“If at first you don’t succeed…”
I had a little difficulty figuring out exactly what position that is. If I read your post correctly you seem to think that abortion is morally wrong…but would not ban it by law.
If that’s so…then I (pro-choice) have no problem at all. I share exactly the same view regarding, say, getting drunk. It’s morally wrong…and should remain legal. I won’t do it, and I’ll even frown on people who do. And…so what? They don’t much care what I think, and all’s well.
If that’s how you view abortion…I wish there were several million more just like you.
Personally, if confronted, I’d show as much sympathy as I can to someone who was possibly disabled due to a legal procedure. Plastic surgery kills or maims some people, but I think it should still be legal.
There are a lot of people all over the internet who hate their lives and wish they had never been born. Maybe they eventually change their minds. Maybe they never do and live a life full of misery, suffering from unimaginable pain.
Then there a lot of people who are absolutely fine with their lives, but everyone else–including some pro-lifers–wishes they had never been born.
Do these people give credence to the pro-choice argument? I don’t think they do.
That’s how I would respond to an abortion survivor.
I would have the same sympathy for them that I would have for any victim of medical malpractice.
This pro-choice person would respond that it’s a horrible thing, but I truly believe you don’t decrease abortion by making it illegal. Making it illegal does increase the chance of a horrible procedure going awry, leading to another abortion survivor.
I think you decrease abortions by un-stigmatizing single motherhood, and by providing real support in the workplace for single parents.
As **IvoryTowerDenizen **said, you are pro-choice. Pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion, it means recognizing that this is a personal choice, and being willing to allow each woman to make it for herself. As long as that is how you feel, I have no problem with your position (I am a pro-choice woman).
If they survived, they were far enough along to be viable. We’re talking about a tiny portion of abortions.
No, it doesn’t. The procedures were so botched that the pregnancies were never terminated.
“What God wants, God gets.”
I suppose you could say the same to an abortion survivor, but I never would.
My response to an abortion survivor would be “Three fifteen,” if he asked me what time it was and it was 3:15.
I hear it’s the same with Lola.
No, that is not the case.
Cite. Nothing to do with fetal or maternal health.
This backs up what was found in a 1988 Guttmacher study, which found that fetal health problems only figured in about 2% of late-term abortions.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
I know people who were born to women who had had previous abortions. If these woman hadn’t had abortions, those people might not be alive.
Let’s say a woman has a summer romance, finds out she’s pregnant, and has an abortion. Later she meets the love of her life and has three children. Even if she had given birth and then had the child adopted, her life would have been different, and those children might not have been born.
What would you tell them?
I’ve never discussed this face to face with a survivor, and I’m not sure I’d say anything to them that might be upsetting.
But to rabid pseudo-Christian Anti-choicers, I have pointed out that such events are proof-positive (speaking within their world-view, here) that if God chooses to prevent a death, he can do so. If they truly believe in the Omnipotence of God, then clearly it is not necessary for them to intervene.
“This other guy ‘came’ first.”
There are similar arguments around adoption. Some adoptees have been abused by their adoptive parents - some to the point of disability. Some advocate for no adoption because of that.
But no adoption means what? Institutional care? Forced parenting?
And get rid of both abortion and adoption because its less than optimal for some people and then what? Do we really think the end result of that is going to be better overall?
I know a woman who conceived, aborted, and then conceived again within what would have been the gestation period of the first pregnancy. There’s no doubt whatsoever that J wouldn’t have been born had P’s first pregnancy continued.
Interestingly (and tragically) P’s third pregnancy ended in a late term abortion after the baby was discovered to have a severe, unsurvivable birth defect, and she again conceived her next child, A, within the gestation period of the aborted child. There are people who believe that she should have allowed that third pregnancy run to term so “nature could take its course”, and who have told her so to her face, even though the “natural” death of the ill-fated infant would have cost A the chance of existence.
Were the aborted pregnancies a thwarting of God’s will? Were the subsequent successful pregnancies God’s will too? Did He change His plan because those pesky abortionists screwed with what he originally intended? Or were those surviving children God’s end game all along?
Let’s see:
-
A cite documenting the number of abortions after 20 weeks.
-
Another cite documenting the number of abortions after 21 and 25 weeks.
-
A third cite giving the distribution of reasons for abortions after 16 weeks, where oddly enough, reasons relating to the health of either the mother or fetus aren’t yet a major factor.
But Shodan conflates it with #2 to suggest that few of those abortions after 25 weeks had anything to do with health concerns.
Since his cite notes that 2% of abortions after 16 weeks were due to fetal health problems, that means that if, of the roughly 1,500,000 abortions in 1988, at least 85,000 were after 16 weeks (which would hardly be surprising), his cite proves nothing, since 2% of 85,000 = 1,700.