What do you think of these reasons anti-choicers give for choosing to have an abortion?

Question

Here's an article titled "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion-When the Anti-Choice Choose" detailing anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe:

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

What do you think of the reasons these anti-choicers give for choosing abortion when it affects them or their family members?

Answer 1

So your trying to say everyones a hypocrite,well how many women out there whom had an abortion ever think about the child they terminated later on in life,,,this is just more propaganda in my book.

Answer 2

Here is my reasoning:

I have thought about this quite a bit over the years. The wide spread of opinions is incredible, matched only by the passion of the activists on all sides. This is an issue that few people are even able to have a civilized discussion about. Complicating it further is that there are few that hold a black-and-white few of the issue. The majority of people in the US see abortion as a giant grey area with varying degrees of abortion considered acceptable. Very few people hold the position of unlimited abortion access or no abortion under any circumstances. Below is the process I went through to come up with my position on the matter.

First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. This is the position that spurred “Born Alive” legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks, such as Barak Obama, would hold that this type of infanticide as well as partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. Or perhaps just before while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.

Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my wife and I when we lost one of our children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave us their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve our loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why?

By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, a social worker, and heads up an international charity. I’d call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the “prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is” positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood.

But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, “we are going to make gold valuable”. Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.

This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at inception. Prior to inception, there was no “you”. The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors. It is only when they combine to create new life do “you” begin to be a person.

The notion of intrinsic value also carries forward throughout life. My mother-in-law was on dialysis for several months before diabetes finally took her life. There are many who would have said that she should just die and not burden the rest of us. If those persons held the position that human life has imputed value, I can understand. I however, believe that human life is intrinsically valuable and worth preserving and protecting for as long as possible. Thus, we should protect life at the beginning and at the end and at all points in between.

So, we come full circle back to the question of abortion. Should it be outlawed? My answer, since I believe in the intrinsic value of human life, is that for the most part it should. Why only “for the most part”? Because there are times when you have to weigh the life of two humans and pick one to live and one to die. My sister-in-law faced such a problem once. She got pregnant from her husband and it turned out to be a tubal pregnancy. Had the child been allowed to grow inside of her, it would have killed her before the baby would have been able to survive on its own. Thus, in weighing these two lives, one would have to conclude that the baby would have to die in order to save the mother’s life. What about cases of rape or incest? I have 5 daughters (yes, that was no typo) and the thought of one of them being raped is always lurking in the back of my mind. If one of them should get pregnant as a result, the hard decision would be to let that child live. Pregnancy is not the extremely dangerous event of the past. Rarely do people die from giving birth. Many more die as a result of complications after an abortion. But the bottom line is that the child is innocent of any crime, so why punish it? I’m not saying it is an easy choice and I can certainly sympathize with those who have had to make it. Perhaps they even made the wrong choice. But, God is a loving and forgiving God, who can even forgive the taking of a human life. Which is what abortion is.

Answer 3

One of the doctor's said it: they think their cases are ultra special.  In their minds the girls and women who are having these abortions are still tramps who don't know how to use birth control.

I have a good friend who was the president of the pro life group on my campus, and very busy on the national level as well.  She got pregnant a little earlier then she planned on and got married and had the baby.  Her view was much more that abortion is bad for women's health as well as that it is murder.   She understood that mistakes happen and tried to educate women on what ALL their choices were.  The people quoted in this article seem to think that anyone else who needed an abortion was sleeping with anyone in their path.

Answer 4

I always say that most anti-choicers are only anti-choice until their daughter gets knocked up by the immigrant lawn boy.

Edit: Goodness, that's rich. "24 percent of women who obtain abortions consider the procedure morally wrong."  Nearly 10 percent of women who obtain abortions think it should be illegal.

EXPLAIN that to me?

Answer 5

My guess is that they put up such a strong barrier between themselves and abortion that they couldn't handle the breakage. In all likelihood, many of these girls were opposed to birth control, or at least didn't learn enough about it, before they had s*x.

Answer 6

lol cheap demonisation there. anyway yeah some people are hypocrites, most people are they do wats easy not whats right, dont belive go watch a bully in a schoolyard, someone inujred on a sidewalk. yeah theres plenty of of justifications, in the end its still meaningless babble.

Answer 7

The same people as a voting block are responsible for forty-fifty times more abortions every year than pro-choice voting blocks.  You see, 50% of ALL pregnancies end in abortion, spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, which is Nature's way of saying conditions in a woman's body or with the fetus are not right for the pregnancy to continue.  Abortion is an absolutely natural process that strengthens a species and Nature treats fetal tissue as proto-life.  Modern medical science and proper pre-natal care can reduce 50% of miscarriages.  That's a LOT of babies.  The same anti-choice voting block, though, is totally responsible for the massive slashing of funds for pre-natal clinics.  They have no problem whatsoever with abortion and a woman's BODY deciding that conditions are not right for a pregnancy to continue.  What they have a problem with is the idea of a woman using her MIND to decide if conditions are not right for a pregnancy to continue.  Women, in making that decision, are in effect, shaping the course of human evolution and society.  And THAT'S what anti-women people, especially the religious freaks, are up in arms about.  That's why ALL anti-choice groups are led by men. Their "cause" has nothing whatsoever to do with the "preciousness of life".  Just check out who votes consistently for capital punishment and war and who supports the 40,000 gun shot deaths every single year in the U.S. in an alliance with the NRA and arms dealers.  AND, they traditionally vote down and relentlessly resist every single measure to address the reasons why women might choose abortion, such as lack of quality child care, lack of child nutrition programs, lack of equal pay, lack of equal educational access, lack of domestic violence laws, lack of public support for public schools (except for the football team, of course), lack of parental leave, lack of child health care insurance, etc.

