The way to allow choice without elevating abortion as THE choice is to keep abortion legal, keeping necessary medical care available for people in these situations while improving the actual material conditions of motherhood in this country. I don't think you sound stupid or ignorant, so I think you probably know this. There's room for pro-life people in the pro-choice tent - the work to be done on that common ground is in building supports for women in areas other than abortion policy, not prosecuting and outlawing. |
You need to see medical evidence? She told you her doctor recommended the abortion. Why would you, a random person on the internet, need to see the evidence? Another question: why do you assume OP's situation would be exactly like yours? These are honest questions I am curious about, and that you should examine before going on to judge more people. |
I hate the term "pro-life" - who is "anti-life?!" The term is such a misnomer, as everyone who supports legal and safe access to abortion rights, is also pro-life. What they (and I) are not, is pro-forced birth. I do not think all women should be forced to give birth against their will, and have children that they do not want.
I have cousins and friends who were adopted, and they are all pro-choice. It's simply barbaric to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies against their will, against their mental, emotional, physical, and financial capacities. That is barbaric. |
Np. We're not just defending an internet stranger, we're defending the very basic truth that pregnancy complications are.... COMPLICATED and therefore the doctor is the person who should decide the best course of action for the individual. Also, op didn't change her story. You asked a question and she answered it. You wanted to know what would happen without the abortion and she told you. |
The thing that makes it unreasonable is stare decisis, which is what the justices who signed onto the opinion said they supported when they were confirmed. They all said Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and that you can't overturn settled constitutional law just because you want to. A lot of people who don't like abortion have, rather than trying to restrict abortion access, looked at the reasons people get abortions and addressed those reasons. A huge one is the one you mention: not being able to afford to raise a kid. Parenthood, at a certain stage of life, is like a financial death sentence, and it really doesn't need to be that way. |
Yup. My Catholic in laws did this. They voted their understanding of pro-life, which was anti-war, pro-labor, pro-refugee, and pro-helping the poor - very Dorothy Day type people. They also opened and ran a shelter for homeless women and their kids, which is still operating. They really lived their beliefs in ways I admire. |
Maybe she didn’t want to raise a severely disabled child. That alone would be a good enough reason to terminate. |
NP here. I'm also the pp who had to leave GW to get an abortion due to severe HG. I'm also adopted, if anyone thinks it's relevant. I don't think the pro-life position is stupid or ignorant. I do think there are risks to pregnancy that a lot of people, across all political views, just don't know that much about. I'd certainly never heard of HG until I ended up in the ER with it. So, I include myself in this group. For me, what keeps me pro-choice, even as someone who deeply respects my many pro-life friends, are questions like these. If we are going to allow "medical" abortion, then what conditions will count? Are we just going to keep adding and amending the law to specify conditions? What happens if a woman has a condition that isn't on the list but otherwise might be? Do she really have to die waiting for the legislature to pass a law? Some state legislatures only meet once every two years. And what about mental health? If a pregnancy leads to a lifetime of PTSD, should the government to demand a woman endure that? How bad do the mental health effects have to be for abortion to be legal? And again, are we going to have to die waiting for the legislature to pass an amendment adding some new diagnosis to the list of "ok" abortions? Further, pregnancy is always risky for all women, though clearly more for some than others. So, what risks to a woman's life will we require women to endure without having any say in the matter? Even mild HG can lead to a lifetime of health issues. There are no tests for HG prior to pregnancy, there is no cure, and few treatments, many of which don't work at all. (I was on five drugs, none of which worked, and I ended up in a rubber room from the side effects.) Should the government really be the one who decides what health risks a woman with HG takes? Now that I've had HG I've learned about any number of other health issues that come with pregnancy. While I might be willing to take some of those risks, I would not be willing to endure others. And I'm pretty sure most women fall in the same camp. Some women may be willing to carry a pregnancy entirely without concern for their own lives, but I don't think that's where most women come down on it. I think most of us want some say if a pregnancy could lead to organ failure, death, or some other lifelong impact. And that's the crux of the problem with laws that outlaw abortion. It's very hard to write exclusions that allow women to manage their health and consent to associated risks because pregnancy itself is always dangerous to some degree. |
Jesus Christ |
I am PP. I terminated a pregnancy for Down syndrome. It is not incompatible with life. It just wasn’t something that my husband and I wanted for our lives and the life of our older DC. To me, that’s reason enough. And anyway, why do strangers care so much what others do with their genetic material? |
Yes this. It broke my heart to see abortion listed on my medical paperwork for a much wanted and desired pregnancy. But nothing was right with the pregnancy from the very first scans. I waited an agonizing 5 weeks for the heartbeat to stop. We all knew it would, it was just a matter of when. I was 11 weeks. Then my body would not give up the fetal tissue. I waited another two weeks to miscarry naturally and it would not happen. So I had a D&C. Traumatizing and the nurses didn’t help. I’d never had a general in my life and I woke up sobbing, to hear a nurse say “we’ve got a a weeper.” What would have happened if I couldn’t get that D&C, even with a no longer viable pregnancy that had already lingered for weeks? |
Statistically speaking abortion is safer than child birth. |
This is cultural and the result of religious brain washing about “souls” in 8-week embryos. I am European and trust me when I tell you, it is not “a hard, hard issue” where I am from. If you are a reasonably fertile woman, every month you let an egg go with unfertilized you are killing a potential child. To me, my period and a 6-week embryo are not substantially different and are a lot closer in terms of human development than a newborn is to an embryo. If you think of it that way, the scientific way versus the emotionally charged, religious way, it is not hard. |
I am unaware of any state law that outlaws abortion for a non-viable pregnancy or one that is to protect the health of the mother. |
And who decides that. |