Missouri would like to know why you need an abortion

Posted at 12:45 PM Mar 18, 2010

By Andrea Grimes

keep-abortion-legal-poster.jpg
Hello, ma'am, and welcome to Abortions R Us! In order to best serve you, you dirty slut, we'd like to inform you that we are required, by law, to ask you why you are coming in for this abortion procedure today, you thoughtless hussy. You are not required to answer this question, but we think it's important we ask you, just in case you were wandering around pregnant one day and accidentally stopped into this clinic and asked for an abortion and hadn't really thought about it beforehand. Also, please allow us to inform you of the pain you will be inflicting on your fetus during the procedure, you heartless, selfish bitch.

Now, wait 24 hours and come back tomorrow and tell us if you are absolutely sure you want that abortion. Slut.

Ah, Missouri.

According to the Riverfront Times via the AP, two Republican state senators from Missouri are proposing a bill that would require abortion providers to ask women why they are seeking an abortion, inform them of "the pain the fetus would endure" and force them to obey a 24-hour waiting period before the procedure. (Fun fact: there is no waiting period to purchase a gun in Missouri.)

Per the AP, Sen. Tom Dempsey is trying to be all, "Hey shorties, we just wanna know whaz goin' on wiffu."

Legislation by Republican Sen. Tom Dempsey, of St. Peters, would require doctors and clinics to ask women about the specific medical, social or economic reasons for seeking an abortion. Women would not have to respond.

Dempsey says it would be useful for policymakers to know if most abortions are sought because of relationship problems, finances, health concerns, a desire to limit family size, or a variety of other reasons.

Allow me to encourage you not to believe any of that horseshit for even a New York minute. Dempsey is trying to make women who are already likely to be in crisis jump through ever more complicated psychological and bureaucratic hoops in order to exercise their reproductive rights. I promise you that Tom Dempsey has no interest in the "medical, social or economic reasons" for seeking abortions--what he does have an interest in, and what most anti-choice persons have an interest in, is shaming women who seek abortions and making abortion as difficult and painful a process as possible. (Nevermind the fact that comprehensive sexual education and access to contraceptives are the actual proven ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place.)

Women seeking abortion do not need to be interrogated by medical professionals or anyone else. Can readers think of other medical procedures that individuals are asked to explain their reasoning behind? (Excluding requirements for this kind of thing from health insurance providers--I presume many, if not most, performed abortions are not paid for by health insurance.)

Comments

Violet said:

Can readers think of other medical procedures that individuals are asked to explain their reasoning behind?

Yup -- hormone treatment and sexual reassignment surgery for people who are transgendered. Depending on the doctor/insurance/etc you're dealing with, it can take years to get approval. And usually involves dealing with doctors and health care professionals who have very fixed and negative attitudes about the whole process.

Andrea said:

Violet - those procedures occurred to me, too. Also politicized and gender-related. No surprise.

Jacob said:

Both are matters of sovereignty of self--being in control of what happens to one's own body and mind.

Anonymous said:

I can say only one thing: if this data is being collected, be assured that it WILL be abused. Even if the scare tactics weren't in the bill, the potential for abuse of this information makes the bill untenable. If you had decided to have an abortion, would you want even a possibility of such details becoming public knowledge?

People have tried to anonymize data in countless ways, and yet supposedly anonymous data is still deciphered daily by marketers. Imagine the delight a wacko would have at a list of women who had undergone abortions, along with their reasoning.

Seminymous Coward said:

You're very likely to be asked for a reason for (non-restorative) cosmetic procedures, organ and bone marrow donations, and euthanasia. Actually, few to no doctors will perform any procedure without knowing why. That said, "I don't want to have this baby." is a reason in the sense I mean; the sense of the bill seems to be "reasons to not want to have the baby."

1) A human fetus is a living organism.
2) A human fetus is a member of species homo sapiens.
3) A human fetus is a human.
4) A human's right to life is location-invariant, intelligence-invariant, mass-invariant, volume-invariant, and age-invariant.
5) A human fetus has no moral faculty to commit any (slightly reasonably) capital infraction.
6) A human fetus is incapable of consenting to its death.
7) Causing pain, inconvenience, financial disadvantage, public shame, or even psychological trauma to another human being through no fault of one's own does not forfeit one's right to life.
8) Abortion in case of the pregnancy causing significant risk of the mother's death or maiming may be justified.
9) In the absence of another possible reason, abortion is wrong.

