My abortion story

[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.

It IS an unacceptable compromise, for several reasons:

1) The law is a blunt instrument. It is Not Possible for a law to capture all of the possible nuance around what "counts" as an acceptable reason, and it will inevitably leave someone out. People will die. Even people who would have legally been able to have one might die due to legal delay or confusion about whether its "approved. That decision should be between a pregnant person and their doctor, only.

2) The morality of it Does Not Matter. I don't think I would terminate for anything other than a severe risk to my life, but it shouldn't be illegal because of that. You cannot legally or ethically mandate medical procedures. You can't force a person, even a parent, to give up an organ to save another person, even their child. You can't even force a DEAD person to give up an organ. So why should the uterus be any different? I should have at least as much bodily autonomy as a corpse.

[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.

this is not a thread on your (likely misguided) ideas about how abortion rights should be messaged. it’s about women’s experiences. and in case you hadn’t noticed, the extremist pro-lifers are not interested in compromise. classic Democratic mistake to think “if only we could get the messaging and technical details right we could win!!”

and the example of Savita was very important in Ireland. We’re going to have hundreds of Savitas in the US.

[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.

This is bs. If I don’t want to raise a child with Down syndrome or spina bifida or whatever else is found via amnio/20-week scan, who are you or the state to force me to do so? It might not be damaging to my physical health, but it would have destroyed my mental health. Besides, this planet is already overpopulated. Do we really need all these unwanted/unhealthy children too?

[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'm honestly confused. You don't want someone to have to prove herself, but you DO want to restrict abortion to medical emergencies at 16 weeks. How would you ensure its a medical emergency without proof? Don't you have to draw a pretty bright line on what counts as an emergency?

I think such a line is very hard to draw in a way that accurately includes enough individual cases to prevent unnecessary deaths of women. And I do consider preventing deaths of women more important than preventing termination of pregnancies, just to be clear about my priorities. It's actually a smaller government perspective to be concerned about "medical emergency" limits on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'm honestly confused. You don't want someone to have to prove herself, but you DO want to restrict abortion to medical emergencies at 16 weeks. How would you ensure its a medical emergency without proof? Don't you have to draw a pretty bright line on what counts as an emergency?

I think such a line is very hard to draw in a way that accurately includes enough individual cases to prevent unnecessary deaths of women. And I do consider preventing deaths of women more important than preventing termination of pregnancies, just to be clear about my priorities. It's actually a smaller government perspective to be concerned about "medical emergency" limits on abortion.

This policy would be less restrictive than the current law in Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and many other European countries. Sweden (at 18 weeks) and Netherlands (at 22) are European outliers.

I understand your argument for abortion at any time during pregnancy, for any reason, but be aware that it is not a winning one. Most everybody draws a line (including every U.S. state I know of); the question is where to draw the line, not whether there is a line.

Again, I understand your argument. Why should any woman going through a medical emergency have to prove herself? But the answer is because most people do not think-- however rare it might be-- that it is okay to abort a healthy baby after a certain point in the pregnancy.

Which medical emergencies during trimester 2 or 3 do you think would be particularly difficult for an ob/gyn to provide evidence for, given the fact that by that time most women who plan to continue their pregnancies have been receiving months of medical care, ultrasound, fetal and maternal monitoring? Has this been an issue in countries or states than draw the line at elective abortions after 15 weeks (or even 12, as in much of Western Europe)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'm honestly confused. You don't want someone to have to prove herself, but you DO want to restrict abortion to medical emergencies at 16 weeks. How would you ensure its a medical emergency without proof? Don't you have to draw a pretty bright line on what counts as an emergency?

I think such a line is very hard to draw in a way that accurately includes enough individual cases to prevent unnecessary deaths of women. And I do consider preventing deaths of women more important than preventing termination of pregnancies, just to be clear about my priorities. It's actually a smaller government perspective to be concerned about "medical emergency" limits on abortion.

This policy would be less restrictive than the current law in Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and many other European countries. Sweden (at 18 weeks) and Netherlands (at 22) are European outliers.

I understand your argument for abortion at any time during pregnancy, for any reason, but be aware that it is not a winning one. Most everybody draws a line (including every U.S. state I know of); the question is where to draw the line, not whether there is a line.

Again, I understand your argument. Why should any woman going through a medical emergency have to prove herself? But the answer is because most people do not think-- however rare it might be-- that it is okay to abort a healthy baby after a certain point in the pregnancy.

Which medical emergencies during trimester 2 or 3 do you think would be particularly difficult for an ob/gyn to provide evidence for, given the fact that by that time most women who plan to continue their pregnancies have been receiving months of medical care, ultrasound, fetal and maternal monitoring? Has this been an issue in countries or states than draw the line at elective abortions after 15 weeks (or even 12, as in much of Western Europe)?

I'm open to international data, but not familiar with it. My concern is around a lot of the same discussions people have had on their thread. Does something have to be an actively life threatening emergency, or is statistical risk and likelihood earlier in pregnancy count if a doctor sees a very high risk? Do you have to HAVE the heart attack, sepsis, or severe pre-eclampsia, or is it OK to abort before you're close to death? I think doctors having to hesitate about "is this bad enough to intervene" will lead to women dying. I really do.

My argument that abortion should be available at any time during pregnancy for any reason is actually a different one, but honestly I think the elective argument is primarily important in the first trimester. If abortion were widely available and affordable in the first 15 weeks I bet you'd see a vanishingly small number of second trimester totally elective abortions, and a lot of them would be sad cases like kids who were raped and scared to tell anyone. The problem is that that's being heavily restricted too.

[Anonymous]

Can a hospital make a solid policy like "we consider all ectopic pregnancies life threatening," therefore making it easier for a doctor to decide to act immediately?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can a hospital make a solid policy like "we consider all ectopic pregnancies life threatening," therefore making it easier for a doctor to decide to act immediately?

Yes, likely hospitals are reviewing legislature and writing policies like this... But still, no matter what the policy, you will always run into scenarios that aren't specifically addressed by a policy. There will be vague things like just having 2 or 3 doctors sign off that they agree life - or health - is at risk