(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Women Never Glad To Have Had Abortion

Posted: February 21, 2013 at 1:43 a.m.

I am the 60-year old mother of two adopted children (our two older children), one birth child (our surprise) and grandmother of three. So, my husband and I are a part of the answer for unplanned and perhaps unwanted pregnancies. I also believe in mercy and compassion for persons who may have made decisions they now regret. God is merciful and loving and able to bring comfort and healing to those whose emotions may be hurting.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/21/2013

(Advertisement)



Next Story »

COMMENTARY: We Need Eateries Close To Home

Randall Body wanted to take his wife, Mikal, out to eat to celebrate her birthday. But as he considered where they would eat, he realized their home near J.O. Kelly Middle... Read »

This looks so much like a letter on here a week ago.

Joan I think the Ark Republican Gen Assembly has you covered.

However, the Supreme Court of the United States does not and will rule that the two measures from Ark making illegal any abortion from 7 weeks for one and 20 weeks for the other bill to be unconstitutional.

Posted by: cdawg

February 21, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Perhaps these laws if passed by legislature and signed by the governor, will get all the way to the Supreme Court and as a miracle Roe v Wade will be overturned.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 21, 2013 at 9:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"...as a miracle Roe v Wade will be overturned."

Nine other states have tried the same to no avail but a few remain pending. I'm sure state Sen Rapert and Rep Mayberry will be prematurely beating their breasts should either bill pass and be appealed to Fed courts.

It will end up costing the state of Ark hundreds of thousands in legal expense.

I have a question for the 'fetus-as-baby' crowd:
Since you claim a one month old fetus is the same as a child shouldn't any child support begin at that time?

Shouldn't a single woman carrying a one month old fetus be eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children at that time?
.

Posted by: cdawg

February 21, 2013 at 10:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cdawg's on a roll tonight.

Cdawg: "Supreme Court of the United States... will rule that the two measures from Ark making illegal any abortion from 7 weeks for one and 20 weeks for the other bill to be unconstitutional.">>

Exactly. This is all just posing for the cameras and winking to the base.

D.
------------
NPR had an interesting bit today on how the Plan B morning after pill doesn't actually cause an abortion. Transcript here:

http://m.npr.org/news/front/172595689

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 21, 2013 at 10:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A pregnant woman who qualifies financially (and doesnt have health insurance) for Medicaid does qualify for care and food stamps including WIC while she is pregnant and as long as she is of child bearing age can get free pap smears and birth control as long as she hasn't had her tubes tied or had a hysterectomy. She is given free prenatal care and the pregnant mother qualifies for WIC as does the child when it is born. This is invaluable to help keep the mother and the baby healthy. So that seems to me the state does see the value in the health of the mother and baby before it is born.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 21, 2013 at 10:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Btw when a baby is born to a meth positive mother the mother loses her parental rights because she chose to not consider the health of the baby while she was pregnant. Think about why choosing to 'use' while pregnant is wrong, but choosing to abort is ok.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 21, 2013 at 10:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cdawg,
AFDC no longer exists.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 21, 2013 at 10:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If, as Joan says, she: "never met a woman who was glad she had an abortion and wasn’t haunted by it." Perhaps she should look around a bit more. Here is a site with a couple hundred examples going back less than three years:

http://www.thanksabortion.com/

Here are 66 more: http://myabortionblog.tumblr.com/arch...

Here's another: http://mikkipedia.net/?page_id=119

And another: http://tinyurl.com/b8pc93n

Another: http://tinyurl.com/adbmr62

Turns out, Joan's claim is just a popular saying pro-lifers like to pass around with each other. This lady notes:

"Something a friend of mine has told me many times now continues to resonate in my mind . . . she says, “I’ve never heard of a woman who says, ‘I’m so glad I had my abortion.’”

She then adds:

"Can you imagine the reaction if a woman did say this? (At least in the US, I don't know how other countries are about the issue.) At the very least, she would lose friends. At least one person in her family would probably stop talking to her. She'd probably lose her job and get a few death threats. Assuming someone didn't just go ahead and kill her.

Considering how many abortions are done every year, and the fact that I am 33, and most of the women I know are in their childbearing years, I have to know someone who has had an abortion. At least one person. Yet, I've never heard anyone I've ever known admit to having an abortion*. It simply is not something that is safe to talk about in the US.

This does not mean that there isn't anyone who isn't happy, or at least relieved, to have had an abortion. It also doesn't mean that every single woman who did have one is currently consumed by grief and guilt.

Want proof?"
http://foreverinhell.blogspot.com/200...
***

See examples above. Millions of women are glad they have had the opportunity to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy. This doesn't change the fact that, because it's an unfortunate event that always represents a failure of some sort (contraception, education, accident, mistake, rape etc), it's a medical procedure that a person would rather not have needed to have had in the first place. Maybe we should try doing what some of our peer countries do that have much lower rates?