Aaron said:

Seminymous Coward: Forcing women to bear children they do not want is wrong, therefore your list of psuedo-reasoning is pointless. You seem to imply that a "capital infraction" is a reason to kill a person. Anyone who believes in the death penalty has no right to go around telling women they can't have abortions. Either all "life" is sacred, or it isn't.

Seminymous Coward said:

Aaron:
You do not support your claim that "Forcing women to bear children they do not want is wrong" or clarify its relevance. I'll concede the point in the case of rape, but that just makes rape wrong for yet another reason. I invite you to support it in any other cases to which you think it is germane.

Regarding the death penalty, I was merely removing a possible reason. Some people support the death penalty, and I merely noted in passing it could not apply. My view on that matter does not impact the validity of my reasoning, in any case. Arguments are independent of those making them. You can't answer the former by discussing the latter.

The right to free speech can be forfeited merely for holding any particular belief.

'Either all "life" is sacred, or it isn't.' is equivocation. "(All life is sacred) or not (all life is sacred)" is framed as "(All is sacred) or (all life is not sacred)" which is a change in meaning since "not (all life is sacred)" means "some or no life is sacred" and "all life is not sacred" means "no life is sacred."

Aaron said:

Oh, look. Someone took a rhetoric and reasoning class.

Yawn.

If I have to explain to you why forcing women to bear children they don't want is wrong, we really have nothing to talk about.

Seminymous Coward said:

Aaron-
You are mocking rational thought. Reasoning correctly is not wrong, and neither is the desire to clearly state and thoroughly examine assumptions. A correct point can only be strengthened by analysis.

Aaron said:

Coward - Just try to miss the keyboard when you're wanking yourself off. That stuff is hard to get out.

toomin said:

No one's forcing women to get pregnant (barring instances of rape, of course, where I believe abortion is justified)--birth control is available everywhere. If someone makes a mistake, forgets to take the pill, forgets to make sure the condom is on, whatever, then they need to take responsibility for that mistake.

I agree with Seminymous Coward, and I don't think he/she is implying that the death penalty is OK: the phrase "capital infraction" appears to be used only in reference to an argument one can make concerning abortion and the death penalty. I personally don't believe in the death penalty, and I agree with you, Aaron, that it is hypocritical to OK capital punishment but not abortion.

Andrea said:

Toomin -

Birth control is not available everywhere, and it is not affordable everywhere. In fact, when people take pro-active stances to improve availability of birth control to people that need it (say, high school students, who could really benefit from the prevention of unwanted pregnancy if anyone could), people actively fight against it. (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/08/24/roundup-massachusetts-parents-fight-availability-birth-control-high-school-students)

Coward -

You'll never convince any pro-choice individual to come over to your side using stale, standing-around-in-my-toga reasoning like that. It's fine if you want to sit around and argue semantics, but the fact is that trying to take a purely logical/rhetorical/argumentative approach to an issue like abortion is that it ignores the total social fact surrounding why abortion happens. Your 1-9 list fails to take into account all kinds of social, economic and political realities, not to mention completely leaves out the realities of misogyny, racism and overall injustice in the world--factors which are all heavily tied into the actual practice of abortion rights. Moral reasoning cannot see nuance, it only sees right and wrong. We live in a grey world, not a black and white one. However, as long as you hang out in the ivory tower and have your reasoning debates, I don't mind. Just stay out of the real world the rest of us are trying to negotiate.

Seminymous Coward said:

Andrea-
I don't feel that nuance escapes the reasoning I offered so much as it was cut out, specifically in 7, 8, and 9. 7 needs more justification; I think it's the weakest point. 8 sidelines nuance by omitting what's probably a balancing test with "may be."

9 provides for other reasons that abortion may be acceptable, positive, or even morally obligatory; it just states that I have failed to find them, perhaps through lack of imagination. I invite you to offer other reasons. I'd be particularly impressed by a racism-based one. Logic only fails when the model is incomplete or inaccurate.

