Allow me to chime in here with a personal-type anecdote. My aunt Miriam (not the aunt in my aged pit thread) got married in 1994 or so and about a year later she and her husband (my Uncle Tim) were trying to get pregnant. Finally, in late 1995 or early 1996, they did. During a routine checkup, the doctor noticed something odd (my knowledge of this part of the story is hazy; bear with me) and did some more tests. Maybe a week or so later the news came back that my nephew Jeffrey (who was still, of course, in utero) had anencephaly. My aunt carried him as long as she could (at physical risk to herself, but she wanted the baby) and hoped for a change, but at the same time recognized there wasn’t much hope for anything to change.
He was born on October 21, 1996. He lived 15 minutes and died in his mother and father’s arms. I believe, but am not certain, that Miriam carried him for six months. I know but cannot cite anything for certain that she now lives with permanently worse physical health because of her decision to carry him as long as she could. I know for a medical certainty that she could not have carried him a full nine months (not that it would matter in terms of giving him better chances of living; almost five years later there is no cure, to my knowledge) had he not had anencephaly.
I don’t know if that adds anything more than a face to your example, but I felt it needed to be said.
And I have to respond to this before I forget:
“The anti-choice crowd believes that under no circumstances should a woman be permitted to have an abortion.”
One of the reasons I have a difficult time being called anti-choice is that I am not always in favor of a woman not being allowed to have an abortion. IOW, I am not universally anti-choice . . . I’m pro-life with a few reservations. So while I am among those who do not support the performing of an abortion in many cases, . . . how do I say this . . . I don’t think the quoted statement is true at all. I think it applies a general “this is what all anti-choicers believe” to those who do not warrant or deserve that label (and the negative stigma I think it carries).
“But I think it’s plain that some pro lifers do not care if abortion is or isn’t murder; they oppose legal abortion because they think it makes it “too easy” for unmarried women and girls to decide to be sexually active. Keeping unmarried women and girls vigin is their highest goal, god knows why.”
I’ve seen this to be the case in many instances. And in many of those instances it’s an opinion held solely because of personal preference or religious beliefs, as opposed to being backed by scientific reasoning. And while I have no problem with that (though my wording may suggest otherwise), I think it makes the argument weaker (my opinion; others disagree and are free to do so). And when people start to lump those of us who try to have some medical reason for our beliefs with those who use the standard, no-exceptions “no abortions ever, and no sex outside of marriage” (again based not on scientific reasoning), I find that problematic. I’d like to see some separation of degrees to which we believe abortions should not be performed, or the reasons we believe that way. Sort of like different denominations in a religion. I realize some people (many, even) would still associate the most stringent with the overall group (as they associate one Fundamentalist they met with all Christians), but it would be nice to have some amount of separation.
" . . . I have long regretted the mistaken belief that pro-choice and pro-life are opposites and one person cannot be both. This simply isn’t so."
Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you:) I’ve been trying to reconcile this for a while and I had been struggling to find any hope in it, especiallywith the people I see who say you cannot be both. And while I am not a rabid pro-choicer as yourself I do share some beliefs with y’all (as far as I know, anyway:)).
And lastly (I hope; this is getting unbearable long), to address MysterEcks:
“But the problem is that such a stance is in effect not on abortion at all–it’s a moral judgment on whether the woman should have been having sex or not. Thus it becomes a “gotcha”–she had sex voluntarily and now she has to take her medicine, whereas the rape victim wasn’t a “bad girl” so we’ll let her off the hook.”
I understand what you’re saying here. I didn’t intend to judge anyone, I was just remarking (I thought) on the idea of choosing to have sex or not (which is part of my stance on life/abortion). I’ve been trying to think of a good analogy, but it isn’t working.
I didn’t mean to imply that the woman who wasn’t raped is the “bad girl”; I have no problem with people having sex outside of marriage; it isn’t my concern what they do so long as they don’t go hurting other people. I just don’t believe in gimmes when there’s a life on the line (the unborn child). Exceptions stated in this post and elsewhere in the thread, as always:) I realize that is a moral stance, but . . . oh well. Dunno what to tell you.