Peer countries?! What did I just say? We ain't got no stinkin peer countries!

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 21, 2013 at 11:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Justan says: "Think about why choosing to 'use' while pregnant is wrong, but choosing to abort is ok."

Those are two entirely different choices. In one, the women is opting out of the pregnancy entirely. In the other, the woman is going to have a baby that will likely have major developmental disabilities. That baby will then have a much different life than he or she could have had if the mother was not using drugs. Ending a pregnancy has nothing to do with the health of a baby because no baby was ever born.

Posted by: taminatress

February 21, 2013 at 11:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Since I am an open-minded sort of person, many of my female friends have opened up to me about abortions they have had. Some felt really bad about it, one felt it was a mistake, and the vast majority were not happy to have to go through the procedure, but. as FFT said, were thankful there was a safe option to end their pregnancies.

Posted by: taminatress

February 21, 2013 at 11:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayfreethinker,
I haven't met those women you refer to. I am sure there are those who would judge and put them out of their circle of family/friends. I would never do that, I haven't done that. It is safe to talk about in my presence. It seems that when a person is compassionate to those who are pregnant and not with a planned pregnancy those of us who offer choices that would save the life of the child are vilified. If you knew me, you would know that I have heard many horrifying stories of all kinds you couldn't imagine and offer compassion and help. I am the safest person you could ever speak with. I wish you knew me. You would like me and respect me.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 21, 2013 at 11:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Justan: "...those of us who offer choices that would save the life of the child are vilified.">>

I don't think so. If you want to encourage adoption, I think that's fine. If you want to impose adoption or ban abortion, then we are going to disagree.

I think there are steps that can be taken to lower the rates of abortion. I wish those on your side would put a bit more effort into those strategies. I think often they don't because it conflicts with their religious desire to try and restrict people from having, and shame people for wanting, to have sex.

Justan: "You would like me and respect me.">>

I think you're fine and dandy. I just don't think an embryo is a person, or that it has rights that trump those of the womb owner. That's all.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 21, 2013 at 11:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If you think I don't do everything I can to educate and help prevent unwanted, unplanned pregnancies, you haven't walked a day in my shoes,(which by the way have very tired feet in them by the end of the day). I certainly don't want to impose adoption. I do want to stop abortion except to save the life of the mother. This issue is as divisive as the issue of slavery once was. Good will eventually win out, it has to. I am glad your mother chose life.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 21, 2013 at 11:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In my opinion, good has already won out. Who would want to go back to the days of back alley abortions? There is a reason that this was decided the way it was 40 years ago, and that reason was a good one!

Posted by: taminatress

February 22, 2013 at 12:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Taminatress, have you watched the video of the product of abortion I referenced? That video compared to the pictures of my older two children at birth explains the horrific offense of a abortion. Tiny limbs are torn apart and babies never given the chance to survive versus the allowing of these to be born and adopted if the mother does not want the child. No one ever made a woman have a back alley abortion.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 22, 2013 at 6:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

All would have to agree that if sex remained between the married couple, abortion would be fewer. I heard this morning someone say sex was a gift from God to help keep the couple together. Now if we would choose our partner carefully for marriage, be faithful and persevere, you know that would solve most problems.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 22, 2013 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Keep religion out of it. It is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor. The rest of the world needs to butt out. People can be even more judgemental of a woman they've seen pregnant who chose not to keep it (adoption).

Posted by: KSLAUGHTER@HARPSFOOD.COM

February 22, 2013 at 9:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And, just as important, imber67, keep Government out of it.

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 22, 2013 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Anti-legal abortion believers always neglect the economic aspects of abortion choices.
If they really wanted more women to give birth they would do something about the minimum wage, the fact that women earn about 3/4 of what men do, the high cost of daycare, and the lack of paid maternity leave.

Posted by: Coralie

February 22, 2013 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey, Coralie. Two had that baby. Go after the father. Women have made great strides in all that you mention. I doubt that better pay, etc. would end abortions.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 22, 2013 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I doubt that better pay, etc. would end abortions."
==
I don't talk about ending abortions, I talk about reducing the abortion rate.
Women with an unplanned pregnancy make a pretty careful decision about whether they are up to a future of raising a child in a nation that is not especially friendly to mothers and children.
(Plenty of lip service, not as much action.)

Posted by: Coralie

February 22, 2013 at 12:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Go after the father."
One of the many false assumptions of anti-legal abortion activists is that only single women have abortions.
17% are in a a marriage,
Marriage or not, the man may be unemployed. Or underemployed. Or he gets a low wage.
He may be in jail. He may have a drinking problem or drug problem.
The woman still has to do her calculus.

