Abortion

[KageSora]

I like this quote I found on Tumblr:

 

Abortion seems to be the only medical procedure that people want to deny you based on how you got in that situation.

 

Drove drunk, got in an accident and need an organ transplant? No problem.

 

Messing around with a gun, accidentally shoot yourself in the leg and need surgery? Of course.

 

Smoke tobacco for most of your life and need treatment for lung cancer? Yep.

 

Climb a tree, fall out and break your leg? We’ll fix that right up.

 

Have sex and get pregnant when you don’t want to be? YOU GOT YOURSELF INTO THIS SITUATION AND YOU DESERVE NO MEDICAL HELP OR COMPASSION! THIS IS YOUR FAULT AND YOU WILL DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES!

[Kai]

My favorite variant involves a cooler with (a large number here) say 500 frozen eggs ready to be implanted. Burning building, you can only save the 500 eggs or the one living child.

I don't see the point of confusing things with numbers and leaving it open to continuum arguments.

[PointOfOrigin]

I don't see the point of confusing things with numbers and leaving it open to continuum arguments.

And I think that numbers really hit home there. After all, most people would save an already living baby instead of 500 potential babies. Objectively speaking, 500 hundred lives is more important.

[St. Jimmy]

Mother regrets having her children.

 

As if we needed any proof that the "oh, you'll love it when it's born!" thing is BS.

[skinst]

Mother regrets having her children.

 

As if we needed any proof that the "oh, you'll love it when it's born!" thing is BS.

The comments disgust me.

[TikindiDragon]

The comments disgust me.

I'm quite perplexed by the person saying "She should think about people who can't have children before saying this.". Uh, why? The ability to have children does not translate into the desire to have them - and no one should feel obligated to do so because there are people out there who can't.

 

That said... I can understand the people saying that, perhaps, this was better not published. It's a worthy sentiment, but it's perhaps one her children didn't need to hear. I can see it being quite a personally devastating blow, and I've always thought that one should avoid doing something if you know it's going to hurt someone.

[Svataben]

I'm quite perplexed by the person saying "She should think about people who can't have children before saying this.". Uh, why? The ability to have children does not translate into the desire to have them - and no one should feel obligated to do so because there are people out there who can't.

 

That said... I can understand the people saying that, perhaps, this was better not published. It's a worthy sentiment, but it's perhaps one her children didn't need to hear. I can see it being quite a personally devastating blow, and I've always thought that one should avoid doing something if you know it's going to hurt someone.

I just wish she'd have kept her judgemental sentiments to herself.

As if there is something wrong with having just one child. How dare she?

[KageSora]

I think it's a good thing it was published--now we have something like this we can share with people who insist that "you have a uterus, you'll love kids when you pop them out--even if they're rape babies! You absolutely will form that 100% guaranteed mother-child bond!"

 

Because no, not all of us are capable of doing that.

 

This article... Really hit home for me. If I ever have a kid, I'm 90% sure that I will end up like this women--I will be able to care for them as fellow humans, but I will never be able to have that mother-child bond with them.

 

I mostly view kids as cute as long as they're not screaming/crying and I don't have to take care of them.

 

If I think of me raising a kid, and I instantly see babies as screaming poop sacks and older kids as little brats I want to throttle.

 

I absolutely could not raise a kid, and I hate the idea of being told I will love it simply because I have a uterus.

 

So I think having an article like this is good.

 

It probably would have been better to change names and to leave out the pictures so the kids won't be upset if they read it (unless they already know? Is that a possibility or did it say they never knew?)

 

I also think it's good for outlining the importance of finding somebody you're compatible with in the "number of children" department. If they have their heart set on having kids and you want to kill every child you see, then even if you're compatible in every other way it's probably not a great fit because kids are a huge decision and if a parent doesn't want them... Then there's going to be resentment and strain in the family.

[vintageandroid]

This article's being discussed in my other board, and it was pointed out that it's from the Daily Fail and probably largely fiction, designed to offend as many people as possible. (The fact that she's both saying how she didn't want her kids AND how selfish it is for mothers to go back to work, etc., seems tailor-made for that purpose.) HOWEVER, the sentiment isn't exactly as uncommon as people think it is.

 

Also, I wonder if the commenters would be so up in arms about it if it were a guy. Men are allowed to have little to no parenting instinct or interest--women aren't.

[Slaskia]

Kage I think it was heavily implied that her two kids at least suspected her true feelings, if not flat out knew by that time she wrote the article.

 

It was very obvious that some of the negative commenters never even read the article and just commented based on the headline/quote text.

 

That said, I totally get the woman's feelings: I don't have a maternal bone in my body, though much like her I wouldn't want to see another human being suffering (certain types of criminals exempted from this, of course), especially kids. Just don't expect 'me' to try to raise any. I value my independence way too much: hell I have issues as is leaving with family right now....(Them: 'You need to get out of the house for a bit'. Me: 'no, I don't want to go out and about today! Leave me alone!')

Edited April 12, 2013 by Slaskia

[Riverwillows]

My best friend in childhood, always knew she didn't want kids. Not that she didn't like them, just didn't want to have them. I was different, I wanted to be a mom from the get go. When she turned 18, she got her tubes tied. I got married and had 3 kids. I'd have had more if I could have.

 

We are both in our late 40's now, and both of us are happy with our decision. She's happily married to a man who shares her feelings. She loves and adores her nieces and nephews, but is glad she doesn't have any. She has no regrets. And neither do I for my choices in this.

 

She got a lot of flak when she got her operation, everyone said she'd regret it. I had to respect a person who KNEW they didn't want kids, and then made sure she couldn't have any that she wouldn't want. Gotta respect a person like that, not afraid to know what she wants, and then do it.

[TikindiDragon]

My best friend in childhood, always knew she didn't want kids. Not that she didn't like them, just didn't want to have them. I was different, I wanted to be a mom from the get go. When she turned 18, she got her tubes tied. I got married and had 3 kids. I'd have had more if I could have.

 

We are both in our late 40's now, and both of us are happy with our decision. She's happily married to a man who shares her feelings. She loves and adores her nieces and nephews, but is glad she doesn't have any. She has no regrets. And neither do I for my choices in this.

 

She got a lot of flak when she got her operation, everyone said she'd regret it. I had to respect a person who KNEW they didn't want kids, and then made sure she couldn't have any that she wouldn't want. Gotta respect a person like that, not afraid to know what she wants, and then do it.

I am so jealous. I've been asking if they'd do that to me for over a decade now, and the answer is still 'no' every time.

[KageSora]

Kage I think it was heavily implied that her two kids at least suspected her true feelings, if not flat out knew by that time she wrote the article.

I agree, but lots of people seem to be of the "that's horrible it must be agonizing for her kids!" mindset...

 

 

Personally, I kinda agree with the "it's selfish to want to pop out a kid then want to get back to your life as fast as you can" attitude. (NOT if you have to get back to work to afford to care for your kid--that's different than "okay, popped it out, back to life as usual!")

 

But, I think that is seen a lot in younger moms these days because people are having kids without realizing just how huge a responsibility and drain on resources it IS to have a kid.

 

 

I had a class on human sexuality, and one of the assignments was to take care of one of those fake babies. Though the program was too broke to get the kind that actually cry so they were just crappy dolls. I fully planned to chuck it in my back seat and BS my way through the assignment.

 

But the teacher allowed me and one other classmate to do an alternative because we were both adamant in our refusal to participate if at all possible because we knew we didn't want kids--I specifically cited that I didn't want kids because it would take too much money and too much time that I like having to myself. And that I didn't have the temperament to be a parent.

 

My other classmate got out of it by specifically stating that he wasn't having a kid because of genetic issues that he was absolutely not saddling a poor innocent kid with.

 

The only reason we were allowed an alt assignment was because we had solid reasons readily prepared for why we didn't want kids.

 

Another classmate didn't want to do it, but didn't actually have a reason other than "I don't wanna do it", and ended up forced to do it because they didn't really have the ability to demonstrate that they knew what having a kid would mean in their life.

 

But a lot of people DON'T seem to realize that. They don't realize how much time it takes. How many nights you'll be getting little to no sleep (made worse if you're raising the kid without help!), how you won't be able to go out partying with friends, how things like activities and clubs and even going to church will get pushed aside to care for a newborn or a sick child or just to recover because for once you have a bit of silence.

 

Then don't realize how expensive it is to care for a child--and that's a healthy child, it's even pricier if your kid gets sick or has some kind of disability. And if you want to go out and party, then you have to budget for childcare which isn't exactly cheap.

 

And we never even covered all the child-proofing you have to do, how you have to raise the kid the do's and don't's of child rearing. How you have to be constantly alert to make sure they don't swallow something toxic or put something in their mouth and choke or they don't knock something over and get hurt or run into something or fall off something or if you have a pet how you need to make sure they don't get hurt by the pet--or that they don't hurt the pet.

 

There's just... It's exhausting me to just think of how much work having a kid would be, much less actually having a kid...

Edited April 13, 2013 by KageSora

[vintageandroid]

Personally, I kinda agree with the "it's selfish to want to pop out a kid then want to get back to your life as fast as you can" attitude.  (NOT if you have to get back to work to afford to care for your kid--that's different than "okay, popped it out, back to life as usual!")

It's not necessarily returning back to the life before kids. But it's not always about finances, either. Some moms just want to work, love their jobs, want some time without kids, etc. A healthy, happy parent means healthy, happy kids. Don't get me wrong--I do think once you have kids they should be top priority, but that means different things for different moms and dads.

 

I say this being fully aware that I do NOT want kids, don't have the right attitude for parenting, and have a mental illness that, for me at least, means I probably SHOULDN'T have kids.

Edited April 13, 2013 by vintageandroid

[Svataben]

Personally, I kinda agree with the "it's selfish to want to pop out a kid then want to get back to your life as fast as you can" attitude.

Just the mum's, or do you want the dads to go on part time too?

 

Because really, having a child does not include giving up your entire life, personality and interests. Not for women as much as not for men.

 

Parents who work are not worse parents than parents who don't.

 

 

[Syaoransbear]

My SIL sends her kids to daycare. Those kids bring home every illness that could possibly be floating around this city. They make everyone constantly sick. They are also horribly misbehaved and cry and throw a tantrum if you even look at them wrong.

[Svataben]

My SIL sends her kids to daycare. Those kids bring home every illness that could possibly be floating around this city. They make everyone constantly sick. They are also horribly misbehaved and cry and throw a tantrum if you even look at them wrong.

Question:

- Does your SIL send them to daycare, as if she's the only one? I mean, isn't your brother sending them to daycare just as much?

 

Comments:

- The illness thing is caused by other parents not keeping sick kids home. This is not a problem everywhere.

- And really, kids don't get badly behaved from going to daycare, that stuff comes from the home. You know, the home where your brother is as responsible as your SIL.

 

I'm sorry if I'm coming at you, but I'm just so tired of this attitude that women, and women only, need to give up everything for their kids, or be branded bad mothers and human beings.

[Syaoransbear]

Question:

- Does your SIL send them to daycare, as if she's the only one? I mean, isn't your brother sending them to daycare just as much?

 

Comments:

- The illness thing is caused by other parents not keeping sick kids home. This is not a problem everywhere.

- And really, kids don't get badly behaved from going to daycare, that stuff comes from the home. You know, the home where your brother is as responsible as your SIL.

 

I'm sorry if I'm coming at you, but I'm just so tired of this attitude that women, and women only, need to give up everything for their kids, or be branded bad mothers and human beings.

She's my husband's sister, not my brother's wife. I say SIL because I really have no idea if my SIL's husband is also my BIL or just my husband's BIL and he's only my SIL's husband, which has absolutely no relation to me. If he had actually been my brother, I would have just said brother. Whichever person is closer to me. You misunderstand it as a gender thing.

 

I just think that if your kids spend most of their time in daycare and then being babysat by their grandparents for the rest of the day, they are going to end up being raised in a way differently than how you would have raised them, and(especially in the case of grandparents) probably in a way you won't like. Personally if I couldn't stay home to raise my kids, I wouldn't have them, because I can't stand misbehaved children and I don't want to spend my time undoing the bad habits they've picked up from other kids at daycare.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[Svataben]

She's my husband's sister, not my brother's wife. I say SIL because I really have no idea if my SIL's husband is also my BIL or just my husband's BIL and he's only my SIL's husband, which has absolutely no relation to me. If he had actually been my brother, I would have just said brother. Whichever person is closer to me. You misunderstand it as a gender thing.

 

I just think that if your kids spend most of their time in daycare and then being babysat by their grandparents for the rest of the day, they are going to end up being raised in a way differently than how you would have raised them, and(especially in the case of grandparents) probably in a way you won't like. Personally if I couldn't stay home to raise my kids, I wouldn't have them, because I can't stand misbehaved children and I don't want to spend my time undoing the bad habits they've picked up from other kids at daycare.

Ok, I can see the misunderstanding, and I'm sorry.

I do still wonder, though, why you'd only mention one parent and not both, if they live together, but I'm guessing that's just us being different.

 

Anyway, if kids are with other people for a work-day, that'd be 8-9 hours out of 24 and not on weekends, so hardly most of the day.

(I'm trying to keep it general here, since you family's particular case is individual, and should not be used to judge all parents who go back to work.)

[Syaoransbear]

Ok, I can see the misunderstanding, and I'm sorry.

I do still wonder, though, why you'd only mention one parent and not both, if they live together, but I'm guessing that's just us being different.

 

Anyway, if kids are with other people for a work-day, that'd be 8-9 hours out of 24 and not on weekends, so hardly most of the day.

(I'm trying to keep it general here, since you family's particular case is individual, and should not be used to judge all parents who go back to work.)

It's mostly just sheer laziness about having to type out the other parent's relation to me because using names wouldn't make much sense unless people here knew them . It seems obvious to me that I mean both parents, but I should be more clear. And besides laziness, I probably focused on my SIL because physically she is the one that takes them to daycare by driving them there.

 

You can't really teach kids anything when they are sleeping though, and the kids go to bed at 8pm and get up 7-8am. They are 3 and 5, I'm not sure if that much sleep is normal for kids that age. Beyond supper time and the weekend(where a lot of the time they end up being babysat by my MIL and FIL), that doesn't seem like much time to really do anything with them.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[philpot123]

Kermit Gosnell

 

What he did... would it have been right if done a couple months earlier in the pregnancy?

[brairtrainer]

Kermit Gosnell

 

What he did... would it have been right if done a couple months earlier in the pregnancy?

Philpot I'm of the opinion that unless he was poorly trained that he would not be performing abortions in this manner.

 

Typically late term abortions performed in the US (which is less than 1% of all abortions) are performed by first euthinzing the fetus while its in the womb. This can be done with pills or needles depending on the patients situation. Late term abortions are typically not done unless the operation is so time critical that doctors have to operate immedeatly.

 

The same story that was being told in your link was the same exact story being told about Tiller after his death (despite first hand accounts from patients, nurses, and doctors who helped along side Tiller refuting the evidence). If Gosnell did indeed opperate while the fetus' could still be viable then he needs to have his medical lisence revoked as part of the court litigation.

 

Now all the information I have on the guy comes from that one link, so if I am mistaken on the situation I'd say what he did was wrong, because he did not follow medical practices for that operation. IF the women had chosen to have abortions earlier in the pregnancy (before viablity) and he'd preformed them accroding to the rules that doctors had to follow then yes I'd say he did his job and did nothing wrong.

[tenyasyugan]

Kermit Gosnell

 

What he did... would it have been right if done a couple months earlier in the pregnancy?

The difference is pretty clear between the two.

 

EDIT: I misread the article. My position still stands, tho. It is against medical practice to abort fully developed fetuses as they are capable of living independently from the mother.

 

Now, if they had been willingly aborted by the mothers months prior, it would have been a different story entirely, as they were yet to be their own independent beings and were still, biologically speaking, growths inside of the mother.

Edited April 13, 2013 by tenyasyugan

[Shienvien]

What he did... would it have been right if done a couple months earlier in the pregnancy?

Firstly, the article provides insufficient information. (How 'late term?' Why done?)

 

Secondly, if to give birth to a viable thing, then kill it, it is no longer abortion.

 

Thirdly, a few months earlier there would have be nothing that could be 'murdered'.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Shienvien

[philpot123]

Firstly, the article provides insufficient information. (How 'late term?' Why done?)

 

Secondly, if to give birth to a viable thing, then kill it, it is no longer abortion.

 

Thirdly, a few months earlier there would have be nothing that could be 'murdered'.

"In Pennsylvania, abortions after 24 weeks of gestation are against the law. Gosnell regularly performed the procedure at 30 weeks of gestation or later."

 

Google helps. Regardless of how he did it, why is it okay to perform an abortion at 24 weeks and not at 30? Let's assume for a second that he DIDN'T deliver babies and then snap their spines with scissors (which is what he's accused of). Let's assume he aborted children in the womb at 7 1/2, 8 months gestation the "proper" way. Is that wrong? Why does viability have anything to do with humanity?

 

A few months earlier there was a living, growing child with a beating heart, just like there was at 8 months.

 

I think we can all agree that the man did disgusting things. People on both sides of the issue are getting worked up over this. I guess I just don't quite understand how it's any more disgusting than any abortion procedure.