View Full Version : using abortion as birth control
Emily
12-10-2006, 11:38 AM
^^^^semantics. What does "pro-family" mean too? I hear that term being tossed around.
I guess "pro-choice to have an abortion if I want to" was too long to put on the button.
besides, wouldn't "pro-abortion" mean that you'd choose abortion in every case?
Jenny
12-10-2006, 01:17 PM
I don't think there's such a thing as pro-choice. I think you're either pro-life or pro-abortion. I don't get people saying pro-choice, obviously it's a choice...between pro-life and pro-abortion. If you say you support choice...:O everyone supports choices. Or are you saying you're above having one yourself and you want people to know that? I'm pro-abortion. I think it's a morally good decision in some cases like mercy killing.
How much do abortions cost anyway?
This is absurd. Being pro-choice means that you support the choice between having a baby and having a abortion - the act, not the conception. I don't think many people are "pro-abortion" in the sense that they don't think people should have choices about whether or not have abortions. I would say there is no such thing as pro-life: that you are either pro-choice or anti-choice. If we're directly polarizing that seems a much more accurate way of doing it.
Jenny
12-10-2006, 01:22 PM
Another thing that is sad is that I know so many people who are infertile and very well settled in life. Who would be great parents and want desperately to adopt that baby if the mother doesn't want him or her but they always get their heart broken because the birth mother decides she wants to keep the baby or starts asking them (illegally) for "gifts" that they cannot afford.
Okay. People have the option to not take custody of the child until the time period in which the birth mother can change her mind is up. Usually that is about 3 months; I don't think that is an onerous requirement when dealing with such a momentous decision. As for "gifts" - again, after 3 months there is no potency, and the only reason it would come up is if they were trying to buy a baby in the first place. If they were going through a state agency there is no opportunity for that kind of exploitation on either side.
Why do these women keep the children when they don't want them or don't even take care of them? I know the answer is that they're selfish, but its depressing.I would say that there is obviously some way in which they DO want them; and there is a strong presumption in our society that the parents are the best able to look after their children. We don't do a routine evaluation on babies when they are born and then determine the best home for them - we assume, barring unusual circumstances that the best home for them is with the parents. I can't agree that not making a simple decision to give up your child is selfish.
Katrine
12-10-2006, 02:04 PM
Did you know that the most common form of "birth control" in the former USSR is abortion?
Where did you get this information from?
Scout
12-10-2006, 02:46 PM
Where did you get this information from?
I've heard it from a number of sources and found this on google:
"Abortion was and continues to be the most acceptable route for fertility control in Russia. Women, who bear the responsibility of family planning, do not employ modern methods of contraception because of unavailability and/or biased attitudes. Induced abortion, a legal means to terminate pregnancy, remains the primary method of birth control in Russia."
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/undergrad/vol7/kotlyar.html
This article is more recent:
http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2004/11/25/abortion.shtml
I was incorrect when I said "former USSR." It applies to Russia only.
velvet
12-10-2006, 03:38 PM
Wow, I'm pro-choice but 7 abortions?! I think it's wrong to use abortion as birth control. Yep, I said it, wrong wrong wrong. And yes, I'm making judgements about her because I disagree with her choices. She's being selfish, immature, and disrespectful to her body and to life in general. I think it's disgusting and I honestly think that there are no excuses for that kind of behavior. There are so many methods of birth control available to women these days that an abortion should be used as a last resort when all else has failed. She gives so many other women a bad name who seek abortions in emergency situations. So yeah, I'm a little mad too Tootsie.
I will agree that making a law against too many abortions doesn't sit well with me either. I've never been fond of too much gov't interference in our personal and sexual lives. But just because I don't want the gov't telling women what to do with their bodies doesn't mean that I have to condone bad behavior.
i agree with this 100%. a mistake or two or hell even MAYBE three. but 7 times is just down right nasty. i have a friend that just had her fourth and i kinda lost some respect for her. she sleeps around alot. never mind the pregancy what about disease!
Bella21
12-10-2006, 03:53 PM
I don't think there's such a thing as pro-choice. I think you're either pro-life or pro-abortion. I don't get people saying pro-choice, obviously it's a choice...between pro-life and pro-abortion. If you say you support choice...:O everyone supports choices. Or are you saying you're above having one yourself and you want people to know that? I'm pro-abortion. I think it's a morally good decision in some cases like mercy killing.
How much do abortions cost anyway?
Heh. Pro-choice means you believe it should be a choice whether to have an abortion or not. It's too bad but everyone does NOT support choices.
Abortions vary depending on how far along you are in your pregnancy. I had one after only a few weeks so it WOULD have been $400 (if I remember correctly) but I was employed at a restaurant and the time and Medi-Care covered it. (Yay!)
Bella21
12-10-2006, 03:54 PM
^^^^semantics. What does "pro-family" mean too? I hear that term being tossed around.
Geez, I've never heard "pro-family". THat's totally something the pro-life people thought up. Personally, my family is much better off without me and my young cousins having a bunch of unwanted children. ;D
WyldKat
12-10-2006, 06:39 PM
I would say that there is obviously some way in which they DO want them; and there is a strong presumption in our society that the parents are the best able to look after their children. We don't do a routine evaluation on babies when they are born and then determine the best home for them - we assume, barring unusual circumstances that the best home for them is with the parents. I can't agree that not making a simple decision to give up your child is selfish.
I suppose so, but don't you think that if you can't take care of a child, it would be in the child's best interest to be with a family who is ready to take care of your child? Shouldn't you make a decision based on the child's best interest and not what you want?
I mean, if a mother can take care of her child, then I would hope that she would want to keep her baby. But to keep a baby when you know that you're unable to care for the baby, I think that's rather selfish. And I'm talking basic needs here like food, shelter, and healthcare.
Dottie Rebel
12-10-2006, 06:45 PM
Another thing that is sad is that I know so many people who are infertile and very well settled in life. Who would be great parents and want desperately to adopt that baby if the mother doesn't want him or her but they always get their heart broken because the birth mother decides she wants to keep the baby or starts asking them (illegally) for "gifts" that they cannot afford.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for white couples who can't seem to find themselves a white baby who just popped out of his beautiful, white mother about three seconds ago. If you're so desperate to raise a child there are plenty of children of color, children in developing nations, or children who've aged past that adorable little gurgling newborn phase. If you're too good for one of them and you can't have your own, well boo-fucking-hoo.
Orphanages and group homes are at capacity while people are fighting tooth and nail over babies that are still breathing amniotic fluid. It's so selfish. Nothing but pure vanity.
Orphanages and group homes are at capacity while people are fighting tooth and nail over babies that are still breathing amniotic fluid. It's so selfish. Nothing but pure vanity.
I was told repeatedly when I went in for my abortion that many people would want my baby. Why, because I'm white? There are too many children in the system right now and a large chunk of them are the undesirables who will only leave when they age out (the older kids, the ones with physical or mental problems, and pretty much any non-causcasian). Who cares if your child does not have the same color skin as the parents or if the parents miss the cute infant years? It's idiotic and I refuse to participate in a racist system that does not work and is ridiculously underfunded.
I used birth control pills religiously and still became pregnant. With typical use, 8 out of 100 women will. I'm glad that I had the choice available, but it's scary to think about the ways abortion rights have been chipped away in just the last few years. There has been more successful anti-choice legislation in the last 5 years than in the last 25. Roe v. Wade is being slowly overturned, from banning partial birth abortions (even with medical complications) to age restrictions to the declaration of a fetus as a living entity in the Lacey Peterson Act. The problem is the people who this most affects do not vote and do not realize how bad it was when abortion was illegal.
In a society where adoption systems are underfunded and biased and no contraceptive measure is absolute, the right to an abortion is of great importance. An important thing to remember is that abortion rates do not decrease if it is made illegal, abortion simply becomes a back-alley business with a greater chance of infection and death. I shudder to think of the future if this anti-choice parade marches on.
Jenny
12-10-2006, 07:45 PM
I suppose so, but don't you think that if you can't take care of a child, it would be in the child's best interest to be with a family who is ready to take care of your child? Shouldn't you make a decision based on the child's best interest and not what you want?
I mean, if a mother can take care of her child, then I would hope that she would want to keep her baby. But to keep a baby when you know that you're unable to care for the baby, I think that's rather selfish. And I'm talking basic needs here like food, shelter, and healthcare.
But again that is not the way it works - it is not the way we view our children. Like you would never imagine telling a middle class couple to give up their newborn baby to a very wealthy couple because it would be in child's best interests to be wealthy. We don't view that couple who would certainly say no to such a proposition as selfish - we view them as fundamentally normal. We don't look at children and imagine the "best case scenario" and then put them in that scenario - we have a strong presumption that children are better off with their parents, and equally a strong presumption that people WANT their children. Wanting to keep your children through financial hardship is not selfish - it is fundamentally normal and human.
Jenny
12-10-2006, 07:47 PM
I don't have a lot of sympathy for white couples who can't seem to find themselves a white baby who just popped out of his beautiful, white mother about three seconds ago. If you're so desperate to raise a child there are plenty of children of color, children in developing nations, or children who've aged past that adorable little gurgling newborn phase. If you're too good for one of them and you can't have your own, well boo-fucking-hoo.
Word. Not to mention children with various disabilities.
Xiomara
12-10-2006, 08:05 PM
um,what about adoption? i was sickened by the thought of possibly aborting my baby (i didnt-thank god) i dont see how a woman can do it over and over. stop having sex if she cant be responsible.simple as that. otherwise,live with it for nine months and give those kids to folks who cant have em. win win.
::i only read the first page::
Sirona
12-10-2006, 08:35 PM
I had an abortion, it wasn't a decision I took lightly. Do I find it disturbing someone would have it done over and over again? Sure? But i'd sure as shit rather they do that then pump out a mess of kids to be mistreated and neglected.
Having the kids and putting them up for adoption sounds great in theory but the sad fact is most of those kids rot away in foster care waiting to be "picked" like they're in some fucked up kid deli. I spent enough time in foster care to have met a lot of those kids and lemme tell ya, growing up knowing you weren't "good enough" to be picked seriously fucks you up... It breaks your heart.
And what with those fucking pro-lifers in front of the clinics. I mean what the fuck. I remember leaving and some shitstain of a human being yelling crap at me about "giving my baby to someone" or some crap. I offered to go get it for them but they didn't seem too keen on the idea...