Answer 8

Abortion is wrong no matter who has it done.  To say the fetus is not alive is ignorant!  When you have to kill something or terminate something, that thing is alive.  Its like society treats an unborn human as a pest that needs to be poisioned so as not to "inconvenience" your life.

Answer 9

wow that's hypocritical.

i think that they think they and their reasons are special - not like the reasons other people get abortions.

Kind of like something i read recently --that many conservative men said they were not homosexual, that they just preferred to have s*x with men.  Riiiiiiight.

Answer 10

Like the first answerer said many women who get abortions know that it's wrong. They are weak and let other outside sources influence them. These are the women who are going to hate themselves forever and regret their decision. Some times people forget their own morality, they look for the easy way out.

Answer 11

Sad and pathetic.

Answer 12

Oh! I read that the other week and I thought it was horrible. How can these women and girls live with their shameful hypocrisy? Where do they find the nerve to picket other women for doing exactly what they have done? Sickening. I think their reasons are just as flimsy and self-serving as the reasons that most women have for choosing abortion (not talking about medically necessary ones or rape victims, that's different). "I don't want a baby", "it isn't a good time right now", "it will interfere with my studies/plans"....blah blah blah. Pathetic stuff indeed. It's even worse coming from someone who outwardly claims to be pro-life.

Answer 13

Whether its anyones business or not, I had one done 3 years ago. To this day i still cry when its thought about. It is no ones decision to make other than the mother. Anyone wo has been through this knows how traumitizing it can be, and how sad you do feel- But it also protects the child from facing a life of torture from an unfit mother, someone doesnt want to come into this world unwanted...

Answer 14

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.  Yes, it is hypocritical, what I can't believe is that some truly believe it is alright for them, but not for anyone else.

Answer 15

If guns are bad because they kill people, what about cars?  They kill more people than guns do.

Abortion is a no-win situation for society.  Both sides are right, but both sides are wrong.  It's easy to justify the 'convenience' of an abortion, but how is it easy to justify ending a future 'life form".

Sadly, it divides society in a way few issues ever could.

Answer 16

johno, I disagree with you.  Women have the right to abortion because it is an entity that is inside our bodies, living off our nutrients.  Once it is outside of the body, it is illegal to kill it, simply because it is no longer a physical burden to us.  Therefore, men killing the baby after it is born is stupid, especially if it's just to prove a "point".  I agree with abortion, but not the murder of post-birth babies.  If they made it legal for fathers to kill their babies after they are born, then they would also have to make it legal to kill a child, no matter what age.

Answer 17

I think it's really sad that they went right back to picketing after their abortions. They should've learned more compassion from their own experience. It's really pretty twisted.

Answer 18

i think they're hypocrites. stupid too.

they act better than everyone else if they do that. they aren't.

our personal lives should just be left alone. ha ha.

Answer 19

this is RIDICULOUS.

Ideally, i should expect every girl here to be FOR abortion. what is wrong with feminists today is that there aren't enough of them. i know how it is. everybody wants to look at the pregnant girl as a stupid s**t. it's her fault she got herself knocked up, so she has the responsibility of keeping that child.

and what of the father??? the tragic fate that awaits these pregnant girls who don't choose to get abortions is to have to raise the baby all by themselves with limited time and resources. they have to deal with the pain of being abandoned by their irresponsible baby daddies, and the financial stresses of having a baby.

having a baby at a young age RUINS YOUR LIFE.

so, WOMEN of the world, don't point your finger at the women who get abortions, point them at the men who make women into single mothers, point them at the men who control congress disproportionately who don't do a thing to protect single mothers.

Answer 20

Its not "anti-choice." Its pro-life.

I'm sure you don't like it when people call you "pro-abortion" or  "anti-life."

In regards to your question, I think that handful of stories is sad and hypocritical of those women. That's the world we live in.

Answer 21

Like I've always said, it's no one's business. It's funny how those who protest lead double-lives.

They are justifying it because it seems right for them at the time. And then go around judging others who do the same. It's ridiculous, hypocritical, and pointless.

I think it's good that most of these hypocrites are choosing not to procreate.

Answer 22

It shows how thoroughly these women have been brainwashed. They can't even see their own hypocrisy.

Answer 23

Catholics for Choice, a non-profit, has done reports on this too. They've found just as many Catholic women (and men helping them make the decision) have had abortions as non-Catholic women.

Sometimes people - male and female - put on facades to pretend to be something they are not so that they can be considered "upstanding citizens" or "morally sound" or whatever.

I dont mind that they talk about it being bad or create an image of themselves, but still get an abortion --- I mind when they start influencing laws or policies that affect the rest of us. There's no excuse for that.

Answer 24

Sincere thanks for posting this.

Answer 25

First off, referring to Pro-Life as "Anti-Choice" doesn't vilify the stance as much as you clearly want it to.  But if you're gonna continue to call it "Anti-Choice," I have no choice but to call "Pro-Choicers" by what THEY really are.

"Pro-Murder"

So, being Pro-Life as I am, my answer wouldn't change if, God forbid, my daughter were raped by a guy and became pregnant.  We would give her a couple of options and I GUARANTEE that MURDER would not be one of those options.

If she didn't want the baby, carry it to term and give the baby up for adoption so as to give the baby a chance to know the loving embrace of people who would be forever grateful for the priceless gift of a wonderful little baby.

As for why Pro-Murder advocates don't understand that adoption is still an option in this country, I honestly don't know.  Maybe their bloodlust overshadows their common sense and they prefer the idea of knowing that babies are being torn to shreds and brutally murdered or poisoned in the womb.

Answer 26

When it's them or their teenage daughter it's justified, but only for them