Abortion

[Dr. Paine]

I just wanted to say thank you for this - I wish all the pro-lifers I spoke to were this sensible and reasonable about things!

Agreed.

 

/is too braindead/tired to make a more coherent or detailed reply.

[Princess Artemis]

And don't worry, you aren't confrontational! I hope I don't come off that way either, I just enjoy a good, reasonable debate. And yes, I believe that it is better to prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I know the world is not perfect and that legal or not, abortions will occur. I really think that reaching out and helping women with unwanted pregnancies search for other options, or helping prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring is much more beneficial than outright banning all abortion. I dont agree with all the current laws, but I know some won't change. Adoption Isnt the 100% perfect solution nor will it ever be. To me focusing on preventing situations where abortion would be used/"needed" is key! Which is why I support people being on birth control, sterilization being available for those who want it, and an overall attitude supporting safer sex for those not wanting to get pregnant is necessary!

This is a good way about it, seems to me. It's getting at the issue from a different direction; the issue really being people don't want to have children at certain times in their lives.

 

So, thumbs up for a reasonable position.

[Brite]

If having a baby will interrupt your "social life," and you get an abortion, I see this as being selfish. Take responsibility for your actions.

 

An abortion IS taking responsibility.

[Ashes The Second]

Adoption doesn't improve as many lives as it might 'save'. Yes, it's a chance at life but what kind of life is it? A life where you're unloved and unwanted, and have to remember that every day? What about children born to uncaring or neglectful parents, who are too young or just can't/won't otherwise take the right steps to be a parent, and don't have any family to help? I'm sure some girls might be lucky in that regard, but for every one that gets help, there's sure to be another who's kicked out or disowned for getting pregnant. Especially with younger mothers-- their bodies might not even be properly formed to birth a child yet. And you can't pull the 'get sterilized' card for people who have no children, by the way-- as has been discussed, very few doctors will ever sterilize a woman if she's under 35 and/or doesn't have children yet. Should those who never want children just be forced to remain celibate until they're 36? Sex is for far more than reproduction when it comes to the human species-- if it were strictly to make children, we'd have heat cycles like many other animals. It's become a bonding activity as well, something to do for fun and pleasure, and there's nothing wrong with just enjoying it and not wanting a baby to come out of it.

 

Adoption probably saved my life. I do have some health problems, but they are manageable, and understandably come with being adopted. It wasn't that my birth parents didn't love me, it was that they probably could not care for me due to outside reasons. I'll never know, but I know they cared. I'm happy where I am, even if it isn't with them. It may be a poorer alternative to killing a fetus/embryo/egg/ect, but it still a viable option.

[Dauntingale]

Pro-lifers want people to be more responsible, but at the same time they want to ban commonly used forms of birth control. And doctors don't want to sterilize women until they are over 35 with multiple children already. Funny, huh?

 

I don't really see a big difference between aborting a fetus that isn't conscious and not getting pregnant at all. Seems like in both cases a life doesn't live, which seems like the issue people have the biggest problem with.

This. I totally and completely agree with this.

 

Abortion may kill cells that might form a baby, but it isn't conscious. If someone is not economically well-off, they should have a choice to abort.

 

They wouldn't be able to provide the baby with too great a life anyway. Maybe someone who got an abortion would have been an abusive parent. What good is life in that kind of situation?

 

Yes, they could abstain from having sex in the first place. But we're only humans. The only difference between humans and other animals is that our brain is bigger. But our hormones get in the way of our thought process and some things, that we can't help, just happen.

 

I also agree that using protection is practically the same thing as abortion. And that using protection is being responsible.

 

Not saying that everyone should have sex at young ages and all, but... you get the point. Be responsible, but never think you don't have the option of abortion.

 

Just my opinion.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Dauntingale

[Brite]

Take more responsibility, be smart, and PLEASE do not stay in abusive relationships. If your partner will not support your pregnancy, maybe they are the wrong person to be with and they are the problem, not the baby.