Go figure.
*shrug*
kittenkat
12-10-2006, 08:44 PM
um,what about adoption? i was sickened by the thought of possibly aborting my baby (i didnt-thank god) i dont see how a woman can do it over and over. stop having sex if she cant be responsible.simple as that. otherwise,live with it for nine months and give those kids to folks who cant have em. win win.
It's not win-win unless you're white, and for birth mothers who realize that there's something wrong with the baby? A colleague planning to be a birth mother- and the fetus was found to have genetic issues @ month 5. The adoptive parents backed out, and she ended up having to pay for the abortion that followed. I know another birthmom candidate that was planning on adopting out her baby, but the parents wanted her off her depression meds (she was taking anti-depressants along with anti-anxiety pills). She tried, and 2 months after quitting the meds, could not take it anymore. She was getting severely depressed and suicidal. She had an abortion and resumed her meds and faced considerable harassment. Adoption and being a birth mother is NOT easy. People push adoption, and it sure is a choice that should be considered- but it's not a good choice all the time like some people presume it to be. for a lot of women, having more kids or even being pregnant isn't really a viable choice.
Katrine
12-10-2006, 08:58 PM
I am pro-abortion, pro-free and easily accessible birth control for everyone, pro-sterilization if you want it...no questions asked, no litigation later. That's my perfect world though........
Xiomara
12-10-2006, 09:04 PM
It's not win-win unless you're white, and for birth mothers who realize that there's something wrong with the baby? A colleague planning to be a birth mother- and the fetus was found to have genetic issues @ month 5. The adoptive parents backed out, and she ended up having to pay for the abortion that followed. I know another birthmom candidate that was planning on adopting out her baby, but the parents wanted her off her depression meds (she was taking anti-depressants along with anti-anxiety pills). She tried, and 2 months after quitting the meds, could not take it anymore. She was getting severely depressed and suicidal. She had an abortion and resumed her meds and faced considerable harassment. Adoption and being a birth mother is NOT easy. People push adoption, and it sure is a choice that should be considered- but it's not a good choice all the time like some people presume it to be. for a lot of women, having more kids or even being pregnant isn't really a viable choice.
I agree 100%. Didnt really think of that.
In this case the chic needs to just quit freakin.
I am pro-abortion, pro-free and easily accessible birth control for everyone, pro-sterilization if you want it...no questions asked, no litigation later. That's my perfect world though........
Can I move to your world? I promise I'll be good. :)
kittenkat
12-10-2006, 10:07 PM
^^That kind of exists in some european countries, like the Netherlands, along with the decriminalized pot.
In fact, nothing scares fundies more than the mention of the heathen, socialist dutch folks!
NinaDaisy
12-11-2006, 01:23 AM
White babies are next to impossible to adopt. Most of the kids that languish are disabled, of color, older (like, not infants) or siblings. There are plenty of kids out there to adopt, they're just not "ideal" for everyone. I think adopting kids from third world countries is also great, but there are tons of unwanted kids here.
Back to the topic: I've met people that are pro-choice, but their personal choice for themselves would be not to have one. But they know they have no business telling someone else to not have one.
I like Katrine's idea of a perfect world. All kids would be wanted and cared for well without so much judgement. Especially with good birth control readily available (AND used properly by people).
I have known several girls who used abortion as bc. I personally find it foul. After 3 or 4 they should just get their tubes tied. DUH. But said persons are also just taking up space. Waste of time. Better they do it I guess than have idiot children like themselves.
Xiomara
12-11-2006, 05:57 AM
I have known several girls who used abortion as bc. I personally find it foul. After 3 or 4 they should just get their tubes tied. DUH. But said persons are also just taking up space. Waste of time. Better they do it I guess than have idiot children like themselves.
Agree
VenusGoddess
12-11-2006, 06:48 AM
But again that is not the way it works - it is not the way we view our children. Like you would never imagine telling a middle class couple to give up their newborn baby to a very wealthy couple because it would be in child's best interests to be wealthy. We don't view that couple who would certainly say no to such a proposition as selfish - we view them as fundamentally normal. We don't look at children and imagine the "best case scenario" and then put them in that scenario - we have a strong presumption that children are better off with their parents, and equally a strong presumption that people WANT their children. Wanting to keep your children through financial hardship is not selfish - it is fundamentally normal and human.
But, not only that...people do not look at children as PEOPLE...they look at children as OBJECTS...things that you own...
Which is why there are so many "unwanted" kids out there. Because if adults looked at children as PEOPLE, as beings that just needed someone to help them grow a healthy self-esteem...instead of a "thing" that would complete their mind's eye view of "picture perfect" to go with their standard 3 bedroom/2 bath, white picket fence home...they would happily adopt any child they could.
The other down side to adoption...which is a big reason that more and more people are adopting internationally...is the financial burden of adopting a child...and the off-chance that the birth mother or father will come back and try to reclaim the child 4 years from now. Remember the Baby Richard case? There is another case that was a raging war in Tennessee...the expense of adopting a child (upwards of $40,000) and there still being the chance that AFTER the adoption is finalized...you meld the child into your family...the birth parents (either one) can come back and wreak havoc on your family...is still a big turn-off for a lot of parents who want to adopt...but are afraid to since the laws in the US still favor birth parents over anyone else.
