Annie-Xmas, I think you intended to say that yourself, but accidentally included it in your quote of Chessic Sense. If I made it worse, let me know and I’ll try again.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
The first pregnancy with my ex-fiancee was pretty stupid. We were in our very early twenties and should have known better. I said I think she did want to keep it, and I still think she did, but despite me making my wishes known, I let her know that also it was ultimately her choice.
The second one was with a serious girlfriend. We had talked about possibly getting married, having kids, etc. She was on birth control. It didn’t work. I wanted her to keep the baby. She decided after some time that she didn’t want to keep the baby as she already had a son out of wedlock with another guy and she was finishing her 2 year degree (and still lived with her parents). I was really crazy about this girl at the time and really wanted her to keep it. She decided not to, so I went along and paid for the procedure in support of her decision.
My wife and I have been together now since 1999. We already have three beautiful children. We’d never really discussed not having another one. When she got pregnant last year, she simply decided that she just didn’t want to go through childbirth again and opted to abort. I didn’t want her to, but its her body. Again, I went with her and paid for the procedure and provided moral support.
Does this clarify things a little bit, or would you care to sling more insults? I said I’m not happy about any of them, and that I do regret being a part of them. I can’t change it.
I didn’t want to keep the first baby, and I wanted to keep the next two. All of them were aborted, and all of them were the ultimate decision of the woman involved.
No. I didn’t mean to imply that, either. I don’t support the meme that abortion is traumatic. For many of us, it is not. OTOH, I don’t know any woman who’s had an abortion who schedule between a manicure and getting her oil changed, like it was nothing.
Oh, I got the point. I was just flabbergasted that you wouldn’t have gotten more careful with your birth control after the first abortion. I dunno, it just seems so *alien *to me that two people who’re having PIV sex wouldn’t, you know, make sure that they’re taking precautions so that the woman doesn’t get pregnant unless she wants to.
Well, except in the first instance, he said they were taking precautions. Why assume that everyone who has an unwanted pregnancy is some moron contributing to the stupidity of the human race?
It wouldn’t matter if your quest to redefine the labels had started on the faraway doomed planet of Krypton and had lasted through decades of magical adventure of whimsy and wonder and every step had been faithfully documented by a scribe team consisting of Homer, Herodotus and Cervantes. Your final result is a waste of time because people who currently identify as “pro-life” and “pro-choice” don’t fit your categories and have no incentive to conform to them.
Heck, I’ll just call people who want to keep abortion legal “Bob”, and people who want to keep abortion medically safe “Jim”, and people who want doctors to lose their licenses for performing abortions “Steve”, and people who want women thrown in jail after an abortion “Dave”, and people who want to shoot doctors “Harry”, and people who don’t like the issue but don’t plan on taking any violent action “John”, and people who have no firm opinion “Fred”, and people who dislike labels “Peter”, and people named Charlie “Charlie” etc.
My labeling system is perfectly sound and logical and reasonable and anyone who disagrees is a brainless jackass fuckface.
@Freudian Slit:
Actually, it sounds to me like (when he clarified): they weren’t using any birth control in the first instance; they were but “it” failed in the second (which probably means that they just weren’t using it perfectly, since the failure rates are much higher when you look at how people actually use BC vs. how it’s intended to be used, e.g. missing a pill with oral contraceptives); and they weren’t using any in the third, because they hadn’t really thought about whether or not they wanted another kid.
So, in 2/3 cases, there was no BC involved at all.
@Bryan Ekers:
You do whatever makes you feel special, dear. It still stands that I was responding to a question with *my personal opinion *on the accuracy of various self-identified terms. Not a magical requirement for how everyone should frame the debate going forward, but a description of the way I tend to think of how things shake out in my head.
Ah, Penis In Vagina sex - got it. Yeah, dude should have wrapped his whopper, but he’s already copped to that; I’m not sure what point raking him over the coals for it serves.
I know it’s hypothetical; I just have to figure that honest defense of a right means defending people who exercise that right even in ways or with reasons one doesn’t personally like, i.e. making sure freedom of expression extends to porn publishers, suspected murderers don’t have to testify against themselves and women can have abortions for trivial reasons or no reason at all.
What a shocking coincidence… me too!
If we were in any other forum, I wouldn’t have even mentioned it. But since we’re in the Pit, I have no qualms about ignoring the filter between my brain and my fingers and expressing my disgust at the whole serial abortion thing. Now, birth control is the mutual responsibility of both people engaging in the act, assuming it’s consensual, but when push comes to shove, it’s the one with the uterus who’s going to actually have to make the decision, and go through with a medical procedure that still carries some element of risk, and that’s a shitty position to be put in because neither of the people involved could be bothered to sort this shit out ahead of time. It just makes me angry.
Which is why I have no problem with you calling them any damn thing you like, schnookums. Good on you.
I used to live several blocks from a clinic in Washington DC. I don’t recall which day of the week it was, but there was definitely one day only for abortion appointments. Not only that, but all the women with appointments were apparently told to arrive during a given early time window. This made it very convenient for both anti-abortion protesters and the clinic defense escorts who accompanied arriving women through the gantlet formed by the first group.
The protesters would scream and chant at women as they arrived, and the escorts would walk beside them. My impression from watching this ritual was that the protesters had learned very precisely how far they could go without being arrested–they would get in front of the women, circle around them, shout at them, thrust pamphlets at them, but never touch them or physically impede their progress toward the building.
By a certain time in the morning, all the women with appointments would be inside. The protesters would chant a little more, maybe sing a song, then pack up and go. Before noon the whole area was quiet again.
In the third instance, since we were married and already had three children, and having not directly discussed whether we wanted any more or not, I was operating under the assumption that if she got pregnant again, we’d keep it. I wanted to, she did not.
No, we weren’t regularly using birth control, but we were married.
Well, as long as neither of us has any illusions that our personal labeling systems are being resisted out of sheer stubbornness or ignorance.
What else could it be, since we’re obviously so much more in tune with the issues and the subtleties therein. If those people don’t want to be called “pro-abortion” or “Bob”, then they’re just too dumb to see how much sense it makes!
Dude, I agree with you!
Dammit, FGIE, stop being reasonable. You’re getting in the way of my RO.
ETA@Bryan Ekers:
I couldn’t care less if people “resist” my labeling system. I’ve simply been pointing out that I, personally, find the labels “pro-choice” and “pro-life” to be inaccurate for at least some of the people or organizations they’re applied to, and I believe that “pro-abortion-legality” and “anti-abortion-legality” would be more accurate descriptors of their positions. Seriously, why are you having such a problem understanding this?
BTW, I never implied you were insane. I guess I should have used the word reasonable. Sorry that I supported you as a human being in a way that you took as insulting.
Hmmm. I don’t think I was insulted by you. I appreciate the support!
I’ve been very clear that your terminology is indeed your terminology (I even underlined your in an earlier post to make this clear), so I’m not misunderstanding you at all.
Heh, actually, I remember writing way back when that I thought the more accurate terms were “pro-abortion-rights” and “anti-abortion-rights”, but I can’t find the exact post at the moment. I can only hope I didn’t arrogantly imply that somebody needed to get something through their skulls.
Because it’s harassment and people should have a reasonable expectation of walking into a business, especially a health care business, without having to run a gauntlet of insults and intimidation. How is this any different from anti-catholics were outside churches holding up signs that said “They only want to rape your kids!” and shouting pediophile at every priest they encounter? Actually, I’m almost surprised some far-right Protestant group hasn’t already done this.