 

It's not always that simple. I've talked to women (and a 16 year old) who use to be in bad abusive relationships/marriages and they aborted because they KNEW their partner would control them with the child and constantly be harrassed by them, the other part of the reason was that one of them was in the middle of leaving the man and found out she was pregnant and had to put a dent in the remaining of her savings to get a 400$ abortion because she wouldn't have been able to support it and she knew it would've been a huge mess.

 

But our hormones get in the way of our thought process and some things, that we can't help, just happen.

 

The Catholic school next to my work do not believe in hormones, I kid you not. It's either, have sex to have a baby or don't have sex at all. There's no inbetween and they actually frown upon masturbation, thinking that the person has only lust on their mind, which is the devil to them. There's another problem, people lacking simple scietific common sense.

Edited July 11, 2012 by GhostChilli

[KageSora]

I don't get why so many talk about how horrible the life of a child may be outside of the womb or worry they will die or kill themselves young but while they are in the womb they dont see ending the life as bad. Is it because the baby isn't fully developed? What of it could survive outside of the womb?

I believe that life starts at birth, so in my eyes abortion isn't ending a life that has begun, but rather stopping a life from beginning.

 

If it could survive outside the womb (with or without medical help), I would rather see the abortion be for medical reasons only.

 

 

That said, I don't like nor approve of abortion, and as I've said before and will always say again, I wish we lived in a world where the only time an abortion needed to be performed was because of medical reasons. But I think it should be legal because keeping it in the public view and regulating it is a hell of a lot safer than forcing people to carry children they will hate to term, or going for unsafe illegal abortions, or dumping even more kids into the adoption system.

 

 

So, in my view, an abortion is not irresponsible because it doesn't end a life--it is responsible because it stops an unwanted life from beginning. (Obviously abortions done on otherwise very much wanted children for medical reasons are not included in this belief, because I feel those are in a whole different category since, had everything gone right, they would have gone to term and have loving families that very much wanted them)

 

 

 

Also that said, I agree that helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies is a good thing, and I think a huge part of the problem is a lot of people get absolutely horrible "sex education" (if you can call it that, some of the horror stories I've seen don't come near qualifying as education of any sort), or, hell, even basic reproductive anatomy. I'm fortunate enough to have had a decent education and was able to learn a lot on my own online, but not everybody's in that boat, and it's sad.

 

Giving more information, making proper birth control as accessible to both men and women as possible, is definitely a good thing that can reduce abortion rates.

 

I don't, however, agree with the idea of if you REALLY don't want kids you shouldn't have sex. I do think that you shouldn't have unprotected sex if you don't want kids, but if you and your partner are doing everything you can (short of not having sex) to prevent the pregnancy, I don't see there being anything wrong with getting an abortion if you truly do not want that child. After all, as has been said, sex is not only for procreation, but as a bonding and recreational activity that is healthy to enjoy safely.

 

 

 

I personally prefer the idea of adoption, as I'm adopted myself and am lucky to have a loving family, but the system does need improvement, there's no denying that.

[Dauntingale]

There's another problem, people lacking simple scietific common sense.

Exactly.

 

Religion is religion, but sometimes, it seems a bit overboard.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Dauntingale

[ShinyTomato]

Okay, touching on things quickly.

 

-I believe that they should be more careful about their sexual activity and birth control practices.

 

Unfortunately, we do not, in this country, teach proper birth control and even when we do, it is not an option for everyone, nor is it always effective. Birth control is often tampered with by partners of both genders. Did you know, for example, that over a 25% of abortions occur because a partner lied that they were sterile, or tampered with birth control?

 

If you cant afford it or want to definitely avoid, maybe you should choose not to have sex.

 

So you're suggesting married couples always abstain from sex?

 

Sex exists to create offspring.

 

This is the secondary reason for sex in humans. The primary reason is for bonding purposes. This is why we do not enter heat periods like many mammals, and why sexual desire increases during pregnancy and post-menopause. We are hard-wired to need sex in order to bond.

 

-If your partner/spouse is abusive, GET OUT of the relationship.

 

Hardest thing in the world to do.

 

f sex outside of marriage did not occur, the amount of abortions here would shrink tremendously as well

 

No, it wouldn't. The number of married women, or women in serious, long-term committed relationships aborting is steadily increasing.

 

Again, we are in a sexual culture and people as young as 11 and 12 are having sex.

 

This has less to do with culture and more to do with biology. I'm not saying culture doesn't add it's own points to it, but hormonally, children are maturing faster and faster. A sixteen year old now is the same place hormonally that a woman of 22 was in 1952.

 

Look at other options, adoption, daycare, seeing if others will help to take care of the child.

 

Adoption is always touted as this great option, and it's not. Too few children are adopted to make it, a good option for the child -- which is what I think matters.

 

For all of the reasons above, adoption seems to me to be one of the best options. There are many couples willing to adopt, actively searching and finding an adoption agency/people willing to adopt/relatives willing to adopt is the best thing you can do, especially if you feel you can't give the best care to the child. So many couples and others want to adopt because they can't have kids or other reasons, all it may take is a little effort on your part and can be the best situation for you and your child!

 

Please, stop spreading this story -- it's toxic and hurts to many people. Adoption is a horrible process, that is racist and biased in so many different ways and people who say this often mean well without understanding the system.

 

Only 2-3% of children given up for adoption will be adopted. (2010 Social Services Survey and Census of Adoption and Foster Systems in the United States)

 

Further, for quality of life of those not adopted:

 

1 in 3 will tell a social worker that they wish they had been aborted. 16% of those under 12 will attempt to commit suicide and fail. another 9% will succeed. Of those that fail, 86% will attempt again, even if removed from the foster family they were with at the time. In foster kids 12-18, 82% will attempt suicide before aging out, of those who do not die prior to reaching 18. in 94% of these cases, they will state that they wish they had never been born, or wish they had been aborted.

 

(United States Child Protective Services Inter-State Study of Child Welfare in Foster Care, 2010)

 

Further, adoption is prohibitively expensive:

 

Average cost for pre-natal doctor's visits: 1,862-3,543

Ultrasound: $100-400 for the cheap ones. From $500 up if complications are involved.

Pre-natal tests: $1,100-$2,000 assuming standard tests only and no reason for more expensive ones.

Vaginal delivery without complication: $6,200 -$7,500

Vaginal delivery with complication: $8,200 - $10,500

C-section without complication: $11,500 - $13,000

C-section with complication = $15,500 - $ 18,200

Hospital stay: $4,000 - $6,000

Neonatal and pediatric care: $900 - $2,000 (no complications)

Neonatal and pediatric care: 1,500 -4,000 (with complications)

 

Average cost to give a child up for adoption, with fees included, at birth, not including all the above $7,000-10,000

 

 

[Rosedamai]

Hi. I'm a 21-year-old from another culture outside the U.S who's very sick and hospitalized right now. I'm typing this on my phone, which has a shaky connection, so please bear with me if I make lots of edits and such.

 

The impression I got from those who oppose abortion is that most of you aren't thinking outside the scope of the U.S. However, if you ARE truly interested in saving the "life of the unborn", I see no reason why you are thinking in such narrow scopes, as you know, babies are babies no matter where they are born. The problem with most pro-life logic that I've seen is that it does not account for people who are outside the U.S, who may suffer from anti-abortion laws, and who may not have access to a lot of aid and care that people from the U.S provide. Now I'm not by any means saying that the women in the U.S have it all fine and dandy; I'm just saying that maybe you should think about what your actions may mean for other people around the world.