Jenny
12-11-2006, 09:05 AM
But, not only that...people do not look at children as PEOPLE...they look at children as OBJECTS...things that you own...
I agree with this - but I think this attitude about children is absolutely and completely ubiquitious, and I don't really have a better alternative offhand. Like have you ever said "They're my kids and I'll raise them the way I want"? I'm not saying, by the way, that it makes you a questionable or bad parent, because I think, as I said, that literally EVERYONE shares the attitude, and there is no convenient replacement for it.
The other down side to adoption...which is a big reason that more and more people are adopting internationally...is the financial burden of adopting a child...and the off-chance that the birth mother or father will come back and try to reclaim the child 4 years from now. Remember the Baby Richard case? There is another case that was a raging war in Tennessee...the expense of adopting a child (upwards of $40,000) and there still being the chance that AFTER the adoption is finalized...you meld the child into your family...the birth parents (either one) can come back and wreak havoc on your family...is still a big turn-off for a lot of parents who want to adopt...but are afraid to since the laws in the US still favor birth parents over anyone else.
Well, Baby Richard had a claim filed within 30 days of his adoption - more or less as soon as the biological father found out of his existence, when he was about 6 weeks old. And the initial decision against him was largely based on the court performing that weighing that courts are specifically NOT meant to do in these cases - not determining that the biological father was unfit, but determining that the adoptive parents were "more fit" - usually meaning that they are wealthier. So the biological parents cannot make a claim 4 years after the fact (I don't know about the biological father, if he had no knowledge of it, and therefore didn't either directly or implicitly waive parental rights.) And when adopting the adoptive parents are under no obligation to take custody of the baby until the time period for reconsideration has passed - my roommate was adopted; she lived with Community Services until she was 3 months old specifically for that reason. When you're adopting, you are taking someone else's child. It is a big thing. If you can change your mind after buying a car, you certainly deserve some room after that decision. 3 months is not particularly onerous.
VenusGoddess
12-11-2006, 11:34 AM
Well, Baby Richard had a claim filed within 30 days of his adoption - more or less as soon as the biological father found out of his existence, when he was about 6 weeks old. And the initial decision against him was largely based on the court performing that weighing that courts are specifically NOT meant to do in these cases - not determining that the biological father was unfit, but determining that the adoptive parents were "more fit" - usually meaning that they are wealthier. So the biological parents cannot make a claim 4 years after the fact (I don't know about the biological father, if he had no knowledge of it, and therefore didn't either directly or implicitly waive parental rights.) And when adopting the adoptive parents are under no obligation to take custody of the baby until the time period for reconsideration has passed - my roommate was adopted; she lived with Community Services until she was 3 months old specifically for that reason. When you're adopting, you are taking someone else's child. It is a big thing. If you can change your mind after buying a car, you certainly deserve some room after that decision. 3 months is not particularly onerous.
Well, there was no claim in the Baby Richard case until almost 3 months AFTER the adoption (he was placed with his adoptive family when he was 4 days old). But, it comes down to the fact that biological parents are still given "consideration" over the "object" (the child) for several years AFTER the adoption. The American courts still treat children as things that you fight over in court (like custody battles between divorcing parties). There are many more cases where the courts order an adoptive family of a baby/child back to the biological family. There is no consideration for the EMOTIONAL well-being for a child...only for the biological parents.
I have friends who spent 4 years worrying if the biological mother of their child would go back and try to get T back. She was bi-polar...and so one day she was fine with the adoption and others she was not. Chances that she would have been sucessful in regaining custody of T would be very slim as she voluntarily terminated her parental rights...but after spending over $40,000 to adopt T, the threat of a lawsuit (and hiring lawyers to represent them and T) would be more than they could financially handle...even if the adoption was not over-turned.
So, its not JUST that the biological parents can "win" back the child...its that the attempt to do so can be more than the adoptive family can financially handle. Adopting a child from another nation by-passes all of that. I am sure that if there was a "guarantee" that the biological parents could not, in any way, interfere with the "new family" at all...there would be an even higher adoption rate of US born children than there is now.
I was thinking about what I wrote earlier...and I'm going to take it back (about the "perfect" vision of a family). Not everyone wants a blond hair, blue eyed baby...otherwise, they wouldn't be adopting Russian, Ukrainian, Asian, etc. babies. They want a child they know is going to be there with their family for a lifetime. And, personally, they deserve that reassurance...and until the US can give that assurance to the families of US adoptive parents of US born children...there will be kids in the system until they are legal (18 ).
Jenny
12-11-2006, 12:11 PM
Well, there was no claim in the Baby Richard case until almost 3 months AFTER the adoption (he was placed with his adoptive family when he was 4 days old).
Are you sure? My understanding was that it was within the requisite 30 days of the adoption. Even if it is accurate - 3 months is well within a reasonable time of changing your mind pretty much anywhere. Yes, there may be hardship for the adoptive parents (which is why they don't have to take custody until the time period is up); I feel bad about it. However, I cannot think that three months to change your mind about giving up your child is asking a lot. The trial judge was wrong - very wrong, superlatively wrong; you might as well argue though that the adoptive parents were selfish and wrong for fighting the custody battle when they knew perfectly well that there was no parental surrender on the father's part, and he made a claim at such a early stage (3 months is far, far cry from 4 years).
