Sad!

What's your story? Tell me and the entire world all about it.
Forum rules
Topics should be about experiences, comments, and observations from our members' personal lives.
Post Reply
brandtrn
Guardian Angel
Guardian Angel
Posts: 159
Joined: 27 Feb 2015, 16:27

Sad!

Post by brandtrn »

http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/south-be ... k/38453914

THIS is saddening! NO abortion care whatsoever in our metropolitan area of over 300 thousand?? Not to mention for the many tens of thousands who live in the neighboring small towns who come to this area for various medical needs? I don't care WHAT y'all THINK of abortion...the fact remains that it's legal (at least, for the moment!), and a woman seeking one should be able to have access to a safe procedure without having to drive for a couple of hours (and that's assuming that she even HAS a car!) in order to obtain it. I suppose that the local redneck anti-choicers (I REFUSE to refer to them as "pro-lifers," because the huge majority of them don't appear to give a hairy rat's ass about what quality of "life" the kid might have AFTER its mother has been forced to give birth to it!) won't be satisfied until all those women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to return to using coat hangers and back-alley butchers rather than qualified physicians to accomplish their objectives. Hey, at least if they die along with their fetuses, "justice" will be served, right? *end sarcasm*
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
Icey

Re: Sad!

Post by Icey »

Well I can't speak for the South Bend clinic closing down, and I'm not about to go into the reasons why I don't agree with abortions unless a woman's been raped, but I have to say this: No abortion's a totally safe process, but better that qualified medical staff should be on hand than a woman turning to a back-street abortionist or DIY methods.

However, if a child faces a ruinous quality of life, then the mother was either unable to provide a decent upbringing, or didn't want to, in which case, she should've made sure that she didn't get pregnant in the first place.

I know accidents happen, but in the main, it's due to carelessness or ignorance when having unprotected sex.

I know a woman who was raped, however, and who ended up keeping her daughter. The girl's now a highly qualified midwife, and has 2 children of her own. Sad though her birth was, the grandmother doesn't regret keeping her daughter and seeing her beautiful grandchildren. I don't think I'd have been able to do what she did, but then, with not having been put into such a position, it's difficult to make a definite decision about what I'd have done. It's no good standing in judgement unless you've suffered a trauma like that.

The person who raped this woman has since died. Perhaps it's a good job, as it means that no excuses've had to be made for his absence, but he didn't even get a jail sentence for what he did. It's brought a sort of closure to the episode, but the grandmother never really saw justice done, and it's only by her own strength of character and love for the daughter she never asked for, that she managed to forge ahead and provide a good upbringing for her, tough as times might've been.

No woman deserves to die along with her foetus, so it's a good job that there're still legal facilities for those who, for various reasons, choose not to have their unborn child. In the UK, there're good counselling services which aim to provide unbiased information to any woman who finds herself in the position of considering an abortion. I think this's of great importance, because some women allow unwanted pregnancies to happen, and terminate more than once. Whether we believe that a young foetus is classed as a baby or not, I find it invidious that a woman can expect a termination on demand, not caring that she might've helped to create this tiny piece of life which feels surplus to requirement or interferes with her lifestyle. These sort of people are, to my mind, separate from the poor souls who get raped, or know that their babies're going to be born with a deformity or illness which they'll suffer all their lives. The ones who abort freely, should maybe have their children and let them be adopted, in which case they'd most likely go to loving parents who really wanted them, but to close somewhere which obviously helped the people of Indianna seems ludicrous. Hopefully, a new, updated Family Planning clinic might be opened in lieu of it.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 9978
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Sad!

Post by yogi »

The topic of abortion is one of those emotion packed explosive issues that probably never will have the support of a consensus. Separating the biology from the morality seems to be a paradox of epic proportions for people on both sides of the argument. What is truly sad is that people other than the expectant mother feel that they have a right to impose their personal beliefs upon her and society as a whole. The justification for their righteousness is nearly always fundamentalist in nature. They will appeal to ethics and the protection of society when cornered in an argument. The moral people who would deny abortion to a single individual are the same people who endorse and encourage murder of the masses. Note the number of wars currently in progress if you are having trouble wrapping your mind around the contradiction. Even worse, how many people are allowed to die because they are running away from their government and not allowed entry into your country, or continent in the case of Europe?

Abortion boils down to the rights of individual females verses the rights of the society in which that individual lives (fetuses have no rights in my concept of society or biology). Abortion laws basically are a power play by male dominated groups. Yes there are females with strong beliefs too, but guess where those beliefs originate. It goes beyond sad and borders on cruelty when one person's beliefs can be legally forced upon another. There is no biological argument.