 

Okay. Before I begin I'd like to add that I'm from a country that's quite high up in the developed scale, so other countries may have it worse, and that I only know about what things are like, at the most, in my region. That's quite a narrow scope, so I can't really generalize what people everywhere may feel. I can only speak for women who are in my general area and who share my general cultural view. I'd also like to add that times are changing, albeit slowly, so some of the stuff I describe here may change in a decade or 5 years or even a year.

 

Anyways, to start with-

    25.9% Want to postpone childbearing

-I believe that they should be more careful about their sexual activity and birth control practices. Also, I believe in some cases this is a selfish motive. If having a baby will interrupt your "social life," and you get an abortion, I see this as being selfish. Take responsibility for your actions. I support the use of birth control (not necessarily public/taxplayer funded) but that people should take responsibility for their actions. If you are going to be sexually active and do not want a child at that time, use effective birth control. No form of birth control (except abstinence) will ever be 100% effective. If you cant afford it or want to definitely avoid, maybe you should choose not to have sex. Sex exists to create offspring. I think if all people took more responsibility, the amount of people having abortions for this reason would sharply decrease.

Not everyone gets access to birth control. For example, there's a very strong stigma against girls in my country and the general region(generalizing a bit here) who carry condoms, to the point where if you're a girl and you buy them, you're seen as promiscuous. There's also a widespread rumor that taking birth control pills will make you infertile, will make you more susceptible to having cancer, will make you less attractive, etc. This discourages them from having a good access to birth control. There are many, many accounts of girls who got disapproving looks from the people in the pharmacy when they tried to get birth control pills. So people rely on the pull out method and the "what time of the month you are" method. Those are NOT good birth control methods, but people think they are.

 

    21.3% Cannot afford a baby

-as stated above, take responsibility for your actions and be smart. I was helping at a homeless shelter a few weeks ago and saw an unmarried woman there with six kids (I believe that there were at least 3/4 different fathers involved). I've heard stories of impoverished people having large numbers of abortions. While again, I do not support abortion in this case, personal responsibility and common sense is key. If you can't afford a baby and birth control, choose to have less/no sex. Don't be promiscuous, sex has its consequences. I think in several situations the parenting (or lack there-of) is an issue here, If children are raised in households where unprotected/young/unwed/casual sex is accepted or constantly occurs, they will be raised to believe this all is ok, especially if parents avoid the topic. (yes I said unwed, I am a christian and I am waiting until marriage and believe others should as well, God created sex for married people. This is my opinion and I am welcome to it).

Okay, I'll save the unmarried women part for later, as it's a problem with many, many other factors, and I'll go on to talk about the impoverished married women. In our region (as are many other developing nations) patriarchy does play a huge goal to the extent that in my country at least, marital or spousal rape was not seen as rape until about a decade or two ago (and even now it's not very heavily enforced) and the police are just starting to change their attitude about marital violence. Even now a lot of the police, when a woman phones them saying that they're getting beaten, say "oh, it's just a married couple thing", shrug, and do nothing. This is worse in impoverished families than middle or upper class families. Do you think that in these case the women really have a choice in whether to have a baby or not? They don't. They can't afford a baby, but they cannot control when their husband would have sex. Welfare for mothers are very poor as well, so these women often don't really have a choice other than to abort a baby.

 

 

    12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy

-Again, we are in a sexual culture and people as young as 11 and 12 are having sex. If you don't necessarily believe that sex should be saved for marriage, I don't see why people support having sex this young. There is an age of consent (16-18) for a reason. Children should not be having sex. GOOD PARENTING is key here, if you're going to support/not oppose your teens having sex at least teach them about birth control. And never just assume that they aren't having sex. If they are pregnant, be supportive of them and teach them to be responsible about the baby, allowing your child to abort in most cases seems to me to be highly irresponsible cause it just teaches them that their actions don't have consequences and taking "the easy way out" in big situations is ok.