"There is no such thing as grey rape." -Andrea
"We live in a grey world." -Andrea
I'm not claiming this is a contradiction, but I would be interested in an enumeration of black & white topics in your worldview.

smokejack said:

Coward, all your premises are incomplete. If you are lacking manners, does that make you lacking?

Josie said:

It's been said many times before but...

When you say that you are okay with abortion if the pregnancy was caused by rape, what you are doing is punishing women for their sexuality.

For instance, Coward, you said "Causing pain, inconvenience, financial disadvantage, public shame, or even psychological trauma to another human being through no fault of one's own does not forfeit one's right to life." Later, you said that you would concede that forcing a woman to carry to term and bear a child she does not want is wrong in the case of rape. This does not match up. Either a fetus has a right to life, unless it is going to take another life (taking into consideration your point 8), or it does not. Saying that it is wrong if a woman was raped but not if she's just a whore who deserved it is pretty messed up.

I'm child-free, meaning that I do not want children, and will not have them (as long as my reproductive rights aren't slowly drained to nothingness, and I'd consider other avenues even then). I have no intentions of being celibate for the rest of my existence just because I do not believe that sex should only be for childbearing, nor do I believe I have the obligation to bear a child if I did accidentally get pregnant. Quite frankly, a fetus up to the point where abortion is considered allowable is not a human being. If you believe differently, that does not give you the right to dictate the actions of others with guidelines based on your beliefs. We are not telling you that women have to get abortions, and as such are not forcing you to live under the guidelines of our beliefs. You are saying that we should live under the guidelines of yours.

Also, toomin, Andrea has already made the point that birth control is not, in fact, available everywhere, but even if it were, it is not 100% effective 100% of the time, which means that someone who was using protection and got pregnant did not necessarily do so because of a mistake (which, by the way, I do not think they should be punished for the rest of their life if they DID make a mistake).

Seminymous Coward said:

Josie-
I did not "concede that forcing a woman to carry to term and bear a child she does not want is wrong in the case of rape." I should clarify. By "I'll concede ['Forcing women to bear children they do not want is wrong'] in the case of rape, but that just makes rape wrong for yet another reason." I did not mean that abortion is not morally wrong in the case of rape. I meant that rape putting the victim in the position "to bear children they do not want" "makes rape wrong for yet another reason."

Even if I did suffer from the logical inconsistency you describe, that's no reason to drop words like "whore" into my mouth.

Stating that something is morally wrong is not "dictat[ing] the actions of others." I'm not sure what I think the law should be, and I'm certainly not making any laws in these blog comments.

"[A] fetus up to the point where abortion is considered allowable is not a human being." -Josie
Why?

Seminymous Coward said:

smokejack-
I didn't really follow that.

Yes, all of my premises are incomplete, in the sense they could be sliced up some more. I'm pretty much posting a "wall of text" each time as it is, so I was trying not to be even more excessively verbose. If there's one or more points for which you'd like specific justification, I can go into greater detail.

I already explained that 7, 8, and 9 are incomplete in other senses.

I'm not sure if you're implying I lack manners, but, if that is your intent, I wonder why you think that.

P.S. I apologize for the double post; I overlooked smokejack's comment at first.

Josie said:

Even when you rephrase it, “’I’ll concede [‘Forcing women to bear children they do not want is wrong’] in the case of rape, but that just makes rape wrong for yet another reason,” you are still implying that forcing a woman to bear a child she does not want when she wanted the sex is not equally wrong (and, by the way it is equally wrong). Now that you’ve clarified, I do understand that you do not mean that abortion is acceptable in that case, but the line of thinking is still problematic.
I, personally, am not offended by what being a “whore” entails. What I am offended by is that it is used in a derogatory manner – as if sexual promiscuity (or, if we’re going more true to the actual definition, having sex for money) is a wrong and horrible thing. I did choose the word purposefully, though, because it embodies the frowning-on of female sexuality that you are displaying. Perhaps you would like to be less harsh in your phrasing of those opinions, but it does not make the opinions themselves less harsh. And let me reiterate, before you say I’m putting words in your mouth…when you say that forcing a woman to bear a child she did not want is wrong in the case of rape, but not in all other cases (whether you believe the law should reflect that or not), you are saying that women deserve what would, to them, be the punishment of bearing (and possibly raising) a child because they were sexually promiscuous, because they made the “mistake” of being sexually active while not wanting to reproduce.
I did assume that, since we were discussing a law that is being considered, that your opinions of said law were being reflected. It was my mistake, but I do not think it was an illogical one to make.

I am not religious, and therefore believe that an embryo (and fetus, to a certain point) is not a human being, but rather a collection of cells and a biological process. I know not everyone agrees with me on that point, and I did phrase that poorly.
But, as we aren’t discussing whether abortion should be legal, but rather whether abortion providers should be allowed to shame the women seeking them…
I think this proposal is cruel to the extreme, and that their curiosity about the reasons for abortion (even if I thought that’s what this is actually about, which I do not) is not justification for making an already difficult time even more so for these women. It’s like a parent trying to teach their children a lesson – “I want you to go to your room and think about what you’ve done.” It’s wrong, especially the waiting period.

Josie said:

And I must add, because it is absolutely NOT their place to teach "lessons" to women having abortions. Women having abortions do not need to be taught to think about what they are doing.

Calamity said:

Here in my home town in Australia, obtaining a termination is already a two-step process. You go in for an initial appointment where you are given a quick check up, a discussion with a nurse AND a doctor to explain the procedure, information on counseling services if you would like to use them and a medication to take the day of the procedure to prepare your body. You are then scheduled for the procedure a few days later, at which time you come back. I think this works. It gives women time to come to terms with their decision, and perhaps even a chance to change their minds if they want to. They are able to call back the clinic or counseling services at any time in the interim and are encouraged to return at a later date for another check up. While the politics in the above article may not be completely appropriate, and a woman should NOT have to explain her decision, I do think a a waiting period can be beneficial.

Seminymous Coward said:

Josie-
I don't have a problem with any person having any amount of any form of consensual sex. I think that, based on my knowledge of the topic and the exclusion in 8, abortion is wrong. Those are completely orthogonal beliefs. I didn't bring up the cause of the pregnancy at all because I don't think it's relevant. Yes, I discussed the issue of consent to the cause, but that was to discuss a point someone else raised.

"I am not religious, and therefore believe that an embryo (and fetus, to a certain point) is not a human being, but rather a collection of cells and a biological process."
Well, I am an atheist and, for unrelated reasons, believe all human beings are a collection of cells and a biological process. In any case, the quoted passage amounts to a restatement, not a reason. Please clarify the line where your definition of "human being" starts; I would seriously like to know.

Andrea said:

Coward -

I will say this: I don't know if a fetus is a human. I don't think it is. But I do know that a grown woman capable of bearing children is definitely a human, and calling her a murderer and forcing her to give birth to an unwanted child is unacceptable.

But, for shits and giggles, let us concede all of your points, and acknowledge that women who have abortions are murderers, since they're killing humans inside their own bodies.

How do you handle that situation? Do you jail women who have abortions? Do you fine them? Do you sterilize them? What do you do with the children they have? Do you also force women to raise them? Do you do a DNA test on every child born so the father can be identified? Do the fathers have equal responsibility in the raising of the kids? Do the fathers get to say whether they want to be parents? Or is it only the mothers who don't have a choice? Given a right to privacy, how do you force men to submit to DNA testing? Do you put the unwanted children in orphanages? Foster care? Who pays for that?

Abortion is clearly a terrible decision to have to make; the solution to reducing the number of them--which is what any thoughtful person ought to be concerned with, regardless of their stance on the issue--is not to say that abortion should be illegal or that women who have abortions are murderers since they are killing human beings for fun and profit or whatever reason it is anti-choice people think women have abortions for.

Maintaining the legality and ease of access to abortion, as well as increasing access to contraceptives and comprehensive sex education, is the only and best way to address what is an incredibly serious issue. Some people may enjoy sitting around and arguing about abortion, which is fine, but it in no way thoughtfully addresses the practice itself. The real crux of the matter is not whether you think abortion is bad or wrong--I challenge you to find a pro-choice person who is actually pro-abortion, but whether you believe (rightly) that forcing women to have children they do not want is atrocious, misogynistic and oppressive (not least because there cannot possibly exist a comparable legal or social punishment for the men who no doubt contributed to the pregnancy.)

Not Guilty said:

Calamity - women who go in for the first appointment have already thought about the decision. Forcing a waiting to period to "make sure" they've thought about it is insulting. It suggests that I am incapable of fully understanding what it is I am doing and need to be told in no uncertain terms by a doctor and a nurse. And then go home and think about it. That is flat out insulting and it suggests that I, as a woman, can't be trusted to make such a big decision without hand holding. Give me a break. I am intelligent and before I go to the first appointment, I would have "thought about it".

In Canada, you go in for 1 appointment. You fill out forms, you get counselling and if you still want an abortion, you see the doctor. The whole process from entry to exit, including recovery time, is a few hours.

As for the anti's. My body. My choice. Your body. Your choice. It is THAT SIMPLE. Decisions regarding my body are NONE of your business. Some people believe birth control interferes with "God's plans" to create life. If they tried to tell you that you couldn't use birth control, then I suspect you would be pretty pissed that they were telling you how to run your life. Well your anti-choice perspective is the same thing in my books.

When the technology exists such that a fetus at a few weeks can be removed from my body and survive, then I might consider that as a viable alternative to termination. But I will NOT be forced to carry a fetus one day past when I don't want to. And I am going to have as much sex as I damn well please.

I love how anti's don't think I am capable of making this decision for myself, but I would be capable of raising a child. Funny logic...

libby said:

"My body. My choice. Your body. Your choice. It is THAT SIMPLE."

This argument rings hollow in that we live in a society that has deemed it acceptable to regulate all manor of behavior that only affects oneself. From prohibitions on using marijuana, being on the selling or buying end of prostitution, gambling, purchasing liquor at a store after 9pm, purchasing liquor in a bar after 2pm, etc. etc. etc.

Personally, I'm a libertarian who doesn't give a flip if you want to do any or all of the above actions. At least with abortion, if someone holds the belief that a human being gestated is a human being, the prohibition of the procedure makes more sense than why anyone in the US gives a crap if somebody else bets on a football game while smoking a joint.

Not Guilty said:

Well speaking from Canada, marijuana is not punished to nearly the same extent as in the US. And doing drugs does affect other Canadians to the extent that we all pay for each other's healthcare. With respect to prostitution, that hurts women, so it is not "victimless". With respect to liquor, Canada taxes liquor heavily, and that is why many provinces choose to sell it exclusively at government stores - increased profits (often to pay for healthcare). With respect to limiting alcohol being sold after 2 am, since bars are often located near residential areas, this ensures that drunkards aren't out disturbing the peace and destroying property. Thus none of those actually hold up as defeating my statement.

You could attempt to defeat my statement by saying low fertility rates affect us all, but that again goes to controlling another human being's uterus and telling women that all they are good for is producing babies. So that argument must fail by virtue of making women robots. So, My body. My choice. It IS that simple.

Internaut said:

Taking a purely logical stance on something does not make you more right. If you take away everything about the situation, all of the human experience, the emotion that goes into making a choice of that magnitude and simply try to reason it out through logistics and rational thought, you will never come out to the same conclusion as those who do not see the world as...unattached as you do. Look beyond the argument of whether or not it's taking a human life and beyond the supposed moral compass (or lack thereof) and you will see that it still remains a matter of choice. The right to choose, the right to make your own decisions and not someone else who thinks they know what's best for you better than you know yourself. If a woman makes the choice to have an abortion, it his her choice, not mine, not the State of Missouri's, not someone on the internet preaching rational though. It is hers and hers alone- and should stay that way if we hope to maintain the personal freedoms we all tend to take for granted. Having the freedom to choose is just that - Freedom.

Internaut said:

Oh man, typo ftl. *Rational Thought.

Gallowglass said:

Morally I don't like abortion used as birth control but it is not my place to insist that it not be used. I have given friends rides, picked them up at a women's health center and helped them when they needed it.

I also do not like groups and persons who insist that birth control isn't something kids should learn about. Sign your kids out of otherwise mandatory birth control classes and be legally liable for the costs of raising that child till age 25, including full cost for their education.

Personally, I would love to see abortion become a rare, limited medical procedure and not used as birth control. Right to Lifers, spend some of your time, money and effort in developing secure, failure free methods of birth control for males and females, then make it mandatory until age 20.

Take that BS about how teaching kids about contraception is going to make them have sex. If you taught them right, they will make the right choices but do not force them onto the paying field, blindfolded and with both hands tied behind their back. Teach your daughter how to put on condoms for their boyfriends, then teach your sons the same. Spend a few bucks to find one that is comfrtable and secure and that your son or daughter knows how to emplace.

sorry, the teacher in me whose seen pregnant 15 year olds dropping out of school to rase their kids, is a bit pissy.

Internaut said:

Gallowglass-

Couldn't agree more.

libby said:

disturbing the peace and destroying property? who's advocating that should be legal? that's a bit of a stretch considering I'm talking about perhaps buying a bottle of wine on my way home from working the night shift at 3am to enjoy with dinner the next night. that does not affect you IN ANY WAY. society regulates things that don't affect others ALL THE TIME.

prostitution hurts women? my gay friend was arrested for soliciting a male on craigslist. please identify the women that was hurt by that.

if you have government health care, then sure other people's drug, drinking, exercise, eating, and smoking habits affect you tangentially. congratulations, you've just green lit regulation of the entirety of human existence. if we're talking about everybody having a say in the actions and makeup of society, then whether or not an already-gestating additional taxpayer comes to term or not seems at least as much the rest of society's business as whether or not I jog this morning or have that second scoop of ice cream.

again, i'm on your side. i think the government should stay out of it entirely, but to curse government regulation of one medical procedure while not condemning all other intrusions into personal decisions seems self-serving and hypocritical. there's plenty that's not your choice about your body, so it's not that simple. you're acting as if it's a black-and-white issue, and it's just not.

people that believe an 11 year old rape survivor should carry her father's 4 week old embryo to term and people that believe the healthy women who didn't notice she wasn't having her period for eight months has an absolute constitutional right to abort her 39 out of 40 week-old fetus because she just couldn't get around to it sooner are the the vastvastvast minority of extremists on each side of the spectrum. most people fall somewhere in between, and think abortion should be legal and available, but are fine with some common sense restrictions. how each state implements those are up to the democratically elected representatives with proper judicial oversight. a "my body, my choice!" absolutist is every bit as extreme on one end of the spectrum as the pro-lifers are on the other. it's not "that simple" and pretending otherwise goes nowhere.

Calamity said:

Not Guilty - Between the day I found out I as pregnant to the day of my first appointment, I changed my mind about termination 20 times. After that appointment I was still trying to decide but I did finally come to a decision, one I believe was right for me. The nurse and doctor didn't tell me to "go home and think about it", they gave me information about the physical aspects of what I was about to go through and also offered me a chance to speak to a professional about it. They were never condescending, never intruding, and only wanted what was best for me.

Yes, many women know exactly what they are going to do, but many, like me, do not and do need time to consider their decision. I cannot speak to Canada's or America's system. What I can say is that based on my experiences, I found our two-step process to works very well.

Allison Kathrine Krane said:

I have read through every word of this debate and I would like to add in my two sense(cents).

I have a single word that will prove, without doubt or hesitation, that abortions are necessary in the current world. A single word, that should quell any and all naysayers and be undeniable and without flaw in logic.

That word is: OctoMom.

I am personally against abortions, but that I also believe that a fetus is a clump of cells and a biological process.

I believe that all humans are a clump of cells engaged in a biological process. This means I don't believe life is sacred either. And I don't. Neither do any of you.

Hear me out a minute, cause I know that I am walking into territory that is a war zone minefield compared to the Elysian fields that have been traipsed about so far.

We take care of things we consider Sacred. We restore them, honor them, baby them, horde them, and often times put them on display in museums so that others can marvel at them as well.

Lyrics from "Time by Hootie and the Blowfish, describe how sacred humans are to themselves and other.

"Children killing in the street, fighting o'er the color of a rag."

We routinely kill other humans over petty ideas, beliefs and trivial things like property.

We injest, shoot up, and otherwise imbibe mind-altering chemicals in more and more morbidly increasing amounts, without concern to the consequence.

We eat garbage, inhale poisons and drive far faster than we should, or is posted on the street signs.

If human beings WERE actually sacred, then we would treat each other a whole lot better than we do. We would also have long ago began weeding out the undesirable qualities of our species for further generations.