Too bad for you ladies who must succumb to all this. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to be born male in your next life.
Icey

Re: Sad!

Post by Icey »

Each to their own opinion Yogi. I tried to be subjective with my reply, because I can see how traumatic the subject of abortion can be to women who're facing the decision, but I still stand by my comments.

A foetus may not have any "rights", as such, but some women allow themselves to get pregnant and then aren't concerned about anyone but themselves. A termination here, a termination there - what's wrong with it when it's just a cluster of cells and not a fully-formed baby? Well, that's a debatable point. By the end of the first month, the cluster of cells's no longer "just" that. It's an embryo, which might only be about 4mm in length and weigh less than a gramme, but it already has all the components which go to make up its spinal chord, heart, brain and other internal organs. So how do we know that this tiny being can't feel pain? Now consider that most abortions're carried out on embryo which's classed as a foetus (a foetus being an embryo which's reached about 8 weeks' old). At this stage, the foetus's pretty much completely developed everything it'll need to grow and result in a human baby as we know it. By the end of the 8th week, it has kidneys, a liver and its eyes and ears're visible as such, even though this little thing's only 2 cm long.

If someone's unable to allow their pregnancy to continue, I respect that they probably have very good reasons, and it's for them to decide, but it doesn't mean that I agree with it unless those reasons're very valid ones, and just as with every other subject under the sun, we all have our own thoughts about these things.

My own beliefs aren't swayed by religion or being indoctrinated with other peoples' ideas. Life's a wonderful thing, and I think it should be preserved where possible. I don't hold it against others who have a different outlook, but have to wonder how one can simply dismiss the idea of a child, and get rid of it as though it's unwanted baggage.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 9978
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Sad!

Post by yogi »

While I don't recall all the ideas Plato spoke of in his Socratic dialogue, the Republic, one in particular has stayed in my mind ever since I read the book. The idea of not burdening society with weaklings could not only be ethical but moral as well. Preservation of a life that is doomed to dysfunction places a burden on all who come into contact with it. Sympathizes would put a higher value on the life and rights of this incapacitated being than they would on society as a whole.

The concept of only keeping the healthy and strong to preserve our species seems to get lost in religious beliefs, or personal emotions. I'm sure it would be shocking if I were to propose not only legal prenatal abortions but also post natal as well. There would be a limit, of course, perhaps as much as 90 days after birth. But I can see benefits to humanity by culling back the inferior and not burdening mankind with the weakest of our species.

As you say, it's all a matter of personal opinion. I guess even Plato had his.
User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 2999
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 21:35

Re: Sad!

Post by pilvikki »

well, that gave me chills, dennis.

anyway, the fact remains, birthcontrol still is very unreliable. my former SIL had her tubes tied because she definitely did not want any more kids. well, she did.

condoms break, pills have nasty side-effects and they can fail, IUD's are the devils invention, foams can irritate, etc. and let's face it, some people are just profoundly ignorant on the subject. like using the rhythm method, as if people work like clocks... :lol: so there are a lot more reasons than not just taking precautions for getting pregnant.

as for using abortion as a form of birth control - you're just not a normal human being; get your tubes, cut and fried. abortions can cause a hole pile of hurt, like kill you, even when done in proper clinics.
Icey

Re: Sad!

Post by Icey »

This is precisely my point Vikki.

As to killing the weak, that sounds reminiscent of Nazi ideas.

Without wishing to decry any woman who's considering a termination, I can understand their dilemma if tests show that their child'd be born with some bad defect, but - consider what "bad" means.

Is a child born with one leg, eyesight problems or some other physical "deformity" any less loved by the mother who has it? Is this individual destined to be shunned by society just because it isn't as "wholesome" as the next person? Disabilities don't mean that a person can't contribute to society and develop into an intelligent, articulate person.

The advent of genetically being able to control faulty genes which pass on congenital diseases is already here, so in the future, babies inheriting such genes can be modified, if you will, but not aborted.

When we found out that our youngest son was autistic, there was no way of knowing this before he was born. Do I wish I'd terminated him? Not at all! The very thought's repugnant to me, and the young man's loved no less than his incredibly bright brother. The pride and joy which we get out of both them, although different, is equal. The extra work involved with looking after a disabled child fades into significance as they get older, and actually makes us, as parents, gain qualities which we mightnt've had otherwise - extra patience, compassion, a strong protective instinct and an understanding of the difficulties encountered by those children. If you saw my son, you wouldn't know that he has autism. He looks perfectly normal, but even if he didn't, he's mine, and there's no way I'd wish to be without him.
brandtrn
Guardian Angel
Guardian Angel
Posts: 159
Joined: 27 Feb 2015, 16:27

Re: Sad!