That would depend on how you define young. I'm 21, as I mentioned, and I'm considered too young to have a baby without getting married. If you go to an OBGYN without a husband and you're not middle aged, people will stare at you, and whisper things about how promiscuous you are. I had this happen to me when I was getting a checkup because of menstrual cramps. Also, good sex education? Please. Let's not get into the topic of how screwed things are there. People think that sex is taboo, so we mostly learned how "when a sperm meets an egg~" blah blah blah. Not to mention, again, we're a very conservative society, I can't really object if my parents force me into getting an abortion, and there are hardships people face from society if you're a young unmarried person, but more on that on the next paragraph. (Oh, and by the way-I don't think it's the easy way out.)

 

    10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job

-Personal responsibility, not being promiscuous...ect (see where I keep going?). Look at other options, adoption, daycare, seeing if others will help to take care of the child.

So we come to the issue of unmarried mothers. Okay, first of all-even married people have a hard job getting pregnancy leave. Do you think that an unmarried woman will get access to them? That is even IF she gets a job there. There was a highly educated professional woman who got pregnant who wasn't married. She was fired on the spot and tried desperately to get a job. She didn't get any, until a manager of a local Dunkin' Donuts store took pity on her and took her in as a waitress. Is that really an adequate punishment for the so-called "irresponsible sex?" I think not, I think it's overkill. Her life was totally ruined. This is NOT an isolated incident. Yes, success stories exist. But they are so few that they can be statistically ignored. More often, things like what I described above will happen. Education? In my country, it is mandatory for a child to get an elementary school and a middle school education. Basically, if you're a high-school dropout, you're like the lowest of the low. You can't get a real job. We have something like a 90% of the population going to colleges and universities, so it is very, very hard if you've just a high school graduate and even worse if you're a high school dropout. Anyways, back to what would happen if you're a high school student who got pregnant-the school would kick you out. They will literally expel you, and no high school would take you back because you're "a bad example to the rest of the students." When that's what you get for supposedly being "responsible", I'm not surprised that people will get abortions.

 

You seem to be operating under the assumption that people just shouldn't have sex if they don't want a baby. That's the same assumption that the government officials in my country work with when they're making institutions and stuff. It has resulted in widespread neglect of both the unmarried mothers and the children. It's not a positive assumption. It's not really resulting in anything that's good for unmarried mothers and the kids, because according to society, they "shouldn't exist" when they do exist.

 

Again, I'd like to stress that what I said is happening in a fairly developed developing country, so please think about how worse it would be if abortion was outlawed worldwide. If I came off as aggressive in some areas, do tell me, and I apologize in advance.

 

Thanks!

[Syaoransbear]

I'm not sure why people insist that sex is only for procreating, even some animals do it for bonding reasons such as birds so it's not even true in the animal kingdom, let alone true for humans. My bonded pair of budgies regularly have sex with each other with no intention of producing eggs because they have no suitable place to raise chicks. They've kind of got a neat automatic birth control. If conditions are too poor to raise chicks, they just won't lay eggs but can have all the birdy sex they want.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Syaoransbear

[Brite]

Sex exists to create offspring.

 

It also exists to help bond, and it feels good. Clitoris? Has nothing to do with the reproductive system. It's there for pleasure.

 

Even animals are known to mate for pleasure and bonding.

 

 

 

 

 

ps:Hi Shiny!

Edited July 11, 2012 by GhostChilli

[~Kat~]

If you do not want a child, be responsible, and know how not to get pregnant.

[NobleOwl]

If you do not want a child, be responsible, and know how not to get pregnant.

When good information is offered instead of misinformation by authorities, then people will be able to be responsible.

[Rosedamai]

When good information is offered instead of misinformation by authorities, then people will be able to be responsible.

Exactly.

[potterwolf]

I believe that life starts at birth, so in my eyes abortion isn't ending a life that has begun, but rather stopping a life from beginning.

I don't really understand what people mean when they say this. "Life begins at birth". Well, surely a fetus is alive. Therefore, isn't it 'a life'? I know that when you say life begins at birth, you aren't defining life in that way, but how are you defining it? Is it an issue of consciousness? Independence? Humanity? What is it about a baby immediately before birth that makes it so drastically different from a baby immediately after birth? There's nothing about the birth process that would logically transform non-life into life.

