the screening was accurate, the child would have likely been severely disabled. I had another child and need to work to support my family, and I was going to terminate if it was confirmed by amniocentesis (it wasn't, it was a false positive). There was no threat to my life but my life would have been severely messed up if I wasn't able to make that choice.

Well said.

I think it is a huge accident to go straight to "medical emergencies" (or even rape and incest) to try to convince people on this issue.

The problem is not that people will disagree with you. It's that almost everybody agrees on these points.

So what you have, instead of an argument that favors abortion as a choice, is a large group of people willing to work with you on how to improve the laws so that they can ensure that women with medical emergencies (or victims) can access them.

No pro-choice person actually, legitimately, wants to work on this issue. They want to say it is impossible to create such laws, but this is almost like a challenge to people who are pro-life. Do we want to challenge these people to create these kinds of laws?

No, let's be honest about what we want. We do not want someone in the position of having to terminate for medical reasons or for any other reasons to have to prove herself. But most of us (statistically in the U.S., I don't know about this forum) don't actually want women to be able to elect to abort healthy a healthy baby at 16 weeks or more. Looking at abortion laws from a global perspective, it would be absolutely reasonable to say abortion for any reason until 15 weeks, and after then for medical emergencies.

The fact that the extremes on both sides are so polarized that this is considered an unacceptable compromise on both sides is so damned frustrating to me. It's not helping anyone.

I mostly agree with this. I would be ok with a regime where abortion is freely available in the first trimester and after that, it's available for medical reasons. I think the medical reasons should be broad and include things like mental health.

However, it's hard to even write that out bc it's so clear to me that it would put women's lives at risk or force them to bear unviable pregnancies bc of some nonsense around what is a "medical" reason or having to find a dr to sign off on it in a red state or a religious hospital or whatever. I think the practical implications and a lack of trust is what prevents that kind of compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an abortion when I had IVF and wound up with triplets. Reduced to two.

How did/do you feel about it, if you feel comfortable sharing?

I think that would be a difficult position to be in, and you likely made the best choice for your health and that of your babies.

But I can also imagine it being something that could be bittersweet given that your children were planned, wanted, loved.

When I think of abortion, I never think of your scenario.

Life is complicated and being a parent is hard. I'm glad you got to be one.

I was ok with it. I know that by carrying 3 I greatly increased the risk to all of them and to myself. I did and do not shed tears about it. I'm lucky to have lovely twins.
There were also embryos left over that were destroyed - so to the extent that people consider embryos to be people, those were also killed.

I have a friend who did the same thing (got pregnant w triplets via IUI and aborted one). I think it's very common. But, also an example of a very reasonable and medically-advisable decision that is going to be unavailable to women in many states now.

[Anonymous]

I had to terminate a very wanted pregnancy to pursue treatment for breast cancer at 31. Diagnosed when I was 16 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had to terminate a very wanted pregnancy to pursue treatment for breast cancer at 31. Diagnosed when I was 16 weeks.

According to the previous poster, this didn't "save your life" as you weren't yet at death's door.