I live in my body and mind every day. I have a reasonable expectation of what it can and cannot handle. Call it diagnosis without a license if you want. But I know more than anyone in the world that I cannot handle a pregnancy- especially an unwanted one especially without drugs.
Where is the false dillema? What is acceptable for me to do if I were to get pregnant?
This isn’t about my situation in particular (obviously, considering I could get an abortion right now if I needed one). This is about the fact that every body, every mind, and every pregnancy is different. You are in no position to be making unilateral decisions about what choices a woman should make when presented with such a major thing as a pregnancy.
You arn’t the one who has to live with the consequences. It’s easy to make a simple sanctamonious declaration when it’s something you’ll never have to deal with. But I hope one day by some freaky scientific accident you find yourself pregnant. And I hope that it is some strange woman who gets to decide your fate. And I hope you learn to feel what it is like to have the destiny of your very corporal being outside of your hands. Because women around the world, and perhaps one day in America, feel this. And it is wronger than any amount of baby-killing you could present me with.
I know I said I wasn’t going to post to this again, but after seeing this and your previous posts, I’ve got to.
I refuse to be part of a species that forces children to be born, only to allow them to suffer. The defects caused by Depakote (and I’m not going to get into causal relationships; there is a known incidence of certain kinds of birth defects with this drug, and I don’t care what caused it) include anencephaly (the baby is born without a brain); defects of the head and face with a characteristic “lemon-drop” shaped skull that is often accompanied by mental retardation; and being born without eyes (I don’t mean blind, I mean without eyes).
When I found out I was pregnant with Aaron, I was taking Depakote. Thank God my obstetrician was aware of the risk to the baby, because he arranged for ultrasounds to ensure Aaron was developing normally. Had there been the defects I mentioned above, I would have aborted. Not to save myself money or grief, but because to bring a child into the world whose destiny is to suffer. This isn’t a statement generated by hindsight, either. It was a very real decision that I had to make in the face of a very real situation.
There is no nobility in allowing another human being to suffer. I don’t see where a child raised in an institution has any dignity. Moving from institution to hospital back to institution doesn’t strike me as good quality of life.
Finally, I’m going to agree with candida. Much of the debate seems to focus on the extent to which women have control over their own bodies. There also seems to be an element of fear of female sexuality and of women who wish to control their own destinies. Being forced to give up her freedom to reproduce is a way to control her and force her into a role she may neither want or can handle.
Yep. You caught on to us. Our opinions have nothing to do with a belief in a fundamental right to life for human beings, and the actions (sometimes difficult), that follow from that belief.
Guess you “pro abortionists” are all about killing babies…eh?
All right, I was going to stop posting here, but when I saw this, I had to respond.
Pro-lifers see the unborn as human beings who deserve to have the same right to life that you or I have. That’s what we’re fighting for. What you’re saying is wrong and slanderous.
It’s also a myth that anybody, man or woman, has the right to do anything with their body if they wish. If we did, then people couldn’t be arrested for taking drugs, and the anti suicide laws in states that have them would be ruled unconstitutional.
I still don’t understand what you’re getting at. What did I say that made you think that you’re born yesterday? Is it me stating that the goal of the Pro-life movement is to save unborn human lives, and not about controlling women’s bodies? That’s the truth, whether you believe it or not.
You made the comment “(the potential prosecutor of the manufacturers of IUD’s).” Let me clarify. A question was asked, what about if IUD’s were banned as well as medical procedures.
All I said was IF that were to happen THEN it should be the IUD manufactures and distributors who should be punished and not the women using them.
Hehehe, yeah. Hey, but wait. She obviously knows what’s in my heart and what I’m really thinking is our secret safe? After all, since she knows what’s in my heart and mind, instead of me, then she might be on to us.
I know exactly what I’m talking about. I was suicidal myself, and I thought that death was surely the only option. I pulled through, though at the time, that scarcely seemed possible. That is why one should not assume that the suicidal person’s evaluation of herself is accurate – especially since suicidal people are not thinking straight! Sometimes, the person who is closest to the problem is the one who has the least accurate perspective.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you’re correct. Let’s assume that your unlicensed medical diagnosis is correct. It is still a false dilemma to say “I would surely kill myself, so let me kill the unborn human being instead.” If a person is truly that despondent, then one can resort to what’s often done in such times of crisis – one can place the person under suicide watch. This is a common practice, done to physically prevent the person from committing suicide, regardless of that person’s intent.
Troublesome? Inconvenient? Certainly – but it’s a far better alternative than killing an innocent human being. Nobody should be allowed to kill a fellow human in the name of comfort and personal convenience.
You keep belaboring this point, and yet you haven’t answered my question. Have you bothered to find out if these individuals would truly prefer death to such suffering? Do you have any shred of evidence that these individuals are so anguished that they are killing themselves in droves?
It seems to me that you’re making this decision on their behalf. This is ironic, because of what you said about bodily control…
Hmmm… interesting. Seems to me that you’re seizing control over what these deformed people should do with their bodies. After all, you’re the ones who are deciding that they should die, instead of letting them make that decision themselves.
So, do you truly believe that individuals should have control over their own bodies? If so, then why don’t you want these deformed individuals to exercise that right? Why are you making these decisions on their behalf?
I’m glad to see that you don’t attempt to argue with my points about this thread being about hectoring women about control of our bodies (rather too obviously true and you’ve all been, rather too obviously, enjoying yourselves greatly), or that abortion is mainly a fetish object amongst reactionaries.
Only too often, you do seem to miss words like ‘mainly’ but, as absolutists, you would, wouldn’t you?
*Q: Is it possible for somebody wishing to end women’s right to choose to be other than a member of a mouth-foaming, woman-hating reactionary Christian sect?
As opposed to, say, the cruelty of killing an innocent human being? Tsk, tsk.
Besides, you’re not paying attention. I’m saying that IF they’re unwilling to take medication, and IF there’s serious reason to believe that they will commit suicide, THEN physically restraining them may be necessary. This is an act of mercy, not cruelty. Letting them kill another human being is not an option, as that would be supremely cruel as well – both to the intended victim, and to the potential killer.
Your idea of mercy seems to be “Let them kill another human being, so that they won’t kill themselves. We could restrain them for hurting either individual, but that’s too nasty.” Why this doesn’t strike you as incongruous, I have no idea.
BTW, you still haven’t answered my question. If you believe that people should be given full control over their own bodies, then why are you prepared to deny this right to individuals that are deformed? Why are you prepared to assume that they would surely prefer death, even though all the evidence says otherwise?