 

I support the legality of abortion, but I don't try to justify it by saying that life begins at birth, because I feel like that's a cop-out. It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, and it doesn't take the issue seriously enough, in my opinion. I feel as though I would be lying to myself if I used this type of justification when talking about abortion.

 

Even though I agree with most of what your post said, this is one position that I've heard a lot, but never fully understood. I'm honestly curious to know whether or not I'm the one who's mistaken.

[KageSora]

I don't really understand what people mean when they say this. "Life begins at birth". Well, surely a fetus is alive. Therefore, isn't it 'a life'? I know that when you say life begins at birth, you aren't defining life in that way, but how are you defining it? Is it an issue of consciousness? Independence? Humanity? What is it about a baby immediately before birth that makes it so drastically different from a baby immediately after birth? There's nothing about the birth process that would logically transform non-life into life.

 

I support the legality of abortion, but I don't try to justify it by saying that life begins at birth, because I feel like that's a cop-out. It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, and it doesn't take the issue seriously enough, in my opinion. I feel as though I would be lying to myself if I used this type of justification when talking about abortion.

 

Even though I agree with most of what your post said, this is one position that I've heard a lot, but never fully understood. I'm honestly curious to know whether or not I'm the one who's mistaken.

I can't speak for anybody else who says it, but I suppose the closest thing to what I mean is person-hood begins at birth. You're not a proper person until you're born, I suppose. It's just simpler to just say life.

 

Additionally, I'm not a really religious person, but I do personally believe in souls, but I don't feel a soul is bestowed at conception but rather at/around birth. I'm still not entirely sure how I feel, either it happens during the birthing process, shortly before birth, or at the moment of birth. It's just simplest to say at birth

 

But that's not my reason for supporting abortion being legal. It's why I don't see it as murder or as some horrific act of killing an innocent person.

 

 

 

Like I said, I support it being legal because it'll just happen anyway, so it's better to keep it in the open to be able to regulate it and try to keep it as safe as possible and to provide as much support as those making such a difficult decision need rather than forcing them into unsafe and likely unsanitary conditions to obtain one with inadequate or nonexistent support after the fact.

[St. Jimmy]

What is it about a baby immediately before birth that makes it so drastically different from a baby immediately after birth? There's nothing about the birth process that would logically transform non-life into life.

It no longer has to rely on the mother's body to survive.

[Infinis]

http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuqu...1z/-/index.html

 

:I That van is very upsetting.

 

And, really, I agree with Foy. It should stay between a woman and a doctor.

[Kestra15]

Someone made a very good point that not even infants are "conscious" until they've been outside the womb for a few months. I think someone even increased that time period into years.

What definition of "conscious" would that be?

[kittygrl]

wow that van is just horrible.

[Syaoransbear]

http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuqu...1z/-/index.html

 

:I That van is very upsetting.

 

And, really, I agree with Foy. It should stay between a woman and a doctor.

Stuff like that just makes me want to get pregnant and then confidently walk into the clinic they protest in front of and have an abortion.

[Sorrowgrave]

http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuqu...1z/-/index.html

 

:I That van is very upsetting.

 

And, really, I agree with Foy. It should stay between a woman and a doctor.

the comments are worse.. one woman had a stillborn son at nine months, another lost her daughter after a days I'm assuming and saw like this when she was trying to recover her life

 

this is a good comment though

 

Where are them bad spraypaint "artists" that recently hit up all of those homes when you need them. I know of a perfect canvas.....

 

[hazeh]

Copying and pasting a story that I found on tumblr:

 

"

 

Aaron Gouveia and his wife were already having the worst day of their lives. Then came the abortion protesters. [source]

 

“You’re killing your unborn baby!”

 

That’s what they yelled at me and my wife on the worst day of our lives. As we entered the women’s health center on an otherwise perfect summer morning in Brookline, two women we had never met decided to pile onto the nightmare we had been living for three weeks. These “Christians” verbally accosted us—judged us—as we steeled ourselves for the horror of making the unimaginable, but necessary, decision to end our pregnancy at 16 weeks.

 

After extensive testing at a renowned Boston hospital three weeks earlier, we were told our baby had Sirenomelia. Otherwise known as Mermaid Syndrome, it’s a rare (one in every 100,000 pregnancies) congenital deformity in which the legs are fused together. Worse than that, our baby had no bladder or kidneys. Our doctors told us there was zero chance for survival.

 

I’m not a religious person and I’ve never believed in heaven or hell. But there is a hell on Earth. Hell is sitting next to the person you love most and listening to her wail hysterically because her heart just broke into a million pieces. Hell is watching her entire body convulse with sobs because she’s being tortured with grief. For as long as I live and no matter how many children we have, I will never forget that sound. And I vowed to do everything in my power to make sure she’d never make it again.

 

Across a crowded street, two people with “God Is Pro-Life!” signs and pictures of torn-up fetuses managed to drive the blade in even deeper. Again, I was left trying to console the inconsolable, feeling even more helpless this time, because I wasn’t allowed into surgery with her.

 

Running on pure adrenaline, and without even a hint of a plan, I grabbed my cell phone and crossed the street. I didn’t know what to say or how to say it, I just knew I wanted to make public the cowardice of these protesters. The video’s below—they didn’t disappoint.

 

 

 

I learned a few important things from this encounter. First, these people aren’t used to being confronted. They prey on the weak and they pounce on the wounded. It’s easy to berate people and shame them when they’re too beaten down to fight back. But I chose to do just that, and you can see what happened.

 

They spout the same tired rhetoric passed out at rallies and subway stations. They don’t have one salient response to any of my questions.

 

The most telling thing about their cowardice is when the woman on the right gets upset that I’m recording the conversation (which is perfectly legal) and then threatens to call the police. The irony is rich. She wanted to call the police because I was peacefully expressing my opinion on a public sidewalk and exercising my First Amendment rights, which is exactly what she was doing. But I’m not on “God’s side,” am I.

 

She also claims the women at the clinic are suicide risks. Even if she believed that were true, does she really think yelling at them and shaming them in public is going to encourage these women not to kill themselves?

 

After I took a walk and calmed down, it was time to pick up my wife and go home. When we pulled out of the clinic, the protesters were gone, and a police cruiser was parked nearby with the lights flashing. My wife, still groggy from the surgery, managed to crack a little smile, and asked, “What did you do?”

 

I have no idea if it was my interaction with the protesters that got them to leave. I doubt it was, but my wife was convinced that was the case. At first, I didn’t think of it as a big deal, and I actually felt a little foolish for getting so heated.

 

My wife, suddenly serious, pointed out a women entering the clinic. Within minutes, she said, that woman would be making a serious choice. Whether she kept her baby or not, it didn’t matter—what matters is that she can make the decision that’s right for her. And she can make it without people screaming at her.

 

My wife and I wanted our second child. We loved her. We even had a name for her, Alexandra.

 

You never know the circumstances surrounding this kind of decision. Consider this my plea: stop terrorizing women. Stop adding trauma to their trauma. If you’re able, stand up to these bullies in nonviolent ways. Speak out. And if you have a camera, use it.

—Aaron Gouveia is a regular contributor to The Good Men Project Magazine."

 

 

 

 

[potterwolf]

It no longer has to rely on the mother's body to survive.

But don't babies technically have the physical ability to survive before they reach the 9 month period? Premature babies survive all the time, so what is it about an 8 month old baby born premature that distinguishes it from an 8 month old baby still n the womb?

 

Both have the potential to survive outside their mother's body, but only one was put into a circumstance in which it had to utilize that potential.