Post by brandtrn »

My apologies for dumping this conversation out there and then, seemingly, abandoning it. Juggling two jobs and trying to get a bit of sleep in between has left me little time for posting thoughtful conversation online. Anyway, like Icey and pilvikki, I, too, find abortion, especially when used merely as a form of "birth control," to be morally reprehensible. But what can I say? I was raised as a Catholic (although I no longer practice in that religion, but old beliefs die hard!), and to believe that ALL life is sacred. BUT, as I've gotten older and have had to deal with "real life" situations throughout the years, I've also come to believe that it is NOT the function of the State to legislate "morality" (assuming that these bastards in the government even have a CLUE as to what "morality" is!). And, in dealing with many different people over my almost three decades in health care, each one with different needs and capabilities, I think that this "one-size-fits-all" version of "morality" that the right-wingers are attempting to enforce upon ALL of us has NO place in the lives of a population that cherishes freedom.

And pilvikki, while I'll agree with you that abortions CAN be dangerous (as ANY medical procedure can be), I'll point out that, statistically speaking, an abortion done in a reputable health center environment, while entailing a certain amount of risk, is *still,* statistically speaking at least, far safer for a woman than is pregnancy and childbirth. Women still can (and DO!) die as a result of pregnancy and childbirth complications...yes, even in first-world countries like the US, Canada and the U.K., FAR more often than they die as a result of having an abortion. Note that I said in a "reputable health center environment" as a qualifier to that statement. But what the extreme right-wingers in this country appear to be determined to do is to LIMIT access to medically "safe" abortions to the point that women will be forced, if they're determined to end their pregnancies, back to the days of the coat-hangers and the back-alley butchers. If THAT happens, then yes, deaths and ongoing health problems from abortions will, indeed, skyrocket! And, as we have seen from history, desperate women WILL resort to desperate means!

There's something I'd like to say which would probably offend many people...but I'm going to say it, anyway. In strictly BIOLOGICAL terms, at least, pregnancy is, in fact, nothing more or less than a "host-versus-parasite" relationship. In no OTHER parasitic relationship that I'm aware of is the right of the "host" to END this relationship so hotly debated as it is with a human pregnancy. Think about it! The fetus can only gain sustenance by draining its needed resources from its mother's body, and disposes of its waste products also through the body of its mother. This puts additional stress on and consumes valuable resources from the mother's body. The effects of pregnancy on bone density, for example, has been well-documented. Some women even develop pregnancy-related osteoporosis which makes them more at risk for fractures, etc. While the condition may, in fact, resolve in time, the bones will *never* be the same. For those of us who *wanted* our children and entered into our pregnancies joyfully, this "drain" on our bodies is NOTHING! But, with that said, birth control measures DO fail...assuming that the women in question had access to dependable birth control in the first place. The extreme right-wing is trying to limit access to THAT, too! I guess the idea is to keep women "barefoot and pregnant" and as subservient as possible.

There are many situations where pregnancy would be undesirable for a woman...some of the more obvious reasons would be rape and incest. While I understand that these situations account for only a small number of the abortions performed, would you want a woman who's already been victimized to be FURTHER victimized by forcing her to carry the child of her attacker to term? There is also a bill, recently passed by the Indiana senate (but hasn't yet passed though its House of Representatives), which would outlaw abortions in the case of a genetic defect. Excuse me, but WTF??? I might also add to this that the Indiana senate has NOT outlined their "plan" (assuming that they even HAVE one) to care for these disabled children whose parents will, if this bill passes into law, be forced to bring into this world. Depending upon the "defect" in question, the care for said disabled child could bankrupt the family, place further "burden" upon the taxpayers, and result in needless suffering (again, depending upon the defect) before the poor child dies. Again, WTF???

As I said previously, I believe that *all* life is sacred. But that's just me...and it appears that your anti-choicers are also strangely inconsistent regarding this "life is sacred" belief. The life of the fetus, to them, is paramount. But once the child is actually BORN, those very same people will be screaming about their tax dollars subsidizing the support of said child if the mother is incapable of providing for its needs herself. And, to those same people, when/if this unwanted child becomes a serial killer 30 years down the road, these VERY SAME PEOPLE will be the ones screaming the loudest to have that VERY SAME FETUS, whom they were SO determined to save, all those years previously, executed! WTF, people??!!?? At least, be consistent! Either ALL life is "sacred" or it isn't!! Finally, I learned a long time ago that it's not appropriate to pass judgment upon the actions of another unless you've walked at least a few miles in that person's "shoes." And, just because you've been through a similar experience, doesn't mean that your experience and that of the person in question are identical. People are often forced to make painful choices, for the good of themselves and for the good of the people whom are ALREADY dependent upon them for their well-being. And, as a mother of females, as MUCH as I love my grandchildren, I don't even want to have to THINK of either of my girls being forced, by "the long arm of the law," to give birth to a child against her will! Yes, I know that the anti-choicers scream about adoption, as well, as an "answer" to abortion. But honestly, the system, at least here in America, is *already* overloaded with unwanted children in foster care who would LOVE to have loving, permanent homes! THERE IS NO SHORTAGE of children in this country (or throughout the world, for that matter!) who need parents! This world is overpopulated as it is. For the love of Heaven, WHY on Earth do we need to bring MORE unwanted children into it???!!???
Last edited by brandtrn on 29 Mar 2016, 03:34, edited 1 time in total.
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 2999
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 21:35

Re: Sad!

Post by pilvikki »

yes, forgot to mention it, but I knew the part about childbirth being precarious business, since my dear children almost killed me. in one instance it was a NURSE who saved me (not the doctor, who was not my reg doc). by the time the youngest came along i'd gotten a clue and headed to the hospital in time, where my doctor told me that another day's delay and i'd be a footnote in my kids' lives. (you should have seen my ex's face after he'd told me I was just being difficult and women had had kids for thousands of years and blah-blah etc.)

this was with the best care Canada offered at the time.

then there are the instances where the guy hightails it as soon as someone gets pregnant. now it's all her fault regardless of how this happened. funny how that works.
brandtrn
Guardian Angel
Guardian Angel
Posts: 159
Joined: 27 Feb 2015, 16:27

Re: Sad!

Post by brandtrn »

Yeah, it's funny, all right...NOT!! Seems that it's "OK" for a MAN to "back out" of a pregnancy (which he was halfway responsible for causing!), but it's NOT OK for the woman to do so, even though it's HER body (and possibly even her life) that's on the line?!?!? What's wrong with that picture??!??
"The miracle is this: the more we share, the more we have." -- Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 2999
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 21:35

Re: Sad!

Post by pilvikki »

I feel so bad for abandoned young girls in that situation, especially the totally ignorant ones from very religious upbringing.
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 9978
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Sad!

Post by yogi »

I too was raised a Catholic, but one day well before the good nuns in the elementary school I attended became history, I saw the light. Everything I learned (or more correctly was indoctrinated) about religion is still clear in my mind. That's why I can still attest to being more atheistic than anything else. Everything about morality in The Church is governed by a male pontiff. Women are not even allowed to vote in Vatican City, much less become a priest. It is clear to me that male dominance is the theme underlying Catholicism. What kind of morality is THAT?

In today's world neoconservatives like George W Bush get elected because of monies from extreme right wing Evangelical support. Ted Cruz gets their backing too. I think about the sanctity of life when these guys preach because Texas at one time had the American record for executions of people in their prisons. I'm guessing none of the death row inmates were Republicans or even conservatives. They deserved to die along with all the moms who want to have control over their own bodies.

If you think I'm being too harsh about Catholic morality, then think Islam. Do you know of any stereotypes about females being abused by a male dominated culture in that religion? Do you think it's true that male infants are highly prized and females are only useful as submissive servants? The word abortion is not allowed to be uttered in that kind of environment.

I fully understand how self-awareness in human beings has made life sacred. I also understand that its sanctity is a subjective and moral judgment not evident in the rest of nature.
User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 2999
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 21:35

Re: Sad!

Post by pilvikki »

then we have the polar opposites, literally and figuratively speaking, out east, where an ultrasound will determine the baby's sex and chance of survival. not what we were hoping for - so sorry, you didn't make it; mom has to keep trying until she gets it right.

what do they need all those girls for anyway...?
User avatar
yogi
Posts: 9978
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 21:49

Re: Sad!

Post by yogi »

You know it's the father's chromosomes that determine the sex, right? Well the women get blamed anyway.
User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 2999
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 21:35

Re: Sad!

Post by pilvikki »

yes, and for this lost their head in some cases...
Post Reply