But, it comes down to the fact that biological parents are still given "consideration" over the "object" (the child) for several years AFTER the adoption.
I'm not sure that is true. Either the fact that they are given consideration - if there is a valid surrender, and the time has passed to change your mind, you don't get to change it back. That is well, well established - or that it is their feelings. As I said - there is a strong presumption in our society that children are best raised, best off etc. with their parents - and because parenthood is defined, at least initially as biological there is a strong presumption in the courts as well as society that biologicial parents are the best parents for their children.
The American courts still treat children as things that you fight over in court (like custody battles between divorcing parties). There are many more cases where the courts order an adoptive family of a baby/child back to the biological family. There is no consideration for the EMOTIONAL well-being for a child...only for the biological parents.
Well, there are concerns over incidences in which there was no real surrender. I wouldn't say in those cases that there is no consideration for the emotional well being of the child - I would say that there are other important considerations in play - like creating a system that doesn't reward coerced, forged or faked surrender of children.
By the way - what do you think is a viable alternative? I mean to treating children like "things" in court? I mean, we readily accept and understand that children - particularly young children - are not well able to make the best choices for themselves, so letting them decide will not be an effective remedy. In custody issues, the best interests of the children are paramount, but within certain paramaters (like I said - I don't think any of us would be comfortable with a world in which the best interests of the children trumped the bonds between them and their parents. Otherwise next time a particularly wealthy and socially well established couple looked at your daughter with a covetous eye, they could bring a suit and probably easily prove that your daughter will be better off with them in the long run. I mean, being the parent obviously means something to us).
So, its not JUST that the biological parents can "win" back the child...its that the attempt to do so can be more than the adoptive family can financially handle. Adopting a child from another nation by-passes all of that. I am sure that if there was a "guarantee" that the biological parents could not, in any way, interfere with the "new family" at all...there would be an even higher adoption rate of US born children than there is now.
Well, I personally doubt it. The cases in which there is custodial interference by a biological parent are a tiny, teeny, eeny little minority. The vast majority are never seen again. And those that become issues, become issues because there was something not-kosher about the adoption proceedings. I don't think that is the super over riding concern or you wouldn't have cases of people trying to buy babies, etc. I tend to agree with the above posters that it has to do with the age people want their children, the race, and issues of health.
I was thinking about what I wrote earlier...and I'm going to take it back (about the "perfect" vision of a family). Not everyone wants a blond hair, blue eyed baby...otherwise, they wouldn't be adopting Russian, Ukrainian, Asian, etc. babies. They want a child they know is going to be there with their family for a lifetime. And, personally, they deserve that reassurance...and until the US can give that assurance to the families of US adoptive parents of US born children...there will be kids in the system until they are legal (18 ).
Sure, they deserve it; and the best way to get that reassurance is to have a system that stringently supervises the waiver of the parental rights of the biological parents, not one that that just ignores it, or bypasses it as a detail.
Xiomara
12-11-2006, 12:14 PM
U ladies know a lot of stuff! I gotta pay attentionto news more!
sophiemarie
12-11-2006, 12:41 PM
If you don't wany kids then don't have them. Abortion is a great thing and Giod forbid if it was ever taken away from women.
It is no ones opinion other than your own what you do with your body.8)
VegasPrincess
12-11-2006, 12:42 PM
Okay, I personally think that is rediculous. I am all for abortion, but I mean, what the fuck? That's like getting 7 tattoos, and always getting them lasered off immediately after. Okay, maybe that's a bad analogy, but I don't understand why she thinks she should do this instead of going on birth control or using a condomn. The human body is just not designed to sustain surgical procedure after surgical procedure, I mean...that just seems like a bizzare and emotionally disturbed thing to do.
KahleighStar
12-11-2006, 01:26 PM
... but I don't understand why she thinks she should do this instead of going on birth control or using a condomn. The human body is just not designed to sustain surgical procedure after surgical procedure, I mean...that just seems like a bizzare and emotionally disturbed thing to do.
I agree. My friend's new gf (who is 17--he's 21 and I'm not even going to go into why I think he should do something about the whole thing being older/"most mature" or whatever) won't go on birth control because she's "too embarassed" to go to planned parenthood and get on the pill because "people would see her going in there"--she says she'd rather get an abortion if she gets pregnant. They don't use condoms or a morning-after pill---nothing. It just seems like the obvious choice--suck it up, go to the clinic (if someone sees you 95% of them aren't going to give a shit), go on the pill or SOMETHING (esp if you're able to get it fully paid for by being under 18 or due to a financial situation). There's just a lot of rampant ignorance out there I believe...
sophiemarie
12-11-2006, 01:46 PM
I got a free abortion at Planned Parenthood in BK last month. I felt bad about it because my BF wanted the baby but I am just not ready for that. And I am 31.:-\ But sometimes you have to do what you feel is best even if it's the 13th time. Be honest with yourself about things.
I still feel guilt to this day about the abotion but I had to.:-\
Izabella
12-11-2006, 02:56 PM
Going back to someone who asked about what pro-choice means, it means more than having the choice of having an adoption or not, it is about having control over your reproductive rights whether that means losing a fetus OR keeping it. In the early 1900s women with disabilities were forcibly sterilized so as to not pass on their disability to their children. During Hitler's regime, the same thing happened. Even now, a lot of women who find out they will have a child with disabilities is often pressured to have an abortion, something that has made a lot of people with disabilties pro-life or anti-choice . Now, in China, there is is still the one child law where women are forced to have abortions if they get pregnant a second time with one child. For these women, the issue isn't the choice to have abortions, but to be able to stay and get pregnant. Of course, in the west, it is the opposite.
And going back to what some said about racial differences: so true. When it wasn't permissible, acceptable for single women to be pregnant, white women were encouraged to have adoptions, while women of color were encouraged to have illegal and dangerous abortions. And the same thing still happens now.
Health wise, going back to the oringal topic. It is infact unlikely that this women would now ever be able to carry a baby to term. The more abortions you have, the more likely you are to miscarriage. If she decided one day to keep the baby, it would be very unlikely that she would be able to carry it to term. I agree with using abortion as birth control is sad, but ultimately it is her choice. Limiting choice is a slipperly slope. Once you start, it doesn't stop.
kittenkat
12-11-2006, 03:01 PM
Having one a lot of research on women's reproductive decisions and also having worked in a clinic- both my experience and statistical numbers tell a stroy that most women don't share and don't know. Half of all abortions in this country are women that have had an abortion before. The majority ( over half of hose that have had multiple abortions) of multiple abortions are the result of CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURES. In fact, a woman that has been consistently sexually active and predominantly relies on a barrier (not hormonal) method (condom, sponge, diaphragm, etc) for birth control- it is considered a *REALISTIC* expectation within a 20 year span for her to get pregnant once every 4 years based on contraceptive failure alone (and this is AFTER factoring in the chance of a miscarriages). If she does not want kids at all- that's a real possibility of 5 abortions. Knowing how freakin' difficult it is to get sterilized as a young woman... I used to feel the same way about multiple abortions. Then I started looking at data, working at clinics, and talking to women. In fact, over half of the women that have multiple abortions are women (with or without kids) USING birth control.
Considering that I cannot take hormonal birth control- and that this is not uncommon either- it's really a gross misrepresentation of reality, a travesty and a tragedy that many women have about birth control, abortin and sterilization in this country. It's really easy to point a finger at someone. I've seen some screwed up and irresponsible women come through the clinic that were in need of help and therapy. On the other hand, a lot women I did see were hard-working women trying to provide for family an/or self. The picture of multiple abortions in this country is not the woman that refuses to use birth control- that's statistically a FACT. The face of multiple abortions in this country is a woman working hard to make ends meet and trying to do the best they can for themselves and family.
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/28366/
^^is a great fucking article. I've had multiple abortions, I do not regret any of them, and I have used contraceptives religiously. If people want to judge me on that, they can STFU and go back to their glass houses.
kittenkat
12-11-2006, 03:21 PM
Even now, a lot of women who find out they will have a child with disabilities is often pressured to have an abortion, something that has made a lot of people with disabilties pro-life or anti-choice .
I've met several people from this camp, and I have far more sympathy for them than the average anti-choicer. That said, I feel that they should be focusing on working on expanding social services for families with disabled children that will realistically allow families to care for diabled kids. It's not often said, but one of the main concern for parents when they learn about their wanted pregnancy having issues of medical and mental disability is the financial burden. Unfortunately, the financial burden in very real, especially considering the fact that millins of families in the US have no health insurance. Children with medical disabilities often do need extensive medical care- of which even middle class families often cannot afford. Those with mental and medical disabilities also often need help and supervision- which is often unaffordable for middle class families, especially for families where both parents must work to make the bills- because it often means having to pay for specialized care for the life of the child when the parents are at work. Also, many parents worry about their children not receiving adequate care after they die... which can be a real concern for parents with diabled kids. Also, there are emotional issues and pain of having a child that is actively marginalized by society. Considering the lack of good facilities that deal with the disabled in this country, many parents make a very difficult choice of abortion WANTED pregnancies out of a very realistic concern of being able to provide care and wanting their children to become independent and have a good life. Just as some people are not cut out to be parents, many are not cut out to bear the burden that society places on parents and people with disabilities. The cold, hard fact is that many parents cannot afford the emotional and financial obstacles of having a child with a disability, and without addressing a way to ease those obstacles, the pro-life disabled activists are barking up the wrong fucking tree. Being pro-life will absolutely address none of the concerns above, and doing so while ignoring the financial and emotional burdens of the caretakers only breed misery for both parents and children that struggle to provide adequate care for their disabled children.
tootsie
12-11-2006, 08:12 PM
I am in complete shock that the majority of you agree with what she is doing! I think she is very irresponsible, it's no big deal to her. it's like "o i'm pregnant again, gotta hurry and get off my ass and get a job to get yet another abortion that i don't even know who the father is AGAIN" I just hope this abortion fucks her insides up, or even being fatal to her.
WyldKat
12-11-2006, 08:13 PM
I got a free abortion at Planned Parenthood in BK last month. I felt bad about it because my BF wanted the baby but I am just not ready for that. And I am 31.:-\ But sometimes you have to do what you feel is best even if it's the 13th time. Be honest with yourself about things.
I still feel guilt to this day about the abotion but I had to.:-\
Sophiemarie, the fact that you feel something about your abortion means that is not just an inconvience for you. I think that is a good thing. The women I worry about are the ones who treat it like its nothing.
Abortion is a serious, real thing that we do to our bodies. We shouldn't undertake it lightly or do it without some real thought. Its one thing that once you do it, you can never take it back. It is surgery after all, minor surgery, but still surgery.
Emily
12-11-2006, 08:15 PM
I am in complete shock that the majority of you agree with what she is doing! I think she is very irresponsible, it's no big deal to her. it's like "o i'm pregnant again, gotta hurry and get off my ass and get a job to get yet another abortion that i don't even know who the father is AGAIN" I just hope this abortion fucks her insides up, or even being fatal to her.
I think the majority of us think it's irresponsible, but it's not our judgment call to make. It's her life and her body, and if she wants to abuse it, it's her right.
Bridgette
12-11-2006, 08:23 PM
If we're gonna limit the number of abortions people can get, then we might as well stop allowing people to get them at all. Who gets to say what number is too many, and what gives THEM the authority? And who says THAT judgment is best? I think that's bogus.
If some chic can't get it together to use proper BC, and chooses abortions, IMO that's HER problem and no one else's. Yeah, she'd be wise to use better BC, but I'm not gonna be the one to tell her that she can't have this abortion, or the next, because she's had x number already. Let people live their lives already. It's not your problem.
WyldKat
12-11-2006, 08:24 PM
But again that is not the way it works - it is not the way we view our children. Like you would never imagine telling a middle class couple to give up their newborn baby to a very wealthy couple because it would be in child's best interests to be wealthy. We don't view that couple who would certainly say no to such a proposition as selfish - we view them as fundamentally normal. We don't look at children and imagine the "best case scenario" and then put them in that scenario - we have a strong presumption that children are better off with their parents, and equally a strong presumption that people WANT their children. Wanting to keep your children through financial hardship is not selfish - it is fundamentally normal and human.
Yes but I'm not refering to financial hardship. Its not about money. I'm talking about mothers and fathers who are drug addicts, or who ignore or abuse their children. They get pregnant and then instead of giving up their child, they either keep the child and let the poor thing grow up in that environment, or let them go to foster care in and out indefinitely until they turn 18.
Some parents view their children as objects, as a source of attention and unconditional love. they expect their kids to take care of them, run the house for them, pay their bills as soon as they can work.
A friend of mine is pregnant again, she has 3 kids and this will be her 7th abrtion, she had one already this year. Isn't there a limit or a law for mis use of abortion? Another thing, she doesn't know who the father of this baby is either!
I think the saddest thing about this woman you mentioned tootsie is how little she thinks of herself.
The abortions, irresponsibility, and insanity is just the symptoms of a deep emptiness within her.
kittenkat
12-11-2006, 08:48 PM
There's a difference with thinking that it's a perfectly wonderful thing to do, and saying that it's not my body so it's not my business. I fall into the latter camp.
Seriously, if you're so upset with this woman, cut off contact- but really- you want her to have a fatal abortion and leave her kids orphaned? That, IMHO, is pretty sick. Schadenfreude, anyone?
Jenny
12-11-2006, 08:56 PM
Yes but I'm not refering to financial hardship. Its not about money. I'm talking about mothers and fathers who are drug addicts, or who ignore or abuse their children. They get pregnant and then instead of giving up their child, they either keep the child and let the poor thing grow up in that environment, or let them go to foster care in and out indefinitely until they turn 18.
Again - barring abuse, I hesitate to think that you are in a good position to make declarations on how people who deserve to raise their own children act. If there is abuse, the children are (in theory) removed already. If you're arguing that social services needs better funding and more workers - word. I agree. I maintain that wanting to keep your children, even if you are severely flawed is not selfish, but fundamentally normal. It is not just "good" parents that love their children. Believe it or not, addicts do too.
If you're concerned about people ignoring their children - I mean, no offence, but saying that has nothing to do with money is absurd. I doubt you feel like upper middle class or wealthy couples who ignore their children should be obligated to adopt them out. When people discuss better parenting options for children they are ALWAYS discussing money.
tootsie
12-11-2006, 09:31 PM
There's a difference with thinking that it's a perfectly wonderful thing to do, and saying that it's not my body so it's not my business. I fall into the latter camp.
Seriously, if you're so upset with this woman, cut off contact- but really- you want her to have a fatal abortion and leave her kids orphaned? That, IMHO, is pretty sick. Schadenfreude, anyone?
just as sick as her 7th abortion.
NinaDaisy
12-11-2006, 09:37 PM
When people discuss better parenting options for children they are ALWAYS discussing money.
Not necessarily. Even rich abusers or drug addicts can lose their kids, I've seen it happen. I also know a few people here in NYC that grew up in the lap of luxury (as in their parents had tens of millions or more). Some were basically raised by nannies and then sent to boarding school in Switzerland (although boarding school on its own isn't bad) and didn't really know their parents. Others who did have pretty doting parents despite all the wealth.
Neglect often happens, of course, because of poverty. A parent (or even two) have to work long hours possibly at more than one job each just to make ends meet.
The whole thing just seems to simple to me: if you don't want to get pregnant, use birth control. CORRECTLY! If it fails and you don't want kids, don't have them. Either get an abortion or give them up for adoption.
I don't think most people here "agree" with a woman who has had 7 abortions. Most of us think it's kind of appalling but it's not our choice, it's hers.
Lysondra
12-11-2006, 09:43 PM
just as sick as her 7th abortion.
I'd rather see someone innocent dead than tortured.
Dottie Rebel
12-12-2006, 12:26 AM
I just hope this abortion fucks her insides up, or even being fatal to her.
Wow. You wish her dead. THAT is fucking sick.
kittenkat
12-12-2006, 01:23 AM
Tootsie,
Why don't you simply cut off all contact with her so you don't have to deal with her anymore? By all means, I think it's a smarter choice for people-Men and women- to use available and medically tolerable birth control. By all means, this woman doesn't sound like a role model. I doubt anyone here- and I can def. speak for myself- *agree* with what she's doing. However, I find it kind of... shocking that you would wish bodily harm and death on this woman that you call friend. First, that's kind of the same mentality as people that bomb family planning clinics and shoot doctors. When it comes down to it, it's a control and anger issue. I think this woman seriously infuriates you and that's a good cause to not be friends anymore and deal with her bullshit?
Nakedtruth
12-12-2006, 01:55 AM
It sounds like if she continues on the way you imply, she very well may die (disease, complications, suicide due to depression, etc), you don't want to think to yourself, "my god, I wished it on her", do you? Love her if you can, part ways if you must, but please don't wish death on her. What she is doing angers many of us, too, but it also sounds like something has gone terribly wrong in her mind, her emotions, or both, if she is having unprotected sex with strangers and terminating pregnancies, one after another. If you can't help her (and it sounds like you can't), help yourself; walk away.
I have an opinion, as you all know. And I dont care if you all agree with it or not. So .. I am going to say it ...
This girl is scum! I dont care why, what, how , or anything else. i agree that some people get rapped, and they want an abortion, I would too. I also agree that some people are whores and fuck everything they meet without care for the consequences of their actions. I have sex. I have sex often. I have sex for recreational purposes. I am not ready for a child. If I were to get pregnant, I would know who daddy is. If I were to get pregnant, it would not be the end of the world.
If I were to get pregnant, I would accept the consequences of my actions and raise my child the best I could.
Seven abortions is one thing and one thing only, 10 pregnancys ... god only knows how many daddies, its fucking SICK!!
There is something out there for everyone. lamb skin condoms, birth control, not fucking every guy you meet. I know a good form of BC .. its called a Vibrator.
If you are not responsable for acceptng the consequences of your actions, maybe you are nt respnosible enough to be performing those actions. Mistakes happen, tragedies happen, then stupid happens.
i am not condeming everyone for having abortions or willing to get one if the situation was right. I would get one under some situations. I also would stop having sex with strangers. that would be a good start.
Look, I disagree with a lot of what you all have said. I agree with a lot of it too. I think abortion is wrong in most cases. I also think it is wrong that people have kids that they dont take care of and love. So what is the middle ground? I dont know. I dont have an answer. there is no such thing as a perfect world. No matter what we say on here, or what anyone says to this girl, she is not ever going to stop her behavior because of the kind of person she is. yes, I am judgemental. i make judgements based on other peoples decisions. if i dont like the decisions someone makes, I probably dont like them, and that is judging. OH fucking well. It sickens me that people act the way they do sometimes. I am 100% against abortion. but I wouldnt tell someone else that they are bad people for doing it. I might try to persuade them out of it but only because for most people I think there are other options.
I dont stand in front of clinics with signs. But I dont go to them either. i dont preach at others for them doing things that i feel are wrong. i have the right to feel it is wrong. They have the right to disagree. I am in no way trying to make other people feel the same way I do. I am jsut saying how it is that I do feel.
I think, that this girl is sick. i know a girl that has 3 kids and at least 7 abortions. I am not sure she could remember how many exactly she has had. I think it is disgusting. I would never be around her but we work together. So i dotn have a lot of choice there. i dont preach at her about it. If anything is brought up about it I simply say that it isnt a conversation that I want to get into with her. Lets just agree to disagree.
This is the way I see it. i think she is scum. i also would not be upset or think it was sad if she were to die from the abortion. I kinda think she deserves to. But on the same hand, i wouldnt go to her house and be a bitch to her. i would not be a bitch to any of you for the decisions you all make that I might disagree with. It really does not concern me. that dosent mean that in the privacy of my own home I am not allowed to express my opinion. it also does not mean that I am not allowed to express my opinion anywhere else. But i also disagree with harrasing others that differ from you.
I would only say something to a person like this because I care about people. I think with compassion, she might see how to change for the better. She might see that someone cares about her and would like her to make better choices in life.
I am terrible at writing this stuff because I get all frustrated and off topic.
My point is ...
I 100% disagree with abortion in most situations. I do see situations where I see that it was best. Would I do it? Not if I made the choice to have sex. Would I yell and scream at someone for doing it? Nope. Would I try to discourage the behavior? yup.
I think it is wrong. I also think a lot of other things are wrong. if someone asks for my opinion, I will give it. I wont sugar coat it for anyone.
And when people that I know make choices that I feel strongly against, i choose not to be around that person any more. When I have to, i try to be civil by not speaking to them. But I avoid the situation.
ok .. Flame away.