Posted by: Coralie

February 22, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Hey, Coralie. Two had that baby. Go after the father.

I realize people who post such tripe have a deep fear of actual knowledge. We were recently involved with "Go after the father." It rarely works should the father wish to avoid paying. He's usually young, mobile and often has family to help hide him.
Ask someone at DHS about the supposed ease of "make the father pay." Easy to say, very difficult to accomplish.

We have a niece who was single and pregnant at age 19 with a boyfriend who promised marriage. At the 5th month of pregnancy he bailed out. The state (DHS) has searched for him for over 2 years now. You learn a lot by talking with case workers. You learn how easy it is for fathers to get out of paying.

We've helped support the young relative with child care, food, clothing and necessary trips to Mds. We arranged for the mother to receive WIC benefits.

Still, as Coralie notes the niggardly provision of this state mean little more than servitude for young mothers without husbands.

You're really not "pro-life," you're pro bondage, pro-servitude. There's no other label for it.

Your view about forced birthing as some type of punishment for the mother for engaging in pre-marital sex is as sick as those snake handlers who think coiling serpents around their hands is a testament to their Lord.

Posted by: cdawg

February 22, 2013 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Your view about forced birthing as some type of punishment for the mother for engaging in pre-marital sex is as sick as those snake handlers who think coiling serpents around their hands is a testament to their Lord."

Boy do you liberals like to spin. I have never thought of having a child as punishment, but probabloy would be a blessing - AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE. But that doesn't stop the spin, always spin that is used to try to justify your position. I think you are the sick one that can so lightly take a life of a child and completely negate responsiblity of an adult and her sexual reproduction. I know plenty that had an unplanned pregnancy and didn't need the government to support her and her child. Temporary help may be needed, mainly by family, which you did, but this is a lifestyle for many. You pay the consequences for your own mistakes. I hope your niece has learned not to trust a man's professed love in a steamy situation. I heard of someone that is on disability because he gets nervous at work. Who doesn't. We could all find a reason to live off the taxpayers. It isn't hard. And WE ARE BROKE and many on welfare live better than some of those that are working, after you count all the benefits available to them. We are not their nanny.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 22, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I rather think that Mark 16:18 is literally viewed by some demoninations as a proof of faith rather than a testament to our Lord. I say our Lord, cdwag, because He is Lord over all whither you choose to actknowledge that fact or not. Birth is a gift from God not a punishment. If you choose not to accept that gift, that is you choice, but don't make me pay for your choices, God knows, I've paid enough for mine and never asked you for a "dime" or more. If you liberials would pick up your own snakes instead forcing me to pick them up for you, then less people would be snake bit.

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 22, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There is even a better gift from god, Money, as explained here by Rev Suzanne Hinn, perhaps you should try one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jhw_5...

Posted by: cdawg

February 22, 2013 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

" I heard of someone that is on disability because he gets nervous at work. Who doesn't.."
First, you "heard" about this secondhand. You don't know this person.
Second, you refuse to acknowledge that there are degrees of any problem. It's all black and white with you.
Third, the person is probably "nervous" in a lot of other situations, not just work.
I am acquainted with a person who has severe anxiety disorder. and is on disability (actually on disability for a physical problem). He has a lot of skills and occasionally can work (self-employment) but he is definitely not suited for a 9-5 job.
He is nervous to the 10th power.
If he was hired, he wouldn't last long and would get a poor reference.

Posted by: Coralie

February 22, 2013 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg: You can find anything on youtube you want. What was the point? There are crude, nasty, disgusting people, like that video. I have never liked Benny Hinn, either. I have a very hard time with those that go around in jets, live very luxuriosly, etc. God will take care of them.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 22, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I've always liked Benny and Suzanne Hinn, cdawg. They and Paul and Jan Crouch have provided me many hours of comic relief until I found this thread and you and Freeby. Now I get comedy, ignorance, and psychos all in one package.

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 22, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

U da Man! MM, u da Man! And Mycent you are absolutely correct. Those people are worthless and a disgrace. I'll never understand how they can get so deep into people's pockets.

Posted by: woodw

February 22, 2013 at 7:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I'll never understand how they can get so deep into people's pockets."
You'll understand it once you understand that a lot of conservative Christians and evangelicals are already proven to be gullible, and it's a simple matter of tapping into that market. As Moneymyst noted a while back, "Someone asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks and his reply was; 'Because thats where the money is.'" (Sutton didn't actually say that, but it's a good line. Perhaps a big televangelist will say it during his downfall. We're overdue for one.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 22, 2013 at 11:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not saying that those big televangelist do not do some good, but God cannot be deceived:

Matt. 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of iniquity.’