Because that is what is done to sacred objects. they are not left to rot in filth and abandoned in refuse containers. they are picked up, dusted off and many times, restored to their previous glory.

There are birth control methods out there that are 100% effective, it's just that we haven't discovered them yet. for those of you who cite abstinence as working now, I will point you to a book that happen to have found on a shelf at a bookstore near my home. It's well published, so you can likely get yourself a copy, maybe even for free.

You might have heard of it. It's called the Bible. Somewhere in there, the actual page number is different determined by who rewrote it to suit their own agenda, is a story about a virgin woman who gae birth birth to a child.

If I must follow all the other things in the bible as if they were literal truth and not open for interpretation, then I should be allowed to consider that passage as worthwhile as a study in a modern medical journal.

Now, back to Octomom. I don't believe that those children of hers are the proof that abortions should exist in the current day. I believe octomom herself is the proof and that the world would have been better off without HER.

If humans were sacred, we would treat our babies better, but in the same token, we would also prevent people who were questionable in capacity as parents from being allowed to make a sacred human being.

What I hate is the fact that a majority of the anti-abortion protesters are also anti- birth control as well. And a majority of those are catholic, but irregardless...

If human being were sacred, sex would be a sacred act between two sacred individuals and would not be the wonderous and casual event it has become.

We have taken the glory of sex and reduced it to a selling feature on EVERYTHING. Toilet paper, beverages, clothing, nothing is left out from the "lets use sexual references to sell this."

If we took care of our children as if they were sacred, then abortion wouldn't need to exist, but it's here not, filling a need that exists because people are not prepared, either emotionally, financially, or otherwise to take care of another life, one who will be completely dependent on them for many years.

I don't have children because I know I am barely responable enough for myself and sometimes not even that. But I treat sex like the sacred act that it should be, giving it all the wonder, glory and responsibility it deserves, because I know that it's not the man who has to deal with the consequences afterward.

Many men just run away, their fun is over and it's time to find a new partner. If men also were given some kind of consequence for inducing pregnancy, ANY consequence that that could not run away from meaning a biological one, then sex would once again be sacred and by that token, so would children and humans, and abortions wouldn't need to happen.

But that's just my opinion,

Ally Kat.

Jessica said:

I've also read through this argument from beginning to end and can only offer up my own story. My mother never talked to me about sex or birthcontrol methods, and even though she herself had 6 kids and numerous abortions, I don't know that the thought ever crossed her mind. I had sex early and became pregnant at 15. I was offered three choices. 1. Keep the child and raise it 2. abort 3. have it and let my mother raise it as my sibling I chose to have the child and at 16 did so, giving birth to a beautiful 8 and 1/2 lb baby girl. I went to college, got involved with someone, and again, became pregnant. I chose to abort this time, knowing full well that if I had another child at 17, that would be my life. The life of a welfare mom was not for me. It was a difficult decision, but I lived with it. My mother never talked about it, but I believe she would have chosen to educate me differently if it meant my life would have turned out better. My own daughter is nearly 16 this year and when she started her first cycle, I took her in for the pill. I also supplied her with the knowledge and the means to always have condoms and no excuse to ever not be safe. I began those talks with her at 8 when nature began doing what she does best to females. I've fought with my mother and my sister and many others who claim that by giving her the tools to prevent pregnancy, I am ultimatly telling her it is okay to have sex. I disagree. I simply do not want my daughter to ever have to be faced with the choice I was faced with. I have no other children, though perhaps when she goes off to college I will consider it. My daughter is Pro-Choice for others but she is Pro-Life for herself. She says she doesn't think it's right to tell others what to do with their bodies, but refuses to have someone tell her what to do with her own. And as for the debate about when a fetus is "human", that time is when it can substain life on its own outside of the womb or at around 6-7 months gestation. I know that it is possible to abort at that late of a term, but the practice is illegal nearly everywhere and horrid too boot. I don't condone abortion after the 3rd month or into the 2nd trimester, but in some cases, it is a nessasary evil. My daughter and myself are having a "thank god you made it to 16 without getting pregnant" party and it is a private joke between us. BTW, she is a 3.0 student, and has ambitions to be a Pediatric MD.

© 2014 Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy