A woman's right?

[Jiro]

I never said that teenagers should get pregnant, please do not put words in my mouth. I said that movie would be an educational experience for teens out there, how to prevent teen pregnancy, how some teens likely not finish high school or go to college. I think it'll be helpful to show teens how hard it is to be a single mother. That's all, nothing more nothing less.

the film is nothing educational. To say it's an educational film - it means it's encouraging teens not to have abortion and that the life will be hard but doable. In order to prevent teen pregnancy - they should be shown a detrimental film about teen pregnancy... not educational film about teen pregnancy.

 

[Maria]

Actually, myself, and the majority of people in the United States, are very grateful that the Supreme Court does not see things as you do. You should, as well, because if they begin to see things as you do, you will quickly begin to loose what rights you have to determine the way you want to believe. You will be forced to believe as they say you must believe, and put at risk your fundamental rights. The shame is that you can't see it. You talk about Marxism, and Socialism, and fear of loosing the democratic government of this country. Attitudes like yours are the first step to that actually happening.

And, you call it " the land of the free and the home of the brave ? ” I think not. Secondly, I will NOT be forced to believe as they say I must believe. I will still refused to believe in them. They don't have any common sense. There's no black and white for them. Their common sense is dead. You are one of them and it doesn't matter what you see that fit in your category.

The question I would like to ask : For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

[Maria]

You can call it whatever you want to. Call it murder, call it green, call it water, call it a tree. The fact of the matter is, one is a legal medical procedure, and one is not. What you decide to call it has absolutely no bearing on the facts, nor does what you call it mean that is what it is.

That's because, you only see grey areas and there's NO black and white for you. Your eyes are blindfolded at the same time hearin' alot of things that you think it does makes sense to you, but really there's none - there's no common sense ground out there. Everythin' are plastic.

 

[jillio]

And, you call it " the land of the free and the home of the brave ? ” I think not. Secondly, I will NOT be forced to believe as they say I must believe. I will still refused to believe in them. They don't have any common sense. There's no black and white for them. Their common sense is dead. You are one of them and it doesn't matter what you see that fit in your category.

The question I would like to ask : For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

That is the whole point, Maria. You are not being forced to believe what "they" believe. You are simply being forced to obey the laws of the land, the same as anyone else who lives here. You can "believe" anything you choose to believe. That is your freeedom. If you choose not to "believe" in abortion, then you are free to believe that and choose not to have one. But the laws of this land say that you cannot force anyone else to believe and choose the same as you. They are free to make their choices, as well, and quite frankly, as long as it does not affect you, is absolutely none of your business nor your concern.

Save your Bible quotes for somewhere that they are permitted. Religion is forbidden here. And, because this country has separation of church and state, any mention of the Bible is totally irrelevent to the discussion of legal abortion. Abortion is a legal and a medical issue.

 

[jillio]

That's because, you only see grey areas and there's NO black and white for you. Your eyes are blindfolded at the same time hearin' alot of things that you think it does makes sense to you, but really there's none - there's no common sense ground out there. Everythin' are plastic.

No, Maria, the problem is that you fail to see any grey areas. It is all black and white to you. Either/or. That type of thinking is the very type of thinking that leads to the destruction of civil rights. You would do well to open your mind, and become a little less judgemental and intolerant. Doesn't that Bible of yours talk about not judging, and "he who is without sin may cast the first stone?" Those attitudes of judgement and intolerance and that annoying sense of superiority that you exhibit are exactly what turns people away from organized religion.

 

[Daredevel7]

I've been gone for a while, but I read the whole thread. I am very pro-choice, but I have to admit a few of lsfoster's posts made me rethink things. And pro-lifer's arguments RARELY make me blink! I've learned new things in this thread.

Am I the only pro-choice who has a grim outlook on life? Seems like the pro-choice people choose to look at a fetus as an unborn parasite or something that only a mother is responsible for. I'll be honest with you, I think we should have abortions simply because if the mother really wants to abort her child, chances are that the child will not have a good life. YES, it can happen that someone may adopt the child and s/he may grow up wonderfully. But would this happen most of the time? I don't believe so. I believe in most of the unwanted child cases, the mother is miserable, the child is miserable, the father is miserable (child support). Everyone's freakin miserable! So it seems to me that a LOT MORE people are miserable for a possibility of another "Albert Einstein".

By the way, I know that my argument above is kinda weak but you know how you have those secret arguments which you really do believe in strongly but don't reveal it because it, in reality, isn't a good argument? But all the good arguments have already been said over and over and over already. So just sayin something kinda new.

Also, I've noticed that a lot of pro-lifers refer to images. Jillio mentioned that they are there just to manipulate you emotionally. And I have to agree. I mean do you know how many times Ive heard "If only you could see a 1 week old baby, you can see the fingers!" So are you telling me that if a 15 week old baby is just a blob, you're okay with abortion? What the HECK does the baby's form at that point have to do with ANYTHING?

 

[Byrdie714]

Personally I'd rather have illigal back street abortions, which weren't as common as the Pro abortion people want to make out. That way less young girls are going to be pushed into abortion against their will. Less babies will suffer in abortion after they are old enough to come out. Less babies dying on draining boards.

If one was to terminate the parasite in the illegal abortion clinic--you would also be killing the host as the illegal clinic would be under unsanitary conditions.

I do not believe any parents are allow to force their daughter's to terminate their pregnancies, that would be against the teens civil rights.

Teens don't have civil rights. When they turn 18--then they have civil rights.

Not to mention the number of teen mothers and children in this country living below the poverty line with inadequate health care and nutrition, and unable to do anything to improve their circumstances. The actual facts of teen motherhood are hardly as pretty and wonderful as some would like to believe they are.

And unfortunately comes at a terrible price as the link I am going to share with you.....happend in Ohio.

Both parents were 17 and ended up having twins--now the father has been arrested and charged with murder. Both parents are below the poverty line, unemployed and not sure if they are in school.

Father of dead baby to remain jailed
Prosecutor says he has been indicted for her death
By JESSICA CUFFMAN • The Marion Star • November 26, 2008

MARION - A man accused of causing injury to his 3-month-old daughter, ultimately causing her death, appeared in common pleas court Wednesday for a probation violation hearing, in which Judge Robert Davidson found there was enough evidence of the alleged violation to keep him incarcerated.


Teddy Thomas III, 17, 344 Milburn Ave., was arrested Friday on the probation violation charge after his 3-month-old daughter, Skyler Thomas, was taken to Marion General Hospital on Nov. 20 with life-threatening injuries.

Also on Wednesday, a grand jury heard evidence from the case and indicted Thomas for the death of his daughter, according to comments by Marion County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Slagle to the court. Those charges will not be filed or available until Monday because of the holiday. Police forwarded charges of child endangering and involuntary manslaughter to the prosecutor's office Nov. 24.

Skyler died Sunday at Nationwide Children's Hospital where she was transported from Marion General after medical staff there revived her. She was not breathing and did not have a heartbeat when she arrived.

Det. Chris Adkins of the Marion Police Department testified at the probation hearing as to what Thomas had told him after he was arrested at Children's.

Adkins read him his Miranda rights and interviewed him during the transport from Columbus to Multi-County Correctional Center Friday afternoon.

During the interview, Adkins said Thomas told him Skyler had been taking a nap Thursday morning and he woke her up to play with her, when he tossed her into the air and accidentally dropped her. He said he then shook her just hard enough to wake her back up after picking her off the floor. Although he realized she was injured, he did not want to take her to the hospital for fear that Marion County Children Services would take her and her twin brother, Teddy Thomas IV, from his custody.

The agency did take the baby boy into custody as soon as it was notified by the hospital of Skyler's condition, said Executive Director Eric Bush.

An abuse assessment performed at Children's Hospital found the child had about 3-week-old healing rib fractures, and the agency will be asking for permanent custody of Thomas IV.

Monday, he was placed into a Marion County foster home after the agency was granted temporary custody.

Adkins said during his investigation, medical personnel described Skyler's injuries as a sign of Shaken Baby Syndrome, which included cerebral hemorrhaging and retinal hemorrhaging. The child also exhibited signs of blunt force trauma to the head.

Thomas III was on probation for a 2007 fourth-degree felony aggravated assault charge, for which he served 90 days in jail and was placed on two years of community control. He could be subject to serving 18 months in prison for violation of his parole.

Thomas was represented in court Wednesday by Marion attorneys Dave Lowther and Douglas Diequez. Marion County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Slagle presented the hearing evidence.

Family members of the defendant and victim appeared at the hearing Wednesday, and said Thomas III never would have hurt the children on purpose.

The twins' mother, Brittany Goddard, 17, said, "He loved those babies. He never would have hurt them. It was an accident."

Other families said he just didn't know his own strength when playing with Skyler, tossing her into the air.

Charges have not been filed against anyone else in the case.

Shaken Baby Syndrome is an injury that doesn't just happen, said Jacque Ringer, investigations supervisor at children services.

While that agency doesn't evaluate children for injuries, doctors who do look for torn blood vessels in the brain and in the retina of children who suffer from the abuse, she said.

"It's nothing that you can typically see without medical reports," she said. "It's a forceful action."

Often, rib fractures in infants are associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome and when Marion General or any hospital detects such injuries, they often check for other signs, she said.

The rib fractures, she said, shows the kind of force that is used to cause symptoms of the trauma.

While the number of Shaken Baby Syndrome cases seen by Marion County Children Services was not immediately available, Ringer said it's not common. This is the first such suspected case she has seen since she started working for the agency in July.

"It's not every month we receive this," she said.

Father of dead baby to remain jailed | marionstar.com | The Marion Star

 

[jillio]

If one was to terminate the parasite in the illegal abortion clinic--you would also be killing the host as the illegal clinic would be under unsanitary conditions.



Teens don't have civil rights. When they turn 18--then they have civil rights.



And unfortunately comes at a terrible price as the link I am going to share with you.....happend in Ohio.

Both parents were 17 and ended up having twins--now the father has been arrested and charged with murder. Both parents are below the poverty line, unemployed and not sure if they are in school.



Father of dead baby to remain jailed | marionstar.com | The Marion Star

One of the most tragic consequences of teen pregnancy and parenthood. Sad. Sad, indeed.

 

[Byrdie714]

One of the most tragic consequences of teen pregnancy and parenthood. Sad. Sad, indeed.

When Ally was alive and at 3 months of age--I wouldn't even wake her up to play with her.

When the baby is at that age--a parent needs the quiet time when the baby is asleep!

The mentality just ceases to amaze me.....*smh*

 

[Cheri]

Teens don't have civil rights. When they turn 18--then they have civil rights.

That's bologna, Young teens do have fewer civil rights, when they turn 18 they will have most of their rights. They do have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination/prejudice, rights to breathe the air, eat food, a right to avoid abuse and violence. You said "they don't have civil rights" that means they have absolutely none. Therefore they have the right to say no to abortion, nobody is allow to force a young teen mother to have an abortion. Parents would have to go through court to get permission from the judge.

 

[jillio]

When Ally was alive and at 3 months of age--I wouldn't even wake her up to play with her.

When the baby is at that age--a parent needs the quiet time when the baby is asleep!

The mentality just ceases to amaze me.....*smh*

Of course you wouldn't wake a sleeping 3 month old up to play with them. They sleep because they need to sleep. You endanger their health and development by not allowing them to sleep.

I'm very skeptical of his claim that he woke the baby up to play with her. More likely, the baby was crying and he had no idea how to comfort her or tend to her needs, and became frustrated and angry.

 

[Byrdie714]

That's bologna, Young teens do have fewer civil rights, when they turn 18 they will have most of their rights. They do have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination/prejudice, rights to breathe the air, eat food, a right to avoid abuse and violence. You said "they don't have civil rights" that means they have absolutely none. Therefore they have the right to say no to abortion, nobody is allow to force a young teen mother to have an abortion. Parents would have to go through court to get permission from the judge.

Do you really want to have this discussion with me?

 

[lsfoster]

You can call it whatever you want to. Call it murder, call it green, call it water, call it a tree. The fact of the matter is, one is a legal medical procedure, and one is not. What you decide to call it has absolutely no bearing on the facts, nor does what you call it mean that is what it is.

And you decide to call it a "legal medical procedure". It's the same argument, jillio. Just because you want it to be something doesn't mean there aren't other issues to consider.

However many examples you give, you can't compare a kidney, or a spleen, or a tumor with a baby because it's not the same situation. You're only considering the things that you want to: "The baby is something inside you that can be removed", and insisting that it must be the same as anything else that can be removed. I have two things here that are totally the same. A pint of blood, and some red wine. Which one do you want a transfusion of? They're both liquids, they're both the same color, I've warmed them to the same temperature. They have so many things in common, that they must be the same, right?

It is manipulative because it is a blatant emotional attempt to engage others in the process of judgement and intolerance. The fact of the matter is, no matter how gross or disturbing you might find an image, you still, under no circumstances have the right to determine which medical procedures can and will be performed for whom. That is what these sites are attempting to do. In effect, they are attempting to practice medicine without a license by attempting to persuade others that they have some right to interfere in another's medical decisions. The only choice you, or anyone else, has, is to decide for themselves what their own medical choices will be. Be grateful that you have that right. You risk loosing in when you attempt to remove the rights of every one else.

Who's trying to decide anything? I said I thought it would be a good idea to look at the images. And you are once again ignoring when "your" side does the same thing. There is no difference between a "pro-life" site showing you an extremely accurate picture of what your choice is, and a "pro-choice" side purposely hiding those images from you and choosing specific ways of saying things to make it sound as detached as they can. They're both manipulative, they're both doing the same thing. You just happen to agree with one side, and don't seem to want to admit that they are just as guilty.

And we've already covered that there are a lot of rights we don't think people should have. You're trying to use a slippery slope argument instead of actually discussing the topic at hand.

Here are some facts about teen pregnancy and motherhood:

Still, teenage pregnancy rates remain high and approximately 1 million teenage girls become pregnant each year in the United States. About 13% of U.S. births involve teen mothers and about 25% of teenage girls who give birth have another baby within 2 years. To lower teen pregnancy rates, older children must be educated about sex and about the consequences of pregnancy.

Health Risks to the Baby
Infants born to teenage mothers are at increased risk for a number of health risks. These risks include the following:


Teenage mothers are less likely to gain adequate weight during their pregancy, leading to low birthweight. Low birthweight is associated with several infant and childhood disorders and a higher rate of infant mortality. Low-birthweight babies are more likely to have organs that are not fully developed, which can result in complications, such as bleeding in the brain, respiratory distress syndrome, and intestinal problems.


Teenage mothers have a higher rate of poor eating habits than older women and are less likely to take recommended daily prenatal multivitamins to maintain adequate nutrition during pregnancy. Teens also are more likely to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or take drugs during pregnancy, which can cause health problems for the baby.


Teenage mothers receive regular prenatal care less often than older women. Prenatal care is essential for monitoring the growth of the fetus and the health of the mother. During prenatal care, medical professionals provide important information about good nutrition and about other ways to ensure a healthy pregnancy. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), babies born to women who do not have regular prenatal care are 4 times more likely to die before the age of 1 year.

Children Born to Teenage Mothers
In addition to increased health risks, children born to teenage mothers are more likely to experience social, emotional, and other problems. These problems include the following:

Children born to teenage mothers are less likely to receive proper nutrition, health care, and cognitive and social stimulation. As a result, they are at risk for lower academic achievement.
Children born to teenage mothers are at increased risk for abuse and neglect.
Boys born to teenage mothers are 13% more likely to be incarcerated later in life.
Girls born to teenage mothers are 22% more likely to become teenage mothers themselves.

Other Consequences of Teenage Pregnancy

Teenage births are associated with lower annual income for the mother. Eighty percent of teen mothers must rely on welfare at some point.
Teenage mothers are more likely to drop out of school. Only about one-third of teen mothers obtain a high school diploma.
Teenage pregnancies are associated with increased rates of alcohol and substance abuse, lower educational level, and reduced earning potential in teen fathers.
In the United States, the annual cost of teen pregnancies from lost tax revenues, public assistance, child health care, foster care, and involvement with the criminal justice system is estimated to be about $7 billion.

Teen Pregnancy - womenshealthchannel

Hardly the stuff touching movies are made of.

I couldn't find where they cited any of their sources on that page, and it's about 8 years old. I think your data is probably suspect as well.

I've been gone for a while, but I read the whole thread. I am very pro-choice, but I have to admit a few of lsfoster's posts made me rethink things. And pro-lifer's arguments RARELY make me blink! I've learned new things in this thread.

Am I the only pro-choice who has a grim outlook on life? Seems like the pro-choice people choose to look at a fetus as an unborn parasite or something that only a mother is responsible for. I'll be honest with you, I think we should have abortions simply because if the mother really wants to abort her child, chances are that the child will not have a good life. YES, it can happen that someone may adopt the child and s/he may grow up wonderfully. But would this happen most of the time? I don't believe so. I believe in most of the unwanted child cases, the mother is miserable, the child is miserable, the father is miserable (child support). Everyone's freakin miserable! So it seems to me that a LOT MORE people are miserable for a possibility of another "Albert Einstein".

By the way, I know that my argument above is kinda weak but you know how you have those secret arguments which you really do believe in strongly but don't reveal it because it, in reality, isn't a good argument? But all the good arguments have already been said over and over and over already. So just sayin something kinda new.

Also, I've noticed that a lot of pro-lifers refer to images. Jillio mentioned that they are there just to manipulate you emotionally. And I have to agree. I mean do you know how many times Ive heard "If only you could see a 1 week old baby, you can see the fingers!" So are you telling me that if a 15 week old baby is just a blob, you're okay with abortion? What the HECK does the baby's form at that point have to do with ANYTHING?

Well thanks, Daredevel. I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, but I'm glad that you at least read my posts and found them interesting.

And the images I was talking about were to discuss late-term abortions with Byrdie. My only point was that at that point, I think that the baby is fully formed, and viable, and that if you look at pictures, I don't see how you can see anything but a dead baby. It's just a dead baby that happened to be in the uterus when it was killed. I wasn't trying to get into a big argument about pictures of fetuses.

 

[jillio]

And you decide to call it a "legal medical procedure". It's the same argument, jillio. Just because you want it to be something doesn't mean there aren't other issues to consider.

The difference being, what I call it is what stands up in a court of law. Any other issues that are to be considered are of a personal nature, and as such, need to remain so.

However many examples you give, you can't compare a kidney, or a spleen, or a tumor with a baby because it's not the same situation. You're only considering the things that you want to: "The baby is something inside you that can be removed", and insisting that it must be the same as anything else that can be removed. I have two things here that are totally the same. A pint of blood, and some red wine. Which one do you want a transfusion of? They're both liquids, they're both the same color, I've warmed them to the same temperature. They have so many things in common, that they must be the same, right?

I am not comparing a kidney or a spleen to a "baby". We are talking about abortion, which means that we are referring to an embryo or a fetus, depending on the point of gestation.


Who's trying to decide anything? I said I thought it would be a good idea to look at the images. And you are once again ignoring when "your" side does the same thing. There is no difference between a "pro-life" site showing you an extremely accurate picture of what your choice is, and a "pro-choice" side purposely hiding those images from you and choosing specific ways of saying things to make it sound as detached as they can. They're both manipulative, they're both doing the same thing. You just happen to agree with one side, and don't seem to want to admit that they are just as guilty.

Because they aren't just as guilty. The pro-lifers play on emotion. They attempt to evoke it. They use it as a way to manipulate logic. Pro-choice is not doing the same thing at all. And to think that they are is simply indication that you either fail to recognize, or refuse to recognize the fact that a legal argument, which abortion is, has no room for emotional appeal based on total lack of logic. If that is the criteria you wish to employ in your own decisions, so be it. You are perfectly free to do so. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is not a valid criteria in the decision regarding the legality of abortion.

And we've already covered that there are a lot of rights we don't think people should have. You're trying to use a slippery slope argument instead of actually discussing the topic at hand.

Perhaps you don't know what a slippery slope argument is. If any side uses a slippery slope argument, it is those arguing against a woman's right to make medical decisions for herself. I have discussed the topic at hand extensively. It is you that keeps digressing, from legalized elelctive abortion, to partial birth (which is outlawed), to medically necessary 2nd trimester abortion, to male rights in the decision, and on and on. In the process, you pull a set of facts from one and attempt to apply it to another, thus continually confusing the topic.



I couldn't find where they cited any of their sources on that page, and it's about 8 years old. I think your data is probably suspect as well.



Well thanks, Daredevel. I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, but I'm glad that you at least read my posts and found them interesting.

And the images I was talking about were to discuss late-term abortions with Byrdie. My only point was that at that point, I think that the baby is fully formed, and viable, and that if you look at pictures, I don't see how you can see anything but a dead baby. It's just a dead baby that happened to be in the uterus when it was killed. I wasn't trying to get into a big argument about pictures of fetuses.

Tell me, lsfoster; in those images, are you certain of the reason that the late term abortion was performed? Of course you aren't. The fetus may very well have had a disorder that was so severe so as to be incompatible with life. The fetus may already have died in utero. The fact that you don't have all of the information that would allow you to determine exactly what you are looking at is just more evidence of the success these sites have in their manipulative tactics.

 

[jillio]

That's bologna, Young teens do have fewer civil rights, when they turn 18 they will have most of their rights. They do have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination/prejudice, rights to breathe the air, eat food, a right to avoid abuse and violence. You said "they don't have civil rights" that means they have absolutely none. Therefore they have the right to say no to abortion, nobody is allow to force a young teen mother to have an abortion. Parents would have to go through court to get permission from the judge.

Civil rights apply only to those that have reached the age of majority.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Agreed. I don't imagine that a woman in a back alley slum being aborted with a knitting needle and dying a few days later from severe sepsis is a pretty site. But those facts seem to be conveniently ignored.

Perhaps someone needs to tell those opposed to abortions exactly what sepsis is. Then, ask them if they want to die that way. That might make someone blink... maybe.

Btw, I've had sepsis. I know what I'm talking about, people.

 

[jillio]

Perhaps someone needs to tell those opposed to abortions exactly what sepsis is. Then, ask them if they want to die that way. That might make someone blink... maybe.

Btw, I've had sepsis. I know what I'm talking about, people.

Sepsis is a raging infection that spreads through the entire body attacking all of the organs and tissues, inlcuding, at its final stages, the brain. One suffers an uncontrollable, spiking fever. The body is literally consumed by infection.

 

[Byrdie714]

Sorry Byrdie, maybe I should have explained that a little better. By a "bit of tissue", I meant that the only difference between what you consider a "fetus" and a "baby" is the wall of the uterus and the skin on the woman's stomach. That is just a "bit of tissue", and to me, does not justify the different treatments that each one receives. And you can "see" it. That was the reason I posted that link.

And you decide to call it a "legal medical procedure". It's the same argument, jillio. Just because you want it to be something doesn't mean there aren't other issues to consider.

However many examples you give, you can't compare a kidney, or a spleen, or a tumor with a baby because it's not the same situation. You're only considering the things that you want to: "The baby is something inside you that can be removed", and insisting that it must be the same as anything else that can be removed. I have two things here that are totally the same. A pint of blood, and some red wine. Which one do you want a transfusion of? They're both liquids, they're both the same color, I've warmed them to the same temperature. They have so many things in common, that they must be the same, right?

Can't compare a kidney, spleen, or a tumor to a "bit of a tissue."?

It's still a "tissue".

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Sepsis is a raging infection that spreads through the entire body attacking all of the organs and tissues, inlcuding, at its final stages, the brain. One suffers an uncontrollable, spiking fever. The body is literally consumed by infection.

Yep. Now, imagine being conscience and watching your blood pressure drop as shock sets in. I experienced that three years ago when I had a massive infection that started as a wound infection and entered my blood stream.

Sepsis can happen to anyone where infection is present. In this case, dirty instruments during an illegal abortion could breed infection in the uterus or reproductive organs. Once the bacterium is present, it can enter the bloodstream and cause sepsis. Sepsis has always been deadly, but imagine in this day and age where we have lots of bacteria that are antibiotic resistant.

It's not a pretty picture.

 

[faire_jour]

To be honest, when I was younger I was very pro-choice (never pro-abortion, I would have NEVER done it myself) because I believed that a woman had the right to decide what to do with her body, the worry about back alley abortions, and rape (because this was before the morning after pill). But then I got pregnant, and very nearly lost my baby at around 9 weeks. I was bleeding and in the emergency room. Everyone was so casual about it. As if my, long tried for and cherished, "fetus" didn't matter. They even had a posted memo in the room about how to "deal" with a woman who had a miscarriage. I realized that these doctors did NOT view my baby as more than a parasite or lump of tissue...lovely.
Later that evening we got an ultrasound to make sure the "fetus was still viable" and we got to see my daughter's little heart beating. That is when my views changed. She was alive, and a tiny human inside me.
I think because abortions are done so early many women never really accept that they have a baby growing inside them. There are no tangible signs, they can detach and not think about it. What would happen if they saw an ultrasound or heard the heartbeat? Would they reconsider? Would it make things more real? Just a thought.