Posted by: mycentworth

February 23, 2013 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"TV preachers and welfare checks for him just had no place But he'd take his time to tune real good when he sang 'Amazing Grace'"

-Waylon Jennings

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 23, 2013 at 11:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Someone once asked a liberal why he voted for Obama and he said, "Because thats where the money is."

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 23, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I find it amazing that the letter I wrote about stopping the destruction at will of innocent babies has disintegrated into the discussion about welfare, minimum wage, televangelists, adnauseum. It's about the babies!!! It's about the conscence of our culture. This issue is just as divisive as the war we fought over slavery. It is one we must win. Before Roe v Wade the decision about the safe delivery of the baby and the life of the mother were between the mother and her doctor. But, abortion as a means of birth control was not a choice. I personally know of a woman who has had 9 abortions, 4 were sets of twins, 13 dead babies and never a live birth. When is it too masny? When do we say enough is enough?

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 23, 2013 at 6:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I find it amazing that the letter I wrote about stopping the destruction at will of innocent babies has disintegrated into the discussion about welfare, minimum wage, televangelists, adnauseum."
Although you are relatively new here, I should think you'd be used to it by now.

RE "I personally know of a woman who has had 9 abortions"
Some people are unlucky, abysmally ignorant, or incredibly stupid; that doesn't mean that all of them are. The anecdotal information you provide indicates that the problem is the people you know, not widespread reliance on abortion.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 23, 2013 at 10:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thats the way it works around here justanArkansan, you see this you won your case when mycentworth posted back on February, 22, at 8:15 am. It over now, and could go on for another 75 posts of nonsense. When they (the baby killers lose) they change the subject. After all, you can only say death "redrum" in just a few different ways, life goes on forever.

Posted by: Moneymyst

February 23, 2013 at 11:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Now I get ...psychos all in one package.
Moneymyst

I've been meaning to inquire, any news about interstate pyschic readings?

Posted by: cdawg

February 24, 2013 at midnight ( | suggest removal )

RE "you see this you won your case when mycentworth posted back on February, 22, at 8:15 am."
Nobody has "won" this debate, and it is not at all likely that anybody posting here will win it. The post you refer to is a good one, but-- as has been shown-- it only begins to address the matter of abortion.

RE "When they (the baby killers lose)..."
As far as I am aware, none of the people who posts here is a baby killer. But then you might know something that I don't.

RE "...they change the subject."
If you read the thread carefully, you will note that mycentworth changed the subject to welfare, and you and mycentworth had a large part in changing the subject to televangelists. The subject of the thread was never actually changed to the minimum wage; Coralie mentioned it as one of a list of concerns, and it was not mentioned again until justanArkansan's most recent comment. Not that welfare is at all irrelevant to the subject of abortion, and for that matter, televangelists and the minimum wage aren't entirely irrelevant either. Abortion does not exist without social and religious context.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 24, 2013 at 2:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

That is what conversations do. They evolve. That is about the only evolution I believe in. Oh, oh, just changed the subject again.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 24, 2013 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

justanArkansan,

My last post wasn't a dig at you or anyone else here. I agree with your letter.

Respectfully,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 24, 2013 at 11:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

No offense taken. Some may be offended by my post, but I hope not. It wasn't meant to be.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 24, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

justanArkansan says "Before Roe v Wade the decision about the safe delivery of the baby and the life of the mother were between the mother and her doctor."
Sorry, you don't know your history.
"The criminalization of abortion accelerated during the 1860s, and by 1900 it was largely illegal in every state. Some states did include provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman's life or to terminate pregnancies arising from rape or incest." [in other words, some states did NOT allow for abortion to protect the woman's lif.]
"The legal position prior to Roe v. Wade was that abortion was illegal in 30 states and legal under certain circumstances in 20 states."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion...

Posted by: Coralie

February 24, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you for the correction, Coralie. I graciously accept it. i do know that in Catholic hospitals, the baby won and the mother lost if there was a choice to be made. Very sad circumstance. I was speaking in reference to my health care experience as a student and nurse practitioner in Arkansas since 1971. Prior to Roe v Wade all that could be done was done to save both lives, but in the event of a tubal pregnancy or other such circumstances where if you did not terminate the pregnancy you would lose the mother and thus the baby also. My life's work was and still is to
help save lives and comfort those who can't be saved. I hope to be blessed to continue for as long as I can.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 24, 2013 at 6:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "My life's work was and still is to help save lives and comfort those who can't be saved. I hope to be blessed to continue for as long as I can."
That is admirable work and an admirable ambition. I hope you are able to avoid injury and infection as you continue; the work is hard enough as it is. I also hope that you are fortunate enough to have patients who can be cured or comforted.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 24, 2013 at 6:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )