John McCain Wants Me Dead
by Reese
In the last presidential debate, John McCain pronounced a death sentence on me with a waggle of his fingers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
During a discussion of Roe vs. Wade, McCain scoffed at the suggestion that the health of the mother would ever necessitate access to abortion. His point, I suppose, was that leaving a loophole was also leaving an opening for potential abuse. That leaving any access at all could allow some evil, selfish, callous, abortion-as-birth-control-using woman to claim her health was suffering when she was merely tired of carrying the child, and that would be that.
Even if I could go along with his concerns, are those kind of people, the cartoonish extremist pro-choice people, are they more numerous than the people out there like me? Are they such a threat that my life is of less than no concern, it’s worthy of open scorn complete with sarcastic air quotes?
Earlier this year I had my first child. He was born at 28 weeks because my life was in danger. It turned out that I had HELLP syndrome, which is basically preeclampsia turned up to 11. My blood pressure was 186/110, my organs were failing, my red blood cells were disintegrating, and my platelet count was dropping making it so that my blood wouldn’t clot. If I could manage to function with my organs failing, and if I could have avoided having a stroke or heart attack, I would have bled to death in childbirth.
After three months in the hospital, my son is fine. He’s a miracle and I would do it all over again. In fact, if I can manage to get pregnant again, I will do it again. But I will do it understanding exactly what the risks are. The odds are that I may have to lose a baby late in a pregnancy. My son was able to gestate as long as he did because, looking back, I was ignoring a lot of symptoms and I got lucky. Now that I know what I’m facing, I won’t be ignoring anything, and that may mean that I would have to terminate a pregnancy.
Please reserve your judgements here. For the sake of expediency I am skimming over all the prayers and tears and blessings and agonizing over our family planning. Please don’t think I take any of this lightly or that I still don’t sit up nights wondering what the best course of action is, and please, for the love of all that is holy, don’t anyone say, “Why don’t you just adopt?” We’ve been trying to get our family for eight years. We’re well aware of what the options are. It’s not guaranteed that I would develop this condition again, and if I did develop this condition again, that does not mean automatic abortion. However, there is a possibilty.
And as someone who needs to be able to rely on abortion existing for the sake of my very life, I cannot describe the venomous rage that overcame me when I saw McCain use those air quotes. The condescension and contempt it showed for me…the obliviousness to women’s health issues….even now it makes me sputter with incoherence.
The position of the church is that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger. When a presidential candidate is describing the position of our extremely conservative church as “extreme,” well, that seems pretty extreme to me. How does that effect you as a woman (or woman sympathizing) voter?
A few weeks ago I read an article in the SL Trib which quoted some Utah legislators as saying they wanted to limit abortion to “rape, incest, or organ failure” on the part of the mother because “health” was just too broad. That scares me for a couple of reasons - organ failure seems too narrow a definition; the definition also undermines the importance of mental health. (I can just imagine a woman who is suicidal over an unwanted pregnancy, but denied access to abortion. The most likely scenario - she kills herself, thus also killing the fetus.)
There is absolutely no proof that making abortion illegal actually stops abortion - abortion stats are fairly static amongst countries that outlaw abortion and those that don’t. Nor is there any proof that making abortion illegal will increase the availability of babies put up for adoption. So why spend millions of dollars trying to control a woman’s body?
Men like McCain, who think that an exception for “women’s health” is either too broad or unnecessary, show an amazing amount of sexism and an amazing lack of understanding of women’s health and women’s issues.
Comment by Quimby — October 24, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
they should spend millions of dollars trying to control a man’s body and then we don’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies, no?
Comment by mfranti — October 24, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Any time somebody puts the words “women’s health” in air quotes, it freaks me out. And with good reason, given the history of women’s health.
Thanks for sharing your story, Reece. It’s always good to put a personal face on these things.
Comment by Chandelle — October 24, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
lol
So when I look at the pane on the right side of the page where it says comments- it says mfranti: John McCain wants me.
That made me laugh. Then i saw the title of the post. Not funny.
I too was pretty offended with McCain’s comment. I don’t have a particular history with my health but for a man to insist that it’s some sort of joke to allow that condition… and to get his supporters excited about such rhetoric…. well… as another comment on another blog put it, “When McCain gives birth through his penis, I will then be willing to listen to him about legislating MY UTERUS.“
Comment by Jessie — October 24, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Even this year, the Republican Party Platform opposes abortion with NO exceptions, including “to save the life of the mother” (much more drastic than just health of the mother). I find it ironic on two counts -
1st this party wants government out of our health care - the main reason they offer for not having a national health plan, yet someone like you Reese, or me given that I was a potential candidate for abortion for a child I wanted more than life itself (I thank heaven that I never had to make the choice), would have the government tell our doctors how they could treat us when we are pregnant.
2nd - these are also the people who tell me they believe it is okay to kill a burglar next door because that person might possibly come to my home and cause me harm. But as a woman I don’t have the right to terminate a pregnancy that could cause me death?
Abortion is a terribly sad alternative in my mind, no matter the circumstances under which it is performed. But you don’t make rules based on who is going to abuse them. We allow for innocent casualties in war for the greater good, though we make every effort to avoid them, the same philosophy should be applied to a woman and her fetus.
Comment by Mel S — October 24, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
I’m so grateful for this post. I was very offended by the way John McCain reffered to womens health sarcastically. It was so demeaning.
It did start a conversation between my husband and I though, we weren’t sure what some conditions might be that would require an abortion late in pregnancy. Now I know of at least one.
I’m so glad you and your little boy are doing well!
Comment by Roxanna — October 24, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Thanks so much for sharing your story, Reese. In the past I’d been impressed with McCain for flouting his party’s line and clarifying that he supported the right to abortion in the same 3 instances the church lists–and thus his politically expedient backtracking and air quotation marks have very much irritated me, for they seem borne of cynicism and ambition rather than belief. And, certainly, the air quotes point towards a dearth of knowledge. Having those to whom they refer speak out helps dispel the notion that life-endangering pregnancies never, ever happen or that the women lie about them.
Your comment about “why don’t you ‘just’ adopt” made me smile–anyone who says that is ignorant not only of the emotional intricacies of wanting to be pregnant and give birth, but of the emotional and legal intricacies of adoption as well. Neither road is easy–at least not for many of us–and how we build our families is our business. I’m so, so, so *incredibly* glad that both you and Atticus are fine and that your story ended well despite a second act fraught with pain, trauma, and the decision I most dread in life. So far as I’m concerned, you are loving and courageous and certainly not something which can be referenced with any integrity by stupid little hand-motions on TV. You are Reese, and you are amazing.
(BTW, I just referred my playgroup to your website because they were interested in other women who handcraft amazing stuff. You cam immediately to mind.)
Comment by Janet — October 24, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Reese,
Having been where you have been… and having delivered a very tiny premature baby myself due to severe Pre-E… I understand the difficulties of the pregnancy, the delivery, my organs failing, almost dying, the NICU stays, the long recovery, and then trying to decide what to do for future pregnancies. I get that. I wish I could give you a great big hug. You’ll figure out what is right for you and your family. If it gives you hope I will let you know that I went on to have 5 more pregnancies with only one more having a little blood pressure issue and that’s it. One of my best friends’ had HELLP syndrome with her first baby and she went on to have 3 more babies, all healthy pregnancies. Just so you know that you are not alone!
As for McCain, I watched this debate and when we got to this part I was eating dinner and I literally spit out my food when he said “health of the mother” in quotes in his condescending tone. I was really trying hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was. But, I was furious. Hmm. So mother’s aren’t important? Our lives are not worth anything? Our babies who aren’t yet born should have more right to live than we mothers who have carried and grown these babies in our bodies and often go through great risk to have these babies? It not only infuriated me but it made me realize how truly out of touch McCain is with women’s issues and women’s health. Obama gets it. He wanted an exception for the mother’s health and life and McCain poopooed that. That was a bad move. I seriously hope that there aren’t a lot of women out there using abortions like birth control but from the women I have known who had to make that choice to have an abortion, it was a big deal and was not a little thing. It was not a decision made lightly. My husband and I talked about this at length and he agreed that the mother’s health and life should come first…
I shudder to think what would happen with women like me or like Reese who were dying from pre-eclampsia or HELLP syndrome {whose only cure is delivery of the baby} and if there was a law protecting the baby from abortion with no exception for the mother’s life…then the option to deliver the baby prematurely to save our lives would be out of the question and both she and I would be dead. And since we would die, so would our babies!} The whole thing is ridiculous to me.
Comment by bookwormmama — October 24, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
I am so glad you posted this! I could not believe it when John McCain used those air quotes, it still enrages me when I think about it. To have an old man condescendingly sneer at concerns for the health of the mother as part of a pro-abortion agenda, proves to me that John McCain neither understands or cares about women’s issues. As a woman of childbearing age this is personal, I don’t feel safe electing John McCain into office. It would be too much of a risk to my life, not to mention the lives of my husband and my children.
If you’re interested, I posted about this exact same topic here.
I am so glad that both you and your son are alive and well. Modern medicine is truly a miracle!
Comment by mraynes — October 24, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Thanks for sharing your story, Reese. A very realistic point of view about a very realistic scenario that women face.
I want to ask you all a question, since I have no children and therefore don’t know a whole lot about childbirth. Some Mormons that I have debated about this with insist that partial-birth abortion is never necessary — that Obama is just making excuses to fit his prochoice stance by not voting to ban the procedure and blaming it on the lack of the loophole for the mother’s health — because no medical emergency in a late-term pregnancy would ever require the partial-birth abortion process (puncturing of the skull, extraction, etc) in order to save the mother’s life. One LDS commenter I came across, who I believe was an OB-GYN medical student, maintained that it is indeed sometimes necessary, such as in the case of preeclampsia, which of course is a very urgent medical emergency.
So, obviously, when preeclampsia hits, something has to be done right away, just as in Reese’s case. But is partial-birth abortion ever necessary in order to save the mother’s life? I wish I knew an OB-GYN personally because I don’t know and it’s very hard to get an unbiased opinion.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — October 24, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
mraynes, stunning essay! thanks for sharing.
Comment by mfranti — October 24, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
TheFaithfulDissident, if I was at work I could talk with half a dozen midwives who could probably give you at least a couple of examples. It’s my weekend now - I won’t say unfortunately - but I’ll try to remember to ask when I see them again on Monday.
One story that sticks out to me that necessitated a very late term abortion - When a coworker was doing her midwifery training she treated a woman who was having twins and giving birth vaginally. There was an OB-GYN in attendance because it was a twins birth. Something went horribly wrong during the delivery - I think what happened was that one baby was tangled up in the cord which put both babies and the mother in serious danger of death. The doctor had to literally decapitate one baby to save the life of the other and the life of the mother. I imagine in a circumstance like that no ban on late term abortions would have stopped the doctor from doing the only thing he could have done. It was certainly heart-breaking for the mother, father, doctor, and midwives.
Comment by Quimby — October 24, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
I don’t know exactly what McCain meant, but to be fair, “health of the mother” and “life of the mother” aren’t equivalent. so I’m not sure he wants you dead.
I think his point was that the term “health” of the mother is so broad that “motherhood will give me a headache” (it will . . .) could be used to justify abortions.
I believe that’s the point he was making. At least, when we watched the debate my wife and I thought that was the clear point . . . but it seems others viewed it differently.
So glad to hear that you and your baby pulled through.
Comment by Drex Davis — October 24, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
And just to note, the church’s stance isn’t “health of the mother” justifies abortions. It’s “life of the mother.” It’s a distinction even the church makes and I believe that’s the distinction McCain was making.
Now before any of you accuse me of being a McCain supporter, I’m not. And I’m not an Obama supporter, so I’ve got no dog in this fight.
But language is important and it’s important to note that “life of the mother” is the church’s stance, not “health of the mother.”
Comment by Drex Davis — October 24, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
If we are talking about late term stuff, why not deliver a live baby to save the life of the mother instead of aborting the baby?
Comment by jks — October 24, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
“Health” and “life” is a pretty interchangeable term to me, at least in this case. If you’re pregnant and your health is in jeopardy, then so is your life.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — October 24, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
I found this short list of possible reasons for late-term abortion:
Type I diabetes
Kidney failure
Heart problems
Cancer discovered during the pregnancy
Hydramnios
Fetal death
Car accident
Liver failure
Eclampsia
Stroke
Domestic violence
Multiple pregnancy with one of the fetuses dying
Late-term discovery of severe fetal abnormalities (which may not be conducive to the survival of the fetus)
I think it’s safe to assume that very, very few women actually get to month 7 or 8 or 9 of their pregnancy and then think, “Gee, I don’t think I want to do this, after all.”
Comment by Quimby — October 24, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
oh, quimby, there you go being all practical like that.
don’t you know, you pro-abortion folks will find any excuse to kill a baby?
Comment by mfranti — October 24, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Thank you for this. The McCain/Palin attitude about abortion disgusts me beyond my ability to form a coherent thought. A mother’s health and life are really that arbitrary? wishy-washy? worthless? A woman, who has lived, learned, grown and matured into her society, with (perhaps) friends and/or family, a culture, livelihood, and an identity as a human being has less value than a being whose existence can’t even be defined?
As a multiple miscarriage survivor and (as-yet) childless, Infertile Myrtle, I personally place immeasurable value on the life of any child I may be so lucky to conceive. But pregnancy could very well kill me. It could very well kill anyone, I suppose, under the wrong combination of circumstances. My endometriosis raises my risk for an ectopic pregnancy should I ever conceive again. This can be life-threatening and DH and I are in unwavering agreement that if it’s a matter of dying from a dangerous pregnancy or terminating altogether, SAVE ME. There will be other children, but there’s only ONE me. (This would be magnified exponentially if there was a possibility of leaving my husband to raise any older children without me.) My life is valuable, I am irreplaceable, no matter how much we want, love or value the child growing inside me, if it kills the both of us in the pregnancy process, then what was gained?
Comment by Lady — October 24, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Drex Davis: for the state to decide what my health needs is a bit much. As for the distinction between “health of” and “life of” the mother I share this….
I helped my best friend of 20 years fight for 3 weeks to end a late term pregnancy that was posing emotional and psychological damage. If that’s not enough for you, the severe deformities of the baby (she wanted this little girl with all her heart) posed a threat to my friend. Continuing with this pregnancy meant she very likely would never be able to conceive again. The threat to her life was real, as well, but why do we have to go that far? It was a horrible experience for this little family to go through - and it was all piled on top of the trauma of losing their baby.
Reese: Your story is amazing. Thanks for sharing. I watched another friend go through an emergency c-section because of HELLP and it was terrifying. I can’t imagine the fear you feel when planning your family. Best of luck.
Finally: A question must be asked at this point, not to thread jack, but I think it is a relevant question: Why are most late term abortion laws (particularly the one in Utah) written to draw the deadline at 20 weeks when most insurance companies won’t pay for the one full diagnostic ultrasound you get in a pregnancy until week 20? Seems like a catch-22 or a very clever way to legislate against choice.
Comment by Eris — October 24, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
Comment by Lady — October 24, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
If I ever questioned whether or not I belonged here at FMH, this post and thread convince me that I do. To The Faithful Dissadent, I suggest you read about Cecily’s experience. She blogs at uppercasewoman.com, you can find information about what necessitated her partial birth abortion under the tag “Nicholas and Zachary R.I.P” and as the title suggests, have tissues within reach if you decide to read.
Comment by Melessa — October 24, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
To make things quicker, here is the most direct post she’s written about her experience: http://www.uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2008/03/speaking-to-the.html
Comment by Melessa — October 24, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
The other aspect of this that drives me crazy is the Far Right’s zealous attempts to get birth control pills listed as abortificants.
Which means if Roe vs. Wade was ever over turned than all of us who have ever planned our families or who were on the pill for medical reasons other than family planning, would be screwed. And not in a good way.
And being a woman in her late 30’s who is in the throughs of perimenopause and has had menopausal hormone levels for the past 2 1/2 years, I literally thank God every day for Yasmin. If it were suddenly illegal under antiabortion laws I would probably die because I would commit suicide, like I almost did before I was diagnosed and put on hormone therapy.
So sisters, we need to stand together. Because most men in power just don’t get why having a choice is so damn important.
Comment by TanaH — October 24, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Reese,
Your title doesn’t make any sense to me. Your choice wasn’t “have an abortion or die”. Your choice was “deliver the child or die”. How does that mean that McCain wants you dead? Your life was only in jeopardy if you didn’t deliver. The abortion of your beautiful child was never a necessity for your survival.
My wife developed Pre-e and HELLP and delivered two baby boys at 29 weeks. Of course her life was in serious danger, but why on earth even consider an abortion in this case when an emergency c-section saves all three lives?
Babies as young as 22 weeks have survived being born premature. Pre-e doesn’t usually occur until the third trimester.
This talk of “John McCain wants me dead” seems somewhat sensational and reactionary. If you rewatch the video that you posted, McCain isn’t mocking abortion limitations based on the “health of the mother”, he’s mocking the stretches that will occur if language is not exact in this matter. (haven’t we all heard the stories of the lady who is tired of morning sickness so she offs her kid)
Comment by Nazenail — October 24, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
Uh, no. Sounds like another anti-abortion myth to me.
Comment by Quimby — October 24, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Beat me to it, Quimby. It would be a very rare thing to find a woman who made such a difficult decision based solely on morning sickness.
Comment by Kimberly — October 24, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
26 & 27 Wow, obviously no one told me that morning sickness was no big deal. ‘Cause for me on my second pregnancy of horrible morning sickness, I spent a week in the fifth month trying to decide if I was going to have an abortion or kill myself. I could not stand feeling so awful any more. I love being invalid.
Comment by almost — October 24, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
And so ladies, the election is in 11 days. If you can do early voting in your area, that would be a good idea. If you can’t do early voting then you’d best put Nov 4 on the your calendar. No excuses. Vote. It matters. It matters A LOT.
Comment by Betty Jo — October 24, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
It’s puzzling to me how much we still demonize women. Forget the man who impregnated the woman, the woman who “offs her kid” because of morning sickness (oMG she must be a TERRIBLE PERSON) is a terrible person.
A man who leaves a pregnant woman to deal with the problem is not seen this way. He’s just a deadbeat. But that woman… man… she is going to hell.
Comment by Jessie — October 24, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
#28 The original comment was flippant and implied that abortion related to morning sickness was common and the decision was casual- as if women who had morning sickness were showing up in droves at the clinic for abortions.
A pregnant woman who is completely debilitated by morning sickness (which has applied to me in two of my four pregnancies- so, I’d be the last person to invalidate your difficult experience), is having a bonafide medical problem that requires treatment. It’s miserable, I agree. But, however bad it gets, it is still a rare thing for a woman to terminate a pregnancy because of it and actually common for mothers (such as myself) to risk being just as miserable by getting pregnant again.
Comment by Kimberly — October 24, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Thanks for this post, Reese. It really puts a name and identity and story onto a problem that’s otherwise easy to overgeneralize away.
Comment by Kaimi — October 24, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Nazenail — it’s true that some babies live as early as 22 weeks, but many do not. Of course McCain doesn’t truly want Reese dead; hyperbole catches attention but does not compose the brunt of her story. I read her tale as one which illustrates that health concerns for pregnant women can and do endanger the life of the mother and that saving her life can and does often require placing the baby at high risk for death.
Your question about why abortion rather than pre-term delivery might be required is a good one, but one we can’t assume is rhetorical simply because some babies survive at 22 weeks. That’s a bit of a red herring so far as exigent circumstances are concerned, for some exigency renders even the time for a c-section impossible. So far as medical details go, I’ll leave that up to the doctors and midwives among us. Entirely unmedical and rather cynical is my guess that finances might have some horrible thing to do with it, on very rare occasion. For who will pay for all the highly pricey eensy weensy preemie care if the couple in question lacks insurance? Not the Grand Ol’ Party. That preemies stand a chance renders me quite glad–I was three months early over 30 years ago and owe my life to the faith of crazy doctors who figured I could make it. But caring for preemies isn’t cheap, and somebody has to pay for it. Abortions are cheaper for hospitals and governments and insurance companies and, yes, couples without insurance.
Regardless of all this, for Senator McCain to act so flippant about women’s health concerns doesn’t bode well (and, so far as women’s lives are concerned, goes contrary to the way he’s spoken of the issue in years past). I’m sure *some* women (probably tiny minority) choose abortion without thought, but those who have abortions in the third trimester because their lives are in peril? Seems unlikely. Possible, but unlikely
Comment by Janet — October 24, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
#28 I read the original statement the same way Kimberly read it - incredibly flippant and dismissive of morning sickness as a ‘real’ condition. If anything your experiences give more credence to the idea that “women’s health” and not just “women’s life” should be covered in any exception to strict anti-abortion laws.
Comment by Quimby — October 24, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
Oh, and as a resident member of the language police, I suggest we accept as obvious the fact that “health” and “life” can be read prescriptively and that conservatives are more likely to do so in this case than are liberals. That doesn’t render such a reading inherently more accurate or helpful, though I certainly see from whence confusion comes when a prescriptive person and a descriptive person talk past each other on this one. Language = a slippery little beastie.
Comment by Janet — October 24, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Thanks so much for all the kind responses everyone. I have to admit I was a little terrified to share my very personal feelings on such a hotbutton issue. I have all kinds of angry retorts rehearsed in my head and it turns out that so far I don’t need a one.
Nazenail: Guilty as charged. My title is reactionary because it was intended to convey my reaction to his comments in light of how personally they effect me. As I mentioned, I was able to carry until 28 weeks because I ignored symptoms. If I had been more proactive about my health or had a doctor aware that I was at risk, the choice absolutely would have been between abortion or death. You’re right that HELLP syndrome doesn’t usually present until the third trimester, but looking back, symptoms started presenting with me around 20 weeks, and I went into the beginnings of organ failure at 25 weeks.
Atticus and I were extremely lucky that during those weeks of ignoring my symptoms, I never had a spike in pressure. We were lucky that my decline was gradual enough to last us through until I woke up and got myself to a doctor. As it was they strapped me to the operating table as a precaution against a seizure and there were teams of doctors and surgeons available for the both of us. While they stitched me back together and cauterized all the bleeding that couldn’t clot on it’s own, they had to resuccitate Atti, immediately put him on ventilators and monitors and medication to keep his heart pumping. If I had gone into cardiac arrest, seizure, or stroke, it would have been him or me. And if the law mandated it was him who got the care, I would be dead.
Like I keep saying, we got extremely extremely lucky. But I don’t think it’s right to rely on luck to save my life.
Comment by reese — October 24, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Reese, thanks for sharing your story. I’m so glad that you and your little one survived and are doing well.
Since I know that for me some very difficult things are made easier by knowing someone else has been there, I offer the story of my cousin. She had her first baby last Nov very premature (I think 28 weeks). She also had HELLP, though like you it wasn’t discovered until just before they delivered the baby to prevent her death. Then she got pregnant again just a few months later (with a 3 month old premie and a husband who was about to deploy to Iraq, yikes!). She got HELLP again this pregnancy, but was carefully monitored, on bed rest, etc, and was able to go to 33 weeks. The baby was delivered safely and didn’t even have to go on oxygen. I know everyone’s experience is different, but I thought you might like to hear the story of someone who developed HELLP with a second pregnancy but was still able to deliver a healthy baby. Hopefully you can someday as well.
(Of course, I know it might not be possible and I of course want you to have access to any life saving procedures you might need. But I hope, as I’m sure you do, that you’ll never need them.)
Comment by Vada — October 25, 2008 @ 12:01 am
Oh, My. Goodness. Reese, I had already felt retroactively terrified about your experience, but reading this exacerbated that by far. I should’ve realized the seriousness of your plight when I told DH you’d had HELLP. He’s not prone to easy alarm, and he turned pale. But he didn’t fill me in on the details either, and of course neither of us knew you’d had symptoms substantially before seeking help.
I’m so immensely glad you and your miracle boy are both alive and well, so glad you had access to excellent medical care, so glad you regained consciousness to seek it, so glad for many, many things. God bless you guys.
Comment by Janet — October 25, 2008 @ 12:01 am
I wish I could respond to every single post, but since my computer crashed two weeks ago (taking with it every photo of Atti’s whole life - Thank the Heavens for flickr so I at least still have the ones I’ve blogged) I’m using the worlds oldest laptop. It’s like I’m typing in DOS over here.
Just to pass on all the great anecdotes and encouraging hope for my future:
Lady -
I have endometriosis too, in fact when I was 23 I had my first lap and was diagnosed with Stage 3 including some in inoperable places. My symptoms have been so severe I’ve been bedridden for years, and my husband has low count and low motility. We were told that we had less than 5% chance of ever having our own children. It took eight years, but here we are.
Isn’t that funny? I have the freakishly bad medical luck, and Atti is beating all the odds against him. He’s nine months old and he’s breaking the cycle.
Comment by reese — October 25, 2008 @ 12:47 am
#16 and #20
I disagree that “health” and “life” are interchangeable terms. Even in normal delivery the health of the mother is as stake. Rarely, in normal delivery, is the life of the mother at stake.
In an “abnormal” delivery both may be at stake.
That is why, as I understand it, the question is, “If we do not abort the baby is there a very high likelihood that the mother will perish?” not “if we do not abort the baby is there a high likelihood that the mother’s health will be affected?”
It seems to me that the church’s stance centers on the immediate mortal endangerment of the mother.
Surely the issue is not cut and dry and I’m not trying to oversimplify what is a very complex delineation.
However, I do believe the distinction between life and health is more than symantics, but one of substantive demarcation, and I believe that’s why the church has chosen to phrase its stance the way it has.
Comment by Drex Davis — October 25, 2008 @ 1:31 am
symantics = semantics . . . it’s late . . .
Comment by Drex Davis — October 25, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Reese, this post was perfect. Thank you so much for getting past the sputtering stage to be able to write your thoughts down. I remember hearing the same speech and just feeling profoundly sad. Then crazy angry. I couldn’t express any of it because it all seemed so horribly wrong and obvious I don’t know where to start. Now I can just point people to your post. It is an amazing gift that you are sharing this experience with people and I know it makes you vulnerable to cruel or thoughtless comments but the good it does just seems immeasurable. Thank you.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 25, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Thank you for making your story known! I think some people focus too much on the abortion as birth control and in their attempts to fight this ignore the real people and especially the mother’s health. My own view on abortion have drastically changed because of stories like yours. I now have another example to share with people. I am appalled at McCains apparent callousness in regards to this issue. Its been years since I was totally against abortion for any reason (yeah I admit it, I was one of those extreme right wingers not something I am proud of, but when you grow up in a home with Dr. Laura blasting from the radio on a daily basis and her books lying around the house - well its not a surprise). Long story short I am no longer view abortion the same way and I am glad. That is one the reasons I am voting for Obama and not McCain
Comment by Violet — October 25, 2008 @ 10:59 am
To Drex #14 et al.
:
From Elder Nelson’s October Ensign article:
I added the italics, but it does seem that every instance I find of official church policy uses the words “mother’s health” and not “mother’s life,” though they often allude to the seriousness of her health as it pertains to her life. I’m sure they don’t intend for abortion to be used in minor health situations (throwing up every day could be considered a health issue), but they also don’t mandate proof that carrying the child would end your life.
Comment by that1girl — October 25, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Reese,
Great post. I have always supported the availability of abortion through a highly trained and qualified health professional. I don’t always agree with why it’s being performed, but there are many times a woman needs the service and it should be treated as surgical procedure. It is a miracle that you and your son both survived and are healthy. My sister had the same problems with her first. She was monitored carefully with the succeeding two but did not develop the same symptoms. I am truly grateful that you understand the obligation to be alive and as healthy as possible. A lot of people seem to be in denial that responsibilities to a living family take an imminently higher priority than any obligation to potential child/children. I don’t really care for either one of the candidates. I think that Obama should have gotten a few more years of experience in the senate under his belt and that Palin is one of the worst choices McCain could have made in a VP pick. Neither one has a firm grasp of the economy.
Don’t you just hate it when people ask the most intimate and none-of-your-damned-business questions that you often can’t even respond because the shock has left you speechless? Some of my favorite “did that really come out your mouth or am I hallucinating” questions are:
“Aren’t you just devastated that you can’t have children?”. . . from a newly pregnant woman gushing over her own pregnancy. (speechless)
“Is it yours or your husband’s fault that you can’t have children?” (Speechless but thinking: “Umm. . . would you like a copy of our medical records and if that’s not enough would you like to observe our techniques and possibly give us some pointers?”)
“Gee, your baby’s father must be really ‘dark’.” (I actually told that women that I really wasn’t quite sure about the dad. Serves her right, and the look on her face was priceless!)
“Aren’t you going to adopt more children?” (Hello, I already have adopted two, one of whom is in residential psyche in another state because she tried to kill the family. Do I honestly look like I have the time/ energy/ resources to mother the world? It’s not like they come with warranties and/or full refunds. And would you like to take over being the recipient of kidnapping / death threats from wacko bio-moms, or the pat-on-the-back “just hang in there” level of support from most family members?)
On Mother’s Day when they pass out those stupid half dead flowers to all the women and the YW Laural’s pres. gives you a flower and then takes it back (in front of the entire ward because you are the organist and sit on the stand) because . . . “Oh, you’re not a mother.”
Oh yeah, between the “well meaning” nosy people in our lives and a government that wants to dictate what we can and cannot do with out bodies and when/why, it’s a wonder women choose to be mothers at all.
Comment by JJ — October 25, 2008 @ 11:20 am
#44
I had not seen that before. Thank you for sharing. I stand corrected.
Comment by Drex Davis — October 25, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
I haven’t read all the comments, so forgive me for possible repetition. I’m curious if delivering the baby early, if the mother’s life is in danger, is what people are thinking should be done instead of an abortion. Would that be considered abortion? What if “heroic” measures are taken to help the baby? Would it depend on how far along a pregnancy is? Could there one day be something such as an “artificial womb” where the baby could be transferred to and grow and develop without endangering the mother?
Comment by HeidiAnn — October 25, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
I find it curious that so many commenters are so willing to attach nefarious motives to McCain’s comment. Anyone familiar with the debate should be aware of the relevant issue, that the womens’ “health” exception has been used to render any abortion restrictions meaningless. Why presume McCain is evil? Why not presume that he is acting in good faith and seek to understand the point he is making? Wouldn’t we be angry if the worst possible connotations were attached to everything we said? And no, I am not a Mccain supporter and will not be voting for him.
Comment by jeff hoyt — October 25, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Drex — just pretend its a British spelling; that’s what I do, and half the time I’m right.
I see your point but reiterate that the terms “life” and “health” can be read, validly, with a descriptive bent. Semantics are of course also semiotics, and semiotics remind us that the chair you see in your head isn’t the chair I see in mine even if we’re both staring at the same durned letters of the alphabet. Thus far, the church has left its usage of the term “life” open to interpretation and I assume there’s a reason for this, just as you assume the statement necessarily refers solely to maternal mortality. Of course, both you and I are operating on conjecture so far as the church goes. Until it issues an explication of the currently brief statement, those couples prayerfully contemplating abortion are also left with general guidance conjoined with personal conjecture and guidance by God — which, frankly, seems best to me.
What’s that old legal saying . . . “terms shall be operationally defined” or something like that? We know your operational definition. You know not everyone holds the same one. Useful information for moving the debate along but probably not for altering anyone’s reading of the primary text.
Clearly my blood sugar is low: I sound as though I’ve been eating chalk.
Comment by Janet — October 25, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
I think abortion should be 100% illegal. No exception! Let’s pay raped women to carry the baby to term and put up for adoption. Let’s teach women and men to be responsible before they get pregnant not afterwards. With the exception of rape victims they have the option to be paid to carry to term and place the baby for adoption or keep the baby. No termination, Period!
I can’t even begin to justify using tax dollars to pay for murder! And that’s what will happen if it is legalized. What about all the millions of people getting pregnant that live on medical assistance. We as tax payers will be paying for their abortions.
Comment by Janene Cook — October 25, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Oh my. It’s hard to know how to respond to people like #50. Yes, let’s put the “life” of an unborn fetus above that of a fully developed adult woman - let’s not make exceptions for the life of the mother; she knew what she was doing when she got pregnant and risking death is just part of the deal. Even if the fetus in question is well below the age of viability (in which case the mother’s death will result in the fetus’ death too), let’s not give the life of the woman any value whatsoever.
And the “tax payer” argument - Are you willing to let your tax dollars be spent supporting all of these children? That’ll cost a lot more than paying for abortions. Let’s at least see some consistency: If you’re against your tax dollars going for “murder” (what hyperbole!) you’d better be prepared to spend them making sure these children stay alive. Or do their lives matter more to you before they’re born than after? (Well, obviously, if they’re females that’s the case - you’re already on record as saying no exceptions, ever, because a woman’s life is worth so little to you.)
Comment by Quimby — October 25, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Janene Cook, Medicaid does not cover abortion. I’m looking at a Medicaid Member Guide right now and I can promise you, abortion is not a covered service. And I’m going to assume that your comment about “if” abortion is legalized is a typo…abortion is already legal.
I second Quimby’s question. Assuming that abortion is made illegal, and abortion is actually eliminated (which is laughable, because whether abortion is legal or not, termination rates are essentially the same), what do you propose we do with the millions more people who will be born every year? Not that your tax dollars support abortion anyway, but are you willing to put your tax dollars toward supporting the children of 13-year-old girls, children of destitute mothers of seven, children of the mentally ill or physically disabled who cannot work, and so on?
Comment by Chandelle — October 25, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Also, do you not see any ethical question in the issue of paying women, forcing women, to give birth? There are so many families ready to fork over big bucks to adopt a baby, but women continue to have abortions. The promise of money is not going to entice everyone to give birth. There is a lot more to the question than the end result.
Comment by Chandelle — October 25, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
#52 Medicaid does not cover abortion.
Are you sure about that?
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=19&compID=64
Comment by Allison — October 25, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
Perhaps it’s just in Utah that it is not covered (unless to save a life). My mistake.
Comment by Chandelle — October 25, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
#50
I find myself re and re-reading your comment - “Let’s pay raped women to carry the baby to term and put up for adoption.”
Yes. Let’s. Because after a woman has had choice, virtue, and innocence violently torn from her, let’s commodify her and put a price on her trials. Would you like to assign the barcode to find a value for her?
Women, and men who have listened to women’s concerns and understand women, have fought for the right to make their own decisions about reproduction. When did women’s reproductive rights ever deserve to have air quotes or a price tag?
Comment by Slarue — October 25, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
oh bless you all. I knew I could count on Quimby and Chandelle to fight the good fight. Thanks Slarue, too. I’m just sitting over here typing and erasing and typing and erasing and chewing on my hands.
It’s so hard for me to not take comments like #50 personally. Because this issue really could not get more personal than my own right to life or death.
Janene - if you can look someone like me in the (metaphorical) eye and still say that abortion should never never never happen, if you can hear my story and still say, “Nope. Even then. Even if you die.” Well, I guess we’re just never going to see eye to eye on this one.
I’m not unsympathetic to the arguments, like Violet I was raised in a Dr. Laura loving household, but like so many aspects to life, the black and white doesn’t always seem very applicable in messy unfortunate reality.
The two main “pro-life at all costs” arguments seem to be 1) sanctity of life and 2) tax dollars.
Well,
1) I also believe in sanctity of life. I just happen to believe that I count as alive as well.
2) If money is the concern, than which would be more of a drain to public finances, paying for the termination of a pregnancy, or paying to raise a disabled child?
Atti’s next door NICU neighbor was born at 21 weeks and will most likely grow up blind, probably retarded, profoundly crippled and with lifelong respiratory and digestive issues. Before he was even old enough to be born he had had five major surgeries that included an entire reconstruction of his bowels due to a fairly common infection.
Even my mostly healthy boy requires an average of four doctors appointments a week paid for by my health insurance and the glorious state of California. I’m lucky enough to get to stay home with him and manage his care, but not a day goes by that I don’t think of the baby in the next incubator who’s parents both worked, or my cousin in Utah who pays for all her child’s care out of her own pocket. What would we have done if I had to work? If I was a single mom? If we made minimum wage?
A preemie will turn a contributing tax-paying citizen into a state subsidized disability faster than you can say pro-life.
Comment by reese — October 25, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Reese,
Thank YOU so much for sharing your story. I read this site because of people like you - people who are willing to share, and in a sense confess, burdens, enlighten, and care about others. Although I do not always agree with postings, I am glad that there is always room for conversation. Conversation is key and I think that many opportunities are missed to sit down and have an open-minded exchange. Perhaps those conversing will not always agree, but room for understanding is created.
Know that you are opening doors for others and that you have created understanding for many, many people.
Comment by Slarue — October 25, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Oh, and I meant to say that I totally agree with you on this point!
Comment by Slarue — October 25, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
#47 ” what people are thinking should be done instead of an abortion. ”
Nothing should be done. It’s no one’s business but that of the woman who chooses to terminate. Women who have unwanted pregnancies are taypayers also. We support a woman’s right to the privacy of her decision.
Comment by Ruby — October 25, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
that1girl–My last comment showed up hours after you made it obsolete anyhow–thanks for the quotation! Very helpful.
Drex–thanks for being so gracious in light of aforementioned quotation. It’s all too rare in the abortion debates.
JJ–My husband used to pretty much respond with the “would you like to observe our technique and offer pointers” rebuttal to snoopy questions. Someday use it rather than just thinking it–the looks you get are oohhssooo worth it!
Comment by Janet — October 25, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
#50 — as both a rape survivor and an adoptive mom, I can only respond to your unbelievably callous suggestion with a dropped jaw. And whooboy, does it take some unbelievably hooey to render *me* speechless.
Comment by Janet — October 25, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
I strongly recommend reading the book entitled, “Story of Jane,” about the underground abortion clinic in Chicago before abortion was legalized. It gives insight into the broad spectrum of women who seek abortions and the troubles with both illegalized abortion and the troubles with the current legalized system.
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Jane-Legendary-Underground-Feminist/dp/0226424219/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224988260&sr=8-1
Drex - The experience of one of the founders of Jane provides insight into why both “life” and “health” the of mother should be interchangeable. During the pregnancy of her second child, Jenny discovered that she had Hodgkin’s disease. She could not start treatment because of her pregnancy, and doctors denied her an abortion because there was a chance she would not die. During her pregnancy the disease spread through her lymphatic system and she nearly died during birth. After her pregnancy her doctors would not allow her to be sterilized and instead prescribed birth control that has now been discontinued because it did not work.
She became pregnant again. Her doctor knew that with the amount of radiation and drug treatment she was on that it was unlikely the baby would be normal, but yet again she was denied an abortion. This woman was severely ill and had two small children and faced another child to care for, likely disabled. Further, she would have to stop treatment again. It was only once she became suicidal the hospital board granted her an abortion.
Comment by Char — October 25, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
#50 - Jenene, Since your comment is totally at odds with the stance of the Church, I sincerely hope you aren’t Mormon. I will leave it at that.
Reese, thank you for writing this. It is eloquent and moving and needs to be told.
“Health” as opposed to “life” is an incredibly important distinction. I am glad the Church makes that distinction. I wish every member understood it better. Fwiw, I support no legal restrictions on abortion specifically because I believe it is the ONLY way to keep the “moral” stance of the Church intact within legislation. I know I’ve linked this on another thread here, but, to save space, my full argument is at:
When Moral Issues Become Political Issues
Comment by Ray — October 25, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Thanks for linking that again, Ray. It’s a good one.
I’ve often felt confused when church leaders heavily imply that Roe ought to be overturned because then our own position on the subject would become moot. Quite confusing.
Comment by Janet — October 25, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
#48: I assign nefarious motives to McCain’s comment for two reasons. First, he picked a running mate that is so vehemently anti-woman and anti-choice that she makes #50 look mainstream, so I can only assume he is all in with these policies.
Second, and I am hoping Janet can back me up on this one, assigning quotes and “air quotes” are common linguistic/speech tools for marginalizing the subject. You put something in air quotes because you want to demonstrate that that something is ridiculous or something you do not support. Think about the times you use air quotes….
Oh, I just thought of the third: his eye rolling. Looked pretty much like he was making a joke of the whole subject.
Comment by Eris — October 25, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
Ray, I don’t think that there is such an “incredibly huge distinction” between “health” and “life” of the mother. There is woman who recently lost both of her legs, one of her arms, and her eyesight during childbirth. Is this incredibly less important than her life? Do we have to wait until after a woman’s organs fail to decide that her life is in danger? At what line do we cross and determine that her life is in danger (she is dying)?
http://www.sccsdecker.blogspot.com/
Comment by Char — October 25, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
Thanks for sharing your experience, Reese.
Comment by Michelle — October 25, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
Char,
Ray was saying health and life was such an important distinction for precisely that reason — because the church’s stance is that the health of the mother is an important factor, not just the life.
Comment by Vada — October 26, 2008 @ 12:00 am
Oh thanks, I did not catch that.
Comment by Char — October 26, 2008 @ 12:02 am
Consider yourself backed. To be fair, air quotation marks can also be employed as a visual tool which demarcate a speaker’s appropriation of someone else’s words from the rest of his or her (original and self-authored) orally-delivered composition, since they are less clunky than spitting “quote/end quote” into a speech. That interpretation doesn’t make sense with the McCain quip in question–especially not when we consider them conjoined with the eye-rolling.
Dont’cha like how I flip my rhetoric teacher hat on and off at will? Wheee! Linguistic modes are fun!
Comment by Janet — October 26, 2008 @ 1:29 am
. . . and speaking of rhetoric and hats, can I just tip my hat at all of us for the remarkable civility displayed in this conversation? Yay for y’all, wherever you are on the pro-life/pro-choice spectrum.
See, I have a cheerleader hat as well. Or is that pompoms?
[If we have OB/GYNs and midwives out there–or laypeople far more informed than me–I’d still be interested to read a full explication of circumstances in which abortion rather than pre-term delivery would be required and why, as well as why partial-birth rather than other methods would be medically advantageous in securing the life of the mother. I made a list of stuff i thought would qualify, but I teach, you know, poetry and stuff.]
Comment by Janet — October 26, 2008 @ 1:36 am
Janet, I am not a doctor, but #23 provided a link to a story.
I imagine it would not be possible for a pre-term delivery if it is prior to 22 weeks or if the mother could not live through a full delivery (a partial birth abortion is less intensive).
Comment by Char — October 26, 2008 @ 1:51 am
Janet- I’m in critical care now- I do provide care for moms who have had acute complications after birth- transfered from high risk maternity. Been a long time since I worked in NICU or L & D, but maintain tight relationships to coworkers in that venue, since we do take care of critically ill moms post-partum and respond to codes in that specialty.
It’s a complicated decision to deliver a child so early- there is so much that can go wrong, but if it’s being considered, obviously, there’s already a lot going wrong. The decision is not made lightly but unless prospective parents have had the experience, they have no idea what they are getting into. NICU isn’t for sissies. Parents and child are under an amazing amount of stress while this baby fights to develop and live independently. There are so many possible complications to artificial support that it’s not practical to list them here. A few- Cerebral palsy, intracerebral bleeding, blindness, pneumonia, sepsis. On a practical level, a couple could be ruined finanacially before the baby even arrives home- this is before you factor in prolonged physical therapy, visiting nursing and constant trips to the doctor…possible return visits and extended stays at the hospital.
Frankly, if there’s ever a law to force mothers to pre-term deliver instead of allowing for a termination of the pregnancy, the federal government better prepare to bear the financial burden of it (never mind the emotional burden the parents who have no choice in the matter have to bear-there is no price tag high enough to represent that).
I couldn’t even respond to #50, because that stance is so uninformed and lacking any compassion, that it paralyzes me with shock. How can a person who claims to be “pro-life” ignore every other life form other than the fetus and really lay claim to that belief? There’s no response to an opinion so determinedly ignorant. There is no ethical way for an outside agency of any kind to determine for mothers and fathers what constitutes the right decision for them. It is simply heartbreaking all around. The prospective parents should always have the right to decide their own level of sacrifice.
Comment by Kimberly — October 26, 2008 @ 7:28 am
Kimberly, thanks for your comment. During my two pregnancies I had friends with NICU babies, very very sick NICU babies, and trying to support them through that, and seeing what it’s like in there, being there every day to see those babies struggling for life, while having my own babies inside me, I was confronted with the question of what I would do if I had a micropreemie or baby born with such severe problems. I tried to be realistic and have a plan in place for both pregnancies after being confronted with the reality of sick babies. Of course, even when the possibility is staring you in the face, none of us can possibly know what we would do, what we would want, in that actual situation. But nobody should take away our right to decide.
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 9:07 am
#66
I guess I should have just stayed away fron this board. You are bound and determined to believe what you want, and avoid serious thought at all costs. Just continue believing that all those that don’t agree with you are filled with hate (It’s called projection) and you will never have to address why subconsciously you are not comfortable with killing the unborn.
Comment by jeff hoyt — October 26, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
76 ugh. Seriously? Try this: many of us are not subconsciously but consciously beyond “uncomfortable” with the thought of “killing the unborn.” As this post so eloquently attests, for some of us this act would be accompanied by tears, prayer and deep consultation with our family and partner. For some of us this would only happen if our own very lives were at stake.
How very cavalier of you to suggest that we “avoid serious thought at all cost.” You could only make that assertion if you had not read what was written here or your own ideas were so cemented that women attempting to connect these policies to their very real sorrow and experience was worth, well, nothing to you.
Perhaps subconsciously you’re just uncomfortable granting women the benefit of being truly human, with all that entails. No easy answers here. But I guess you already knew that.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 26, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Yes. Seriously. I see comment after comment driven by hate. There is NO effort to understand the point McCain (I have as low an opinion of McCain as any of you) was making about how the “health” exception is used to make abortion restrictions meaningless. Instead we are told that McCain wants women to die.
If women (or men) want their intellect respected they need to do better than that.
Comment by jeff hoyt — October 26, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
You don’t know what “our” opinion is of McCain because “we” don’t have one. I, CWC. have an opinion. Do you want to hear it? I like McCain. He reminds me of my pops.
I am guessing, Mr Hoyt that most of the men and women are like me and think that what you’ve displayed here disqualifies you from being any judge of “intellect.” I could be wrong. But unless you can do better than that, I’m done.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 26, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
I would like an example, preferably one that the McCain campaign has cited, of a woman stretching the “health” exception to make abortion restrictions meaningless.
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
jeff hoyt, I was going to respond to the “avoid serious thought at all costs” comment, but cwc did a great job in her second paragraph.
Fwiw, this probably is the most seriously thoughtful post on this topic I have read anywhere - even with the inflammatory title and politician-specific comments. When you filter out that narrow angle, it is profoundly thoughtful.
Comment by Ray — October 26, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Do you want to hear it? I like McCain. He reminds me of my pops.
He totally reminds me of my grandfather! I think they’re even the same age. He looks like, sounds like and has many of the same mannerisms and ways of speaking as my grandfather. His politics are 100% the same as my grandfather. Even that way that he throws random R’s into his words - “warshed up terrorist” - is just like my grandfather. I love it! McCain is so endearing to me. Voting for him would be like a vote for my granddad. Which scares the bejeezus out of me.
I love my grandpa, but…just…no.
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
second paragraph of #77 - just to be clear.
Comment by Ray — October 26, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Gee, Mr Hoyt, it must be nice to not a uterus and thus be able to dismiss women’s health issues so callously in quotation marks.
Comment by Quimby — October 26, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
#84 - I used quotation marks consistently with thread.
#80 - Because of privacy restrictions it is illegal to be too specific, but tis is the entire point of bringing up the subject. That is the point I have been trying to make. Do you really believe McCain was denigrating women? Do you really think that is my point? Why? That is why I am critical of the thinking on display. It does not even attempt to understand the very narrow point being made. Saying “McCain wants me dead” is just a foolish way of addressing this issue, and guarantees that the level of discourse will not be what it should be. That being said, thank you for addressing my point, you were the only one to do so.
Comment by jeff hoyt — October 26, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Jeff, Reese used a very common literary device of hyperbole to catch attention and then proceeding to share honest, far-reaching self-description to elucidate a cohesive argument. It’s unfortunate that you have to get hung up on the first while not really addressing the second (that is, her actual point).
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
Yes. When a person wants to force another person to do something that is detrimental to his or her health, and then dismisses those health concerns with air quotes and a roll of the eyes, that is denigrating. Because the people who McCain would force to do something that is detrimental to their health are women, that is denigrating women. Because you agree with him, you are denigrating women.
Comment by Quimby — October 26, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Her argument was cohesive, but in my opinion is largely a straw man. The people of the pro-life movement are great people. They care about women in crisis pregnancies. My comments were not addressed at Reese, but directed at specific commenters, who I believe based on this blog to be a hateful shallow thinkers.
Comment by jeff hoyt — October 26, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Jeff, I disagree with you on this, I think everyone here understood the point he was trying to make- which is exactly why so many of us are angry about it. As you said, he was saying that the health exception could be abused to make abortion restrictions meaningless.
That idea put out there on it’s own leaves one to make the obvious assumption that health exceptions are a bad idea (because they’ll only be abused), and we should just get rid of them- which means that if your pregnancy is killing you then you’re just going to have to, ahem, live with it.
This is a huge problem because, while the woman who will abort due to swollen ankles is still a phantom that no one has managed to capture, the woman who will die because of pregnancy is well documented reality. With those air quotes McCain made it clear that imagined, potential abortions are more threatening to him than the real morbidity and mortality of real flesh and blood women.
Had McCain gone on to state that he favors tighter restrictions on health exceptions to prevent abuse then that would be different, but he didn’t so here we are.
Comment by Starfoxy — October 26, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
How do the pro-life women care about women in crisis pregnancies? This statement is demonstrably false. Partial term abortion, for example, isn’t even a medical term, meaning that doctors don’t know what it means,and greatly reducing the choices for women in crisis pregnancies–a friend of mine died of one; they still happen.
Here’s a medical link–http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102911.php
Cool. Let’s hurt actual woman to gain a few votes and get uterus-less mr. hoyt all het up.
Comment by djinn — October 26, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
jeff, Here is my problem with your approach, stated directly - no holds barred:
In your #76 you referenced Eris’ #66 - but there is nothing in Eris’ comment that justifies your charges. One-by-one those charges are:
1) You are bound and determined to believe what you want, and avoid serious thought at all costs.
A) Eris provided three very specific reasons for her (?) problem with Senator McCain’s remarks. Each of them was legitimate, even if they are debatable.
2) Just continue believing that all those that don’t agree with you are filled with hate (It’s called projection)
A) I see nothing in anything Eris wrote that even implies she believes that.
3) and you will never have to address why subconsciously you are not comfortable with killing the unborn.
A) Again, there is nothing in anything Eris wrote that would provoke that statement.
You are being extremely imprecise in your own comments here. If you meant to address “specific commenters”, you should not have addressed a comment by one commenter - especially one whose comment did not match your criticism at all. Engage with those with whom you disagree, by name, and it will be much easier to have a productive and thoughtful conversation. Ditch the hyperbole, and it will be even better. (and I can hear my mother now saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”)
Summary:
The Golden Rule is a pretty cool thing, regardless of what you think of the tactics and words of others. Criticizing others for doing what you are doing yourself simply is hypocrisy.
Comment by Ray — October 26, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
Thanks so much for your comment Kimberly. I’ve been struggling for three days to try to explain some of what you eloquently wrote. To people who haven’t been there, discussing these matters of life and death can sound callous, but I think you did a wonderful, sensitive job of explaining reality.
I can’t speak for any medical conditions other than my own, but in my case the procedure referred to as late-term abortion would have been necessary had my platelet count dropped at all lower.
As it was, I barely got anesthesia. They thought they were going to have to do a C-section under local anesthetic because we didn’t have the time to wait for anything else. If my platelets dropped any lower, they wouldn’t have been able to risk my bleeding to death by operating or inducing delivery, and the only way to cure my condition was through no longer being pregnant, and so, forgive the gruesomeness, they would have had to remove my baby in pieces.
Comment by reese — October 27, 2008 @ 12:02 am
Kimbery and Char and, of course, Reese–sincere thanks for addressing my question. I wish no woman or doctor ever had to make such a traumatic call. It is, honestly and truly, my worst nightmare. I’m so grateful Reese’s story has a happy ending and honestly grieve for those family for whom things do not work out as well (just as I thank heaven that the doctors are allowed to actually save one life rather than lose both.
Comment by Janet — October 27, 2008 @ 1:29 am
Exactly so. In early abortive procedures, you will find the rare exceptions on occasion, but the fact that there are 1 or 2 women (who probably have existing mental issues that involve underlying detachment disorders) who don’t have an issue with terminating a pregnancy- that’s no reason to throw the general population under the bus. The general population of women who undergo elective early abortion have considered everything very carefully and make the decision with a heavy heart.
Women in the position of late term abortions have far less choice involved in the matter- it’s less ambiguous by far- there are emergent issues that are overwhelming and the mother’s natural desire to protect her developing fetus is at odds with her own sense of self-preservation (a pyschologically and spiritually devastating place to be). I have taken care of women who have had to make that call and it is heartbreaking. I am not exaggerating when I say that they never get over it. Some have to be treated for PTSD. Women who are candidates for late term abortions are in a class all by themselves- there really isn’t any potential for abuse in their case…it’s actually already established by definition that their health and life is at stake and everyone concerned is devastated.
Reese, thank you for being courageous and willing to share what must have been a terrifying event in your history. It is essential that women with your experience speak out on behalf of yourselves and other women potentially in the same position. In describing your personal experience, this is far more closely related to the actual experiences of the women we are discussing. The cases of maternal/fetal jeopardy are horrific to all concerned…does anyone have any idea how the medical people concerned feel about removing a baby in pieces…bear in mind that you are talking about people who have consistently supported both baby and mother in bringing the pregnancy to a healthy and joyous conclusion- it’s the purpose of their professional practice. I guarantee that nobody concerned seeks this traumatic conclusion- mother, father, attendants alike. Anyone concerned will always make the decision that potentially leaves both lives intact, if at all possible…this involves discussion on viability of the fetus if pre-term delivery is concerned. To portray either the mother or the medical people involved as murderers is inconsistent and cruel…if we want to discuss hyperbole, well there you have it.
Comment by Kimberly — October 27, 2008 @ 6:06 am
Kimberly, Wow! Thank you for sharing your experience as a medical professional. Clearly abortion is not a black and white issue. There is a lot of misinformation out there.
I know I may be little late on this, but when # 50 Janene made the comment about no abortions ever. I thought of the first time I started to reconsider my own stance. I had a friend in high school who was raped repeatedly by her step father through middle school. She lived with other relatives after the state took her from her home and put her step-dad in jail. I remember saying something similar that even rape victims should not be able to abort - there is always adoption. She looked at me and said my step-dad raped me more than once. I would not have wanted to get pregnant especially since I would have been 12 and it was not my choice to have sex. If I had gotten pregnant I would have wanted an abortion. I shut-up at that point. Its a lot harder to say such things when know the person and they are standing in front of you.
Comment by Violet — October 27, 2008 @ 9:13 am
[…] Mormon Housewife bloggers: John McCain Wants Me Dead and How I Co-Authored Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” (not really a co-author claim, of […]
Pingback by Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » What I’m reading (particular focus on abortion today, but also some other stuff) — October 27, 2008 @ 9:44 am
shallow yes, hateful no.
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 10:27 am
That’s misleading. I agree that PBA is medically innacurate, since abortion involves the death of a fetus, not of an infant. When childbirth begins, it’s no longer a fetus; it’s an infant, and the term “abortion” can no longer apply. Partial birth infanticide would be more medically accurate term.
But I don’t think that’s what your point was.
Only a handful of obtuse pro choice jurists pretended that they didn’t understand what the partial term abortion term meant; everyone else, including the AMA, recognized that it was an unambiguous reference to the dilation and extraction procedure, and that such a procedure was not necessary (as opposed to other procedures) to the life and health of the mother.
Query: do you believe that being too tired to take care of another baby should trigger the “life and health” clause sufficient to justify a medically necessary abortion? Because even though I’m generally pro choice, I think that it’s a good thing that our court has backed away from such an interpretation.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 10:28 am
“Late term abortion” isn’t a specific procedure. There are multiple forms of late term abortion, and the only prohibited form is the “D&X” procedure which involves inducing labor, and as I just explained is arguably not a form of “abortion” at all.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 10:33 am
#50
Please tell me your opinion on capital punishment. And what about war. That is murder and that is killing people. So are you opposed to all war then because some innocent people are going to die. And the death sentence has been proven to take innocent lives.
I am pregnant with our first child. I hope to never have to go through what Reese went through. But then to have to hear from someone like you making it sound so easy… like it shouldn’t even be a choice. Shame on you.
Comment by DoubleL — October 27, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
DoubleL: That is murder and that is killing people.
Actually, not all killing is murder. Murder is a form of killing that involves moral turpitude. If you’re asking whether certain killings are justified, responding “Yes, because it’s murder” begs the question.
For my part, I oppose all Federal involvement in abortion law outside of the standard regulatory involvement necessitated by medical standards. The most cogent argument out there for why abortion should be a constitutional right is that it already is a constitutional right (as made by Sunstein’s op/ed on Roe v. Wade earlier this year). Sunstein’s argument, however, is a singularly un-compelling argument, because there’s no entrenched scheme of judicial decisions based on Roe v. Wade comparable to the entrenchment of other poor decisions (e.g., the expansive commerce clause or incorporation of the Bill of Rights).
Let states decide whether to ban late-term abortion and on what grounds, and you can have these types of arguments in a forum where you can actually make a difference; viz., on a state or community level.
Comment by DKL — October 27, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
DoubleL, pay attention [edit: franti points out I may be paying inadequate attention and you were speaking to someone else. Sigh–if that’s the case, my bad
]. She didn’t make it sound easy. She made it sound hellish. I’m pretty sure anyone who tries as hard as Reese did to build her family and then faces the sort of choice she did (really, what choice–had she died, so would’ve her baby) would never call the situation easy. Shame on you for your radical mis-reading of the narrative of someone who nearly died. I imagine some of your shaming comes from the terror that such a thing could happen to you–I pray it doesn’t. I wish it never happened to anyone.
I–and I imagine I’m in multitudinous company here–also wish war never happened. I wish nobody ever died except happily, in their beds, after a long life filled with sunshine and puppies. Alas, life refuses to conform to my dreams of two-dimensional ease. War is sometimes necessary, though always tragic. Ditto abortion.
Comment by Janet — October 27, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Why DKL, I’m not sure I’ve ever wanted to kiss you before
Comment by Janet — October 27, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
janet, i thought doubleL was shaming janene for her harsh comments.
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
I wish nobody ever died except happily, in their beds, after a long life filled with sunshine and puppies
except for those of us violently allergic to puppies, of course.
Comment by Kerry — October 27, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Yes - Kerry has a point - people who are allergic to puppies should die horrible deaths!
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Hey, I’m allergic to puppies!
Comment by DKL — October 27, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Reese,
Thanks for this post. I had an incredibly easy labor and delivery, but my daughter has not been so fortunate. Some folks on this thread have dismissed “morning sickness” as trivial. My daughter had the extreme version, hyperemesis gravidarum, roughly comparable to having food poisoning from about the 2nd week of her pregnancy until the baby was born. (It happens in 1-2% of pregancies.) She couldn’t even keep sips of water down. She lost 12 lb in a week and was so dehydrated she had to be hospitalized and placed on the same intravenous drugs that are used for cancer patients on chemotherapy, to control vomiting and nausea. She and her husband wanted this baby so much that they were willing to gamble with her health, one week at a time, to try to stabilize long enough for the baby to be safe. But at the same time, they knew that there was a level beyond which they couldn’t risk her health or life. Burned out esophagus? Ketosis and liver failure? How far is too far? And, more importantly, who should make that decision? John McCain, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, or my daughter, her husband and her doctor?
They were fortunate and managed to keep the nausea barely manageable, long enough for her to have a beautiful, miraculously healthy little boy. And they are brave enough to be trying again. She is sicker this time but has doctors who are managing more aggressively - outpatient IV’s 3 times a week, more meds, and more monitoring. She’s 5 months along and hoping for the best. But they will not let her 4 year old wind up with an invalid mother, or no mother at all.
I watched John McCain’s air quotes and heard his tone of contempt with utter disbelief and outrage. Who on God’s green earth does this man think he is, to sneer at the difficult choices made by families and their doctors and nurses, in the most intimate and painful of settings? This is MY child, whom I carried under my heart and watched grow from her birth to radiant adulthood and motherhood. If my daughter’s condition turns worse, I want her doctors to treat HER and protect HER health, not just treat her as a container for a 22-week fetus. And I would give up MY life and MY health to protect her from the McCains of this world.
Comment by Laurel — October 27, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Laurel, thank you so much for sharing your story. I couldn’t agree with you more.
Comment by Lady — October 27, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
DKL, you may have fish instead of puppies. Or a Kangaroo–your choice.
Comment by Janet — October 27, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Kerry, you may also have a Kangaroo. In fact, I love the visual of a Kanga bouncing around your backyard!
Comment by Janet — October 27, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
I don’t understand how so many people can even consider a late-term abortion. Don’t you all understand that it’s a BABY, legs, arms, organs, eyes, ears, hair? And that it’ll basically be burned ALIVE? Even if the life of a mother is in jeopardy, late-term should never be considered. DELIVER IT, give this human being a CHANCE at survival!!!
McCain was definitely talking about “health” of the mother being defined too broadly- mental, emotional, etc. Late-term abortion should be totally illegal. Early term, and I think it should only be really early term, should be legal but with major restrictions. Incest, rape, huge danger to the mother (#17, that list is questionable), etc.
Since this is an LDS audience, let us all remember that the Savior gave his life so that all of us, unborn, un-concieved, individuals could have a chance to gain eternal life. In my eyes, abortion falls in line with Satan’s plan of taking someone’s (the unborn child) chance to life away. Under no circumstance would I ever consider abortion. I know I may sound insensitive. I have a sister-in-law who is alive today because her mother decided not to abort. She was born at 25 weeks and her mother died of cancer shortly after- even facing death, leaving behind a husband and 4 other children she never had second thoughts.
So in response to some saying McCain cares more about a fetus than a grown woman, well eternally the fetus needs a chance as well (but in McCain’s argument the mother and baby would live because he supports late-term delivery).
Comment by nonfeministldswoman — October 27, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Janet, we had the World’s Biggest Echidna in our yard the other day. I’m pretty sure it was the World’s Biggest Echidna. I don’t work for Guiness or anything, but it was about twice as big as any I’d ever seen. As much as I like kangaroos, I prefer echidnas.
#112 - Maybe you need to reread some of these comments. Nobody here is “considering” a late-term abortion. I’m really not sure what else to say to you . . . If you’ve actually read what Reese and Kimberly wrote and you still think that way, well, insensitive doesn’t really come close . . .
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
ooo. I want a kangaroo in my backyard!
(I was within inches of getting actual lambs for my backyard–to keep it mowed cuz I suck at that. still might do it. how many lambs would it take to keep 1/3 acre mowed?)
Comment by Kerry — October 27, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Kerry, if you’ve only got 1/3 of an acre, you probably don’t want more than 2 lambs. (The rough rule of thumb is 5 sheep per acre, but that’s kind of working on the assumption that you’ll have adequate food year-round.) You could probably get by with 1, but sheep are sociable and so I’m sure if you only had 1 she’d be quite lonely. Sheep are really dumb - I can’t emphasise that enough. You’ll need good fences and a source of water. And if you want to actually breed - which I wouldn’t really recommend on 1/3 acre - and you have predators, you might want to get an alpaca to protect the lambs. Actually, skip the lambs and go straight to the alpaca. They’re very pretty and very good-natured, and, while they aren’t allergic to puppies, they hate dogs.
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
I don’t understand how so many people can even consider a late-term abortion. Don’t you all understand that it’s a BABY, legs, arms, organs, eyes, ears, hair?
Uh, yeah. We all understand that quite thoroughly. We’re not idiots. Some of have, like, actual babies, so, yeah, we know what babies are like.
Also, nobody here is talking about “considering” late-term abortion. Late-term abortions might be necessary for women who are dying. That’s not something you “consider.” That’s something that comes down to a life-or-death decision in the final moments of a serious illness or accident. It’s not something you write on your to-do list, like, “Grocery shopping, oil change, drop cookies off with Janice, abort the baby.”
And that it’ll basically be burned ALIVE?
Huh?
Even if the life of a mother is in jeopardy, late-term should never be considered. DELIVER IT, give this human being a CHANCE at survival!!!
How about the mother’s chance at survival? In life-or-death situations, some mothers have to abort to save their own lives, because there isn’t time for a cesarean or they’re too sick to have one. Do you think those mothers should die so their babies can live? Even if that’s a decision you would make (and honestly, we can’t really know what we would do), do you think it’s right to sentence another woman to die who would choose differently?
McCain was definitely talking about “health” of the mother being defined too broadly- mental, emotional, etc.
So mental health doesn’t count? What if suicide is likely? Then neither person survives.
Late-term abortion should be totally illegal.
I hope you’re willing to accept the responsibility of mothers who will die if people like you prevent them from making a private medical decision with their doctors and partners.
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
First of all, I don’t think this website should have any affiliation with LDS or Mormon. Too many contradicting arguments/posts with the church.
#113- In my comment I said I wasn’t against early abortion. But it sounded to me like late-term could have been considered in this situation or could be again (I guess we need to DEFINE late-term, perhaps it’s earlier for me). And I was simply stating my OPINION about that. I would never wish HELLP or any pregnancy related problems on anyone, but as beyond INSENSITIVE as it sounds, I still stand saying that I would never do it myself BUT I don’t think we should make it illegal for those under certain circumstances. Choose to be offended if you want.
Comment by nonfeministldswoman — October 27, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
I have a sister-in-law who is alive today because her mother decided not to abort. She was born at 25 weeks and her mother died of cancer shortly after- even facing death, leaving behind a husband and 4 other children she never had second thoughts.
Although, as I said before, we could never really know what we would do in such a situation, I feel that I’d rather survive and fulfill my responsibility to my existing children and partner. I think it’s really sad and irresponsible to choose to die to give birth to a premature child and leave behind four children and a father. In fact, I think it’s so sad and irresponsible, I should work to legislate against mothers who choose to die in childbirth or who choose to get pregnant and give birth when they know they’re going to die shortly thereafter. If we’re going to legislate regarding the unborn, surely we should legislate regarding those who are already living, right?
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Okay, I’m just being snarky now, but seriously, nonfeminist, your argument is full of holes and just doesn’t make sense in light of the gray shades of actual existence.
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
chandelle,
you can’t reason with uninformed, ignorant, fearful people.
you just can’t. so why bother?
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Because I like to torture myself that way, yo! It’s so like totally beyond the most funnest thing evah!
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
In #112 you said, “Late-term abortion should be totally illegal.” Now in #117 you’re saying, “BUT I don’t think we should make it illegal for those under certain circumstances.”
If you’re saying you wouldn’t do it yourself but it shouldn’t be illegal, fine. If you’re saying it should be illegal, that’s where you’ve got a fight on your hand.
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
I feel like I’m wrestling with pigs. Your comment “huh” to being burned alive. You should do some research about how abortions are done. You obviously don’t know anything about c-sections, they take around 5 mins and can be done to very sick people. I think you need to do some research. To a dying mother, a late-term abortion can be just as dangerous as a c-section. I stand against late term.
Suicide? Take the baby and give it to the state. Then both survive. Think about your comments.
Responsibility of the mother (in late-term because I’M NOT AGAINST EARLY TERM)? Then you can have the responsibility of the baby on your head.
Oh, and I’m, like, a mother. I, like, have babies. I was just putting emphasis on the burn a HUMAN alive (and no, it’s not the ONLY way to abort but I’m just trying to make the point that the baby can feel pain and no way is ethical).
Comment by nonfeministldswoman — October 27, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
I said late-term should be totally illegal, not early term.
Comment by nonfeministldswoman — October 27, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Wow- you just knocked a dead lady who was dying of cancer and chose to give life. Who’s beyond insensitive now?
Comment by nonfeministldswoman — October 27, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
nonfeministldswoman, These are sincere questions from an active LDS:
Do you realize that when you comment on a blog by saying things that actually are in opposition to the Church’s own stance on abortion you literally undermine the organization you think you are defending? Also, when you leave comments that make it appear that you haven’t read the original post and the subsequent comments carefully and thoughtfully and charitably you literally reinforce the incorrect assumption that Mormons are programmed and brainwashed? I am NOT saying I view you that way; what I am saying is that when you leave the types of comments you have left, it hurts the church you think you are defending.
At the very least, please make sure you are not contradicting the Church’s stance and you are responding as you have been encouraged to respond. So far, you haven’t done so.
Comment by Ray — October 27, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
non fem
you should cite your source on burning. that way we can be as informed as you are.
as for c-sections, did you read reeses comment? let me find it….
….
…
…
ah yes:
now, if a competent doctor of medicine feels that that only option available is to to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother, shouldn’t you allow him to do his job?
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
So, at the moment, I’m carrying a 30-week-old fetus. I love this child and I want this child. But there’s no way in hades you can convince me that its life is as valuable as mine.
I work. I have a daughter. I have a husband. I have a tertiary education. I pay taxes. I have 30-odd years invested in life. This child has 30 weeks, and that is being incredibly generous and assuming life begins at the moment of conception - not something science or religion has ever agreed upon.
If push came to shove and God forbid I had to make a choice, I know what choice I’d make. And I know I would hate myself for it. And I know I would spend the rest of my life regretting that choice. But I’d still make it, because my life is more valuable by any measurement.
And frankly, I’m more than a little insulted that you think so little of my life that you would gladly sacrifice it for a life that, until quite recently medically-speaking, wasn’t even viable at this point.
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
YOU are not well informed. These are completely emotional responses and you will choose to be offended for the sake of offense because you have an agenda and are sticking to it.
Comment by nonfeministldswoman — October 27, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Huh. Agenda. My agenda is this: I love life!
Yup. I’m damned for sure.
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
123 Seriously, tone it down with the all caps. And if you want to wrestle with us pigs, I am afraid you will have to put lipstick on our little porcine lips first, cuz that’s the way we roll around here. We mix our metaphors with our genders and our sense of humour. Some of us even spit chamomile tea out our noses when we read,
That is HILARIOUS, Chandelle!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 27, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
so what is my agenda?
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
Pig wrestling?
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 27, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
nonfeministldswoman, Let me be even clearer:
PLEASE, stop. Again, I say that as someone who accepts the Church’s stance on abortion and is at odds with many here in some ways on many issues.
Please, stop. You aren’t doing the Church any good whatsoever in how you are responding.
Please, stop. You are making broad generalizations that are based on quick assumptions and making you look incredibly judgmental. It’s not the impression you want to make, but it is the impression you are making - and everyone here knows I have never asked anyone to stop in the manner I am asking you to do so.
Please, stop.
Comment by Ray — October 27, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
You should do some research about how abortions are done. You obviously don’t know anything about c-sections, they take around 5 mins and can be done to very sick people.
Actually, I have attended abortions as a volunteer and I’ve also studied abortion in school, so I’m quite informed about how they are performed. I’m also very informed about how cesareans are performed, and Reese’s own post demonstrates that sometimes they cannot be done on very sick women. And 5 minutes? You’ve got to be kidding. It can take 30 minutes just to get the OR ready unless you’re in a level 4 hospital.
Suicide? Take the baby and give it to the state. Then both survive. Think about your comments.
So you’re suggesting that we induce labor or perform a cesarean on a woman, at any gestation of her pregnancy, hopefully save her baby, and then “give it to the state” and then what, institutionalize the mother? Surely there has to be a consequence for such actions. Maybe you should think about your comments, because that is entirely implausible.
Then you can have the responsibility of the baby on your head.
I will accept the responsibility of allowing mothers, partners and doctors to make the decisions in such situations. Gladly.
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
#133,does that wrestling require a t-shirt and mud?
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
These are completely emotional responses and you will choose to be offended for the sake of offense because you have an agenda and are sticking to it.
Snort.
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
mud yes, t-shirt no
FWIW from the time the decision was made to give me an emergency c-section until the baby was delivered was about 90 minutes, and that was with an OR on stand-by and after I’d already had an epidural.
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
You aren’t doing the Church any good whatsoever in how you are responding.
You should listen to Ray, nonfem; he’s a smart man, one of the few who can hold his own around here.
FWIW, Ray, I have no judgment on the Church for comments like nonfem’s. I’m acquainted with the Church’s position, which, even though I don’t agree with it entirely, is one of compassion, and I’m aware that nonfem’s beliefs are not in line with church policy. Hopefully others are as well.
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
like 5 minutes? really?
where are you getting that information from? please cite.
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
m, seriously, she’s completely wrong. Even if you were giving birth IN the OR, fully anesthetized, with a fully-suited up nursing and surgical staff standing there with scalpals in hand, it couldn’t happen in 5 minutes. Probably not even 10 minutes. Probably not even 15 or 20. Unless the woman was already dead, in which case, slice away.
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
#138 What? No “ladies of fMh wrestle-athon”? Even to raise money for Kiva? Oh, Q, that’s just the grumpy pregnancy hormones talking!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 27, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Hey, you misread me! I just said no to the t-shirts, I’m all for mud, pigs, and lipstick. It’s just that we’d get more attention/money/viewers if we leave the t-shirts off.
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
but the t-shirts add to the mystique.
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
Okay. Just for the record. I would TO-TA-LLY participate in a “Women (Not Ladies, Buck!!) of fMh Modest Mud-Wrestling Competition to Spread Wealth and Democracy through Micro-Loans and Accidental Boobie Snatches”. Come on! I could totally take Janet.
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
If only ’cause I’m like twice her size.
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
#145 Are you sure, Chandelle? My understanding is that Janet, much like the Wu Tang Clan, is nothing to f with.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 27, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
…we apologize for the adult content of this blog post…
Comment by mfranti — October 27, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Hugh Hefner would beg to differ . . .
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
That’s true, cwc. Janet seems like a woman who’d use her nails a lot. Scrappy. Hm…
Comment by Chandelle — October 27, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
I’ve got to say that the last time *I* wrestled Janet, I got my butt royally kicked. And I played college softball and rugby.
‘Course, when she beat me, I was 9 and she was 18. But she fights dirty.
Comment by Beth — October 27, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
. . . and my mother told me to stop bugging my brother’s friend . . .
Comment by Beth — October 27, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
I’d say she fights dirty! I thought adults were legally required to let children win in wrestling competitions and games of Candy Land. Someone, quick, back me up with a Supreme Court decision - I’m sure an issue as important as this hasn’t gone uncommented on!
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
I think you’ll find it was Tyke v. Smith, 347 U.S. 562, 68 L.Ed. 632 (1932).
Comment by Beth — October 27, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
It also held that bedtime stories and teddy bears were guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
Comment by Beth — October 27, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
I know this is wildly inappropriate, but my brain translated Tyke v. Smith as Dyke v. Smith - and the combination of my laughter already from reading the last dozen-ish comments, that mis-translation and the image of some of you women wearing pig masks and wrestling topless in a mud pit had me laughing so hard I was crying.
I think I need to see my bishop now. I feel so dirty.
Comment by Ray — October 27, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
Ray, we wouldn’t cover up our beautiful faces with pig masks! After all we all look just like Angelina Jolie.
Almost. But not quite - In real life, we all have her digitally-enhanced breasts from the Tomb Raider poster.
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
Ray, I will stop and never visit this website again. I am sorry that I got a defensive. My original post was simply stating my opinions, I had no idea that sharing would cause such an uproar and that my opinions are apparently not welcome here.
I, in no way, said I was defending the church. If sharing my beliefs as an active LDS member means I’m defending my church than we should never open our mouths. Again just an opinion, I do not like any blog or website that associates itself with our church that is not church sponsored for reasons such as these. That is all I was saying, I was not trying to defend the beliefs.
Even though #113 said there wasn’t mention of late-term, there actually was. I obviously feel very strongly about this and so I shared. I do not know what the church’s stance is on late-term, however as far as early term goes, I agree with everything. Doesn’t mean that my personal decision would go along with that. I didn’t know I would be so hated for being passionate about my views.
I will stop now. No one needs to reply because I am never checking again.
Comment by nonfeministldswoman — October 27, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Congratulations to your healthy son, Reese. I am not quite sure what to think about your wish to become pregnant again but I am sure that you will consider that carefully.
John McCain’s outrageous remarks illustrate the problematic nature of abortion prohibitions with exceptions. People who want to have an abortion are going to stretch the exceptions to their limits.
That applies not only to the health of the mother but also to the rape exception. If need be, one can always claim that the pregnancy might be the result of a rape.
I do not see a way how to determine the burden of proof properly. We cannot well demand from a woman who might have been raped that she bear the burden of proof. Rape is difficult to proof, especially, if the victim is coming forth only late, which is quite common. Many rapes go unreported. More never result in prosecution.
Liberty is the best way to limit the number of abortions. When women and families have options then less women will have abortions.
In the United States, the abortion rate dropped twice as quickly under the Clinton administration than under the Bush administration. If there are jobs and mothers get a little bit of support, women are more likely to choose life.
By the way, the abortion rate in the United States is more than three times as high than in the Netherlands and many other European countries that have very liberal abortion laws. Education, openness, rational parents, and support systems are much more effective reducing abortions and delaying sexual activity than prohibitions.
Comment by Hellmut — October 27, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
For the record, Beth kept interrupting whenever her brother got within 6 inches of me on the couch. His lap and mine, in her opinion, belonged to her her her and her only. But she’s lying; she beat me. Then she made me a pie. At 9. She’s kind of a baking savant.
I’m liking the notion of me being a crappy wrastler :).
Comment by Janet — October 27, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
I’m liking the idea of you being a crappy wrastler, too. (what’s a wrastler?)
Comment by Stephanie — October 28, 2008 @ 12:11 am
wrastlers warsh in cricks in Warshington
Comment by Quimby — October 28, 2008 @ 12:13 am
Wrestling?! I hope I’m not too late to the party…
Regarding the issue at hand, I always considered myself legally pro-life until I thought about an earlier fMh post regarding the October Ensign. Darn you all for making me think…
Much of this is from my comment to that post, but assuming everyone agrees with the Church’s stance on abortion (only for the sake of a known example), turning these exact exclusions into law creates problems. Even if you fall under one of those exceptions, you must legally prove it. You may be required to wait for a guilty rape conviction, or a positive DNA test proving incest (but what about step- or adopted fathers?), or a legal hearing to lawfully decide if the mother’s health was in danger… And what exactly is the mother’s “health?” I’m not sure someone in that situation should have to wait for a court to decide what constitutes health and if her health is truly in danger.
As much as I consider myself pro-life, the political and legal implications (in the USA, anyway) of the abortion question are complicated and far-reaching, even with the best of intentions. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I hope I never have to make a decision like that, but if I do, I hope it’s a decision that I am able to make with people who know me, love me, and want the best for me and my family: DH and my doctor.
Comment by that1girl — October 28, 2008 @ 12:16 am
I know that this isn’t what the discussion is about, and that it is a theoretical angle on the idea of a ‘rape exception’ (and that you, that1girl, do not necessarily endorse this), but I’ve seen this bandied about so much that it’s driving me batty.
A guilty verdict means that a person was found guilty of rape. A failure to obtain a guilty verdict is not the same thing as proof that a rape did not occur. It could simply be due to lack of evidence, or getting the wrong guy. People talk about ‘false rape accusations’ as if failure to convict necessarily means that the victim made it all up.
Setting a guilty conviction as the bar to clear is a ridiculously high standard, (imagine if we required all robbers to be caught and convicted before your insurance would make payment).
Which, I suppose is exactly the point- one cannot legislate a rape exception without cutting off access for large swathes of victims that you are ostensibly trying to protect.
Comment by Starfoxy — October 28, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Thanks, Quimby!
Comment by Kerry — October 28, 2008 @ 12:56 am
#164 - “A guilty verdict means that a person was found guilty of rape. A failure to obtain a guilty verdict is not the same thing as proof that a rape did not occur. It could simply be due to lack of evidence, or getting the wrong guy.
Or, if you were raped in Los Angeles, it could just be that the lab didn’t get to your rape kit in time, or 199 others . . . and some 7000 others are at risk for the same thing. See here.
Comment by TAG — October 28, 2008 @ 6:23 am
#102: I know I’m late to responding but yes #104 mfranti is right I was commenting that Jeanne in #50 made it sound easy. I think it would be absolute hell to go through what Reese went through. Which is why I hope I don’t ever have to go through something like that. To just say as Jeane did in #50 to not do it… easy peasy… that is rude to Reese.
Comment by DoubleL — October 28, 2008 @ 6:37 am
So, we’re in?Do we need paperwork drwn up or are we going grassroots? Who’s got us on a good t-shirt design? My mascot, FYI, is Atticus, the mighty feminist dragon baby. Sorry, Reese, I called it!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 28, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Would this do for the shirt?
wordle?
Comment by Beth — October 28, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
oh beth, that makes me laugh.
Comment by mfranti — October 28, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Reese, thank you for this post.
My eclampsia wasn’t as severe, or as early (my son was born at 34 weeks, after I’d been on bed rest for 5), but I had the same 90-minutes-rush-job almost-didn’t-get-anesthetic-for-emergency-C-section (I actually had a coworker who had a no-anesthetic C-section in a rural hospital when she was 18, what a nightmare).
Watching McCain’s air quotes gave me a blood-pressure headache spike like I hadn’t felt since my son was born. I can’t believe there are apologists here for that dismissive action.
Comment by Rosa — October 29, 2008 @ 1:44 am
Late, bulk response. I apologize in advance.
Much of the time I enjoy this blog, but this post and the response that follows quite baffles me.
I understand hyperbole, but the title and beginning paragraphs and most comments aren’t addressing the actual McCain quote. Are we just parroting the outrage of Chris Matthews?
It wasn’t a “discussion of Roe v Wade,” the quote was from a discussion of partial-birth abortion. McCain wasn’t scoffing at women’s health. He was scoffing at the incredibly broad use of the term as used in the abortion debate. He specifies this immediately and he’s right. In Doe v Bolton the courts defined “health of the mother” as:
“Medical judgment may be exercised in light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age–relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”
“Health of the mother” can be anything at all.
I also note that while that part of the discussion was centered on partial-birth abortion (D&X) specifically, that keeps getting shifted in this discussion to “late-term abortion.” The two obviously aren’t synonymous.
If anyone can show an actual case where a partially delivered baby must have scissors stuck into it’s skull and it’s brains extracted before the rest of the baby comes out–to save the mother–please cite.
Otherwise, let’s be moderately reasonable and agree that skull decompression and extraction in the middle of delivery isn’t likely to affect the “woman’s health.” (Read that with giant, flying air quotes.)
Quimby #51:
If you’re against your tax dollars going for “murder” (what hyperbole!) you’d better be prepared to spend them making sure these children stay alive.
If you’re against drunk driving, you’d better be prepared to spend every night for the rest of your life sitting outside bars, driving home the intoxicated.
Yes, consistency, please.
One thing that most surprises me is the insistence that abortion is “taken lightly” only once in a blue moon. Such as here:
while the woman who will abort due to swollen ankles is still a phantom that no one has managed to capture
While I’m not sure how you define “taking lightly” it’s statistically true that the vast majority of abortions are for convenience, not for health issues.
According to a Guttmacher study, 25% of women have them “because they are not ready to have another child” and another 23% have them “because they cannot afford a baby right now.” 19% “have completed my childbearing” (!) and 8% “don’t want to be a single mother.” Etc.
4% had “physical problems with my health.” 0.5% were raped.
They also state that half of US pregnancies are “unintended” and 2/5 of those will be terminated. 3/4 of women who have abortions give “having a baby would interfere with work, school, or the ability to care for dependents” as a reason.
That isn’t an argument either for or against allowing abortions in some circumstances, but let’s at least be clear that it’s a tiny minority of abortions that are due to “serious” health issues. Or any health issues at all.
The general population of women who undergo elective early abortion have considered everything very carefully and make the decision with a heavy heart.
Do you have some source for this? And why, if the choice is so incredibly difficult and painful, why wouldn’t someone who “is done with childbearing” just CHOOSE not to be done with childbearing?
I’m not referring to anyone here, but I think it’s quite clear that in this country, abortion IS done with regularity as a means to avoid inconvenience and a cramped lifestyle. And why not? It’s not a “baby” it’s only a “fetus.” It’s not alive. It’s potential life. The general abortion rights mantra is NOT “consider this carefully as you will be left with heavy heart.” It is “women’s reproductive rights.” What’s heavy about that? “Choice” is a good thing, right?
I think it’s really sad and irresponsible to choose to die to give birth to a premature child and leave behind four children and a father.
Chandelle, I am hoping this was part of your “snark.” Otherwise, I find it a really troubling statement — in light of “choice” and all.
Also, nobody here is talking about “considering” late-term abortion.
Except Obama and McCain?
I work. I have a daughter. I have a husband. I have a tertiary education. I pay taxes. I have 30-odd years invested in life…
If push came to shove and God forbid I had to make a choice, I know what choice I’d make. And I know I would hate myself for it. And I know I would spend the rest of my life regretting that choice. But I’d still make it, because my life is more valuable by any measurement.
Quimby, this was absolutely stunning.
I have six kids ages 5-21. I’d die for any one of them in a heartbeat. Even though, by your standard, I am more “valuable” than most of them. I suppose your daughter (as opposed to “your fetus”) won’t have that benefit?
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — October 29, 2008 @ 4:52 am
But I’d still make it, because my life is more valuable by any measurement.
I guess we’re pretty lucky that Christ didn’t use that standard. At least I am.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — October 29, 2008 @ 4:56 am
But I’d say they are serious issues nonetheless.
I volunteer for an organization that helps low-income women pay for abortions. I talk to an average of 12 women a week, and about 10 out of those 12 have at least one child. And are living on little more than $1,000 a month. Even if they have health insurance, their insurance won’t pay for it. I could barely afford to support MYSELF when I was making less than $1,000 a month - I can’t imagine doing that with 1-3 kids. For some of these women, an abortion costs nearly half a month’s income, but it’s more feasible than having and then raising a baby. They tell me that they cannot afford yet another child. That they can’t afford the daycare for another child, because they are a single parent, and don’t have a support system in place. Just because it’s not a health issue doesn’t mean it’s serious. Or legitimate.
It makes me sad that women are having abortions because they can’t afford more children. Many of them don’t want the abortion per se - they just know that they can’t deal with their second/third/fourth child, because they’re already balancing full-time childcare, often alone, while making minimum wage. I wish they didn’t have to be in those situations. I wish they had supportive partners; I wish they had health insurance and company daycare centers; I wish that they could have afforded birth control pills, or had better access to sex education. There are so many ways that these unintended pregnancies could have been prevented, and many other ways in which that women would feel that they could bring another child into this world. But those systems aren’t in place. And so these women make a choice. And I feel it is my duty (as someone who could choose to have an abortion just because she didn’t want a child, and as someone who could pay for that abortion without needing assistance) to support them and help them make that choice. It makes me sad that they’re making it, but they want to make it, and it’s not my job to convince them or force them to have a baby that they don’t feel they can have. It’s my job to help them exercise the choice they have the right to make.
I know this is rambling and slightly off-topic. But Alison’s comment set me off, probably because I was on-call for this organization last night. I guess to try to tie it in to the post at hand . . . I never considered myself a single-issue voter until McCain derided women’s health on national television. But then I realized that if a politician does not, at the minimum, support abortions in the cases of rape, incest, and health, then I cannot support that candidate for anything. It’s a deal-breaker. There are several legitimate reasons for having an abortion, at least in my opinion (including not wanting another child, because I believe it is unethical to bring an unwanted child into the world), and I understand that not all people share them. But I cannot accept that a politician wouldn’t even support a woman deciding to choose her own health over that of a fetus.
Comment by Allyson — October 29, 2008 @ 9:32 am
love and support to you, Reese. it’s nice to hear from you. it’s astonishing to me that the repulicans are being more strict about abortions than the church is. I’m glad you and baby are doing well.
Comment by jeannine — October 29, 2008 @ 10:30 am
I’m totally in on the mudwrestling! With or without T-shirts
CWC, you can have dragon baby Atticus, I’ll have my little gladiator Spartacus. Did you see his picture in the halloween costume thread? It’s pretty darn delicious if I do say so myself.
Comment by reese — October 29, 2008 @ 10:39 am
#172 You are right in saying that women’s state of mind in the case of elective abortions are not well represented in studies. Not a lot of women are eager to expose themselves to the judgment and self-righteousness that assaults them from generally inexperienced and uninformed people on the other side of the issue…they already have plenty of other concerns after the fact, without dealing with that.
Interestingly enough, a condition called Post-abortion Syndrome was first identified by anti-abortion movements, originally to support the argument to make abortion illegal because it harmed the woman’s psychological health (hmm…why does that matter sometimes and not others, I wonder?).
Again, if women are traumatized post-abortion and it’s noted to be documented and common, can one conclude that they indeed went into the procedure with “heavy hearts” or at the very least, a sense of ambivalence? If they were so blase in the first place, why would these assumed morally bankrupt, promiscuous female murderers experience grief, guilt or regret, unless they actually did comprehend how torn they were in the first place-if the decision hadn’t been difficult and not just a matter of convenience? Maybe some were so young, they didn’t know how sad they were until they had their babies later in life. There are some women who had abortions early in life that go into therapy for a latent depression that they could not identify.
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_coun3.asp
If you’ve ever worked in the mental health field, you’d never have any doubt about the fact that a human being’s mental health is as important as the physical aspects of it. That would also have a compounded impact on raising the child in a possible environment of poverty, challenges of single-parenting, lack of education, resentment or immaturity in the case of teen parenting. It could also lead to physical abuse or neglect.
Pro-lifers often err on the side of seeing the issue solely as murder of an innocent embryo/fetus/infant. There’s a tendency to ignore quality of life issues of both mother and baby and the burden of the alternatives that they postulate are quick fixes. How about the psychological impact of knowing your own birth killed your mother-even if she willingly sacrificed and allowed that to happen? Adoption? Well, that is not an easy thing to do either, yet it’s often cited as the be-all end-all bandaid. Do you think that it’s easy to gestate an infant to full term and sign him/her over? Issues surrounding adoption, for the child, bio-parents and adoptive parents are very well studied…there’s a whole section in the book store on it…so, while giving a baby up for adoption can be commendable, it is not an easy solution and it doesn’t always turn out the way it’s planned. Just look at the horrendous pain that Janet is in and you’ll understand a portion of the complexity.
I guess what always has me reeling is how choosy individuals can be about which attributes of Christ to emulate. Is his mercy and compassion less worthwhile in his ministry than a one-dimensional judgment of what comprises sacrifice? Why is it seldom viewed that a woman may be permanently giving up her peace of mind when she decides it would be best if she did not have the baby- that she knows she doesn’t have the right circumstances, education, energy or dedication to be a good parent- that she’s also incapable of carrying the baby to term and putting it up for adoption…that she’s fragile, scared, ashamed, alone? Isn’t it possible that it hurts to her marrow to know that and admit it?
No doubt. I feel the same about my own children and personally, elected not to terminate my 4th pregnancy when the ultrasound revealed a tumor the size of a softball coexisting in my uterus with my developing baby. For the record, I don’t consider abortion a personal option- at least not in the particular difficulties I’ve experienced in pregnancy thus far (gestational diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, gall bladder attack, DVT and the above listed tumor- all in the last pregancy, when I was already high risk due to my age). What I support is the choice, which was, thankfully, mine to make. Would I be any less correct if I told you that you had no choice but to abort your unborn child, even if you elected to sacrifice your own life? See, you choose to sacrifice, you don’t decide that for others.
That’s why choice is the bottome line. As for my sources, I’m currently a critical care nurse with experience in community, hospice, rehab, geriatrics, NICU/ High risk L&D. I’ve had incredibly intimate discussions with too many women to count- of all ages and backgrounds and varied states of mental and physical health. I am a primary source. I haven’t read about these women in convoluted, hysterical articles, I’ve looked into their eyes and hearts and consider that a sacred trust.
Comment by Kimberly — October 29, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
I agree they are serious issues, Allyson. But let’s be honest about what the serious issues really are. “I can’t afford to raise another baby” is hardly tenable, since no one is “forced” to raise a baby they give birth to. “I can’t afford to have another baby” isn’t either, since any woman on the planet who is willing to give birth can have every possible medical expense (and more) paid by potential adoptive parents.
There are so many ways that these unintended pregnancies could have been prevented, and many other ways in which that women would feel that they could bring another child into this world. But those systems aren’t in place.
Really? For 99.5%, wasn’t keeping her legs closed an “option” that was “in place”? Adoption isn’t an option that is “in place”?
McCain derided women’s health on national television
Again, this continued assertion is ridiculous. He was very specific in what he derided in the same sentence. And it wasn’t “women’s health.”
I believe it is unethical to bring an unwanted child into the world
All I can say is that I’m really grateful my birth mother was “unethical.”
But while we’re at it, is it also unethical to allow unwanted, say, five-year-olds to stay in the world? When did what one person “wants” become the litmus test for how we make moral decisions?
if women are traumatized post-abortion and it’s noted to be documented and common, can one conclude that they indeed went into the procedure with “heavy hearts” or at the very least, a sense of ambivalence?
Of course not. You said, “The general population of women who undergo elective early abortion have considered everything very carefully and make the decision with a heavy heart.”
I asked you to cite a source showing this was true. Whether or not SOME women are traumatized AFTER an event is not an indicator of how “the general population” went in.
If you’ve ever worked in the mental health field, you’d never have any doubt about the fact that a human being’s mental health is as important as the physical aspects of it.
Hmmm. I might. But whether or not one’s mental health should be given equal priority isn’t the point. The point is that on this specific issue, McCain was right. The court has given such a nebulous definition of “health of the mother” that there is really no standard at all.
Do you think that it’s easy to gestate an infant to full term and sign him/her over?
Who cares if it’s easy? Is that our purpose? Make things as easy as possible? Or is it to figure out what it right and best in a difficult situation. When the alternative we’re talking about is sucking a baby into pieces or suctioning its brains out when its half way into the room, I’m thinking I’ll promote the difficulty of handing the baby to some parents who DO want them.
one-dimensional judgment of what comprises sacrifice?
Is that really what we’re discussing? Who “sacrifices” the most or whose marrow hurts more?
Would I be any less correct if I told you that you had no choice but to abort your unborn child, even if you elected to sacrifice your own life?
That wasn’t the issue being addressed. I wasn’t forcing anyone to give birth. I’m not what you’d call a hard-line prolifer. But I do find most arguments on the pro-”choice” side (yes, air quotes!) disingenuous.
Quimby has promoted a method of selection based on some measure of the “value” of a person, including things like how old they are, whether or not they are married, have children, are educated, and pay taxes.
I find that position to be more than a little problematic.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — October 29, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Really? For 99.5%, wasn’t keeping her legs closed an “option” that was “in place”? Adoption isn’t an option that is “in place”?
Unfortunately, if you are interested in actually reducing abortions rather than just being a big meany about them, then you’re going to have to face the well established fact that these two systems do NOTHING to actually reduce the number of abortions.
So Alison . . . you really want to reduce abortions? Or do you just like the sound of your voice yelling about existing solutions that have been Proven again and again and again not to work? Ask yourself that.
Comment by fMhLisa — October 29, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
allison, you are right. everything you say is right. you have all knowledge and wisdom on the subject and we are just a bunch of godless ingnorant fools.
there, i said it. you feel better now?
k. done. goodbye.
Comment by mfranti — October 29, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Reese and Kimberly, I am glad you are both alive and well. Thank you for sharing you stories. Giving birth in and of itself is difficult enough and simply a miracle and then to add such complications!
I do not think that there is an argument against McCain (I am neither pro McCain or Obama) because as someone already commented, it was a choice between giving birth and death not abortion. And as McCain was referring to was partial-birth abortion, which I will assume was not in question here. I think the offense was taken too broadly on that.
As far as the comments go in this discussion, I kind of agree that it’s unfortunate this website is even associated with the church. It seems people jump to the defensive if someone else shares an opposing opinion. “Wrestling with pigs”- playing stupid. Calling someone’s sacrifice and someone’s existence an irresponsibility is extremely insensitive. Everyone should be a little more sensitive with such a sensitive topic.
Comment by ascott — October 29, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Alison Moore Smith, thank you so much for questioning my motherhood and calling into question the love I feel for my daughter and for my unborn child.
People like you make it so worthwhile for me to get up in the morning. I really appreciate your compassion, your understanding, and your judgement.
Comment by Quimby — October 29, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
After having read this blog and the comments (and being equally appalled at the air quotes) I watched the Daily Show last night with my husband:
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2008/10/the-daily-shows.html
A rant, directed at the air quotes episode.
Comment by Maye — October 30, 2008 @ 7:25 am
And you don’t see that if someone holds a different view from the church plenty of people instantly jump to the defensive then too? The great thing about this church is it PROMOTES people finding their own answers. Doing that of course, you risk people coming up with opposing views. I believe this church is true and I am pro-choice, I’m a democrat, I support gay marriage. But no one can take my testimony away (by the way, what I have been taught in this church is what led me to my political views including my views of pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. This is a very democratic church if you really look at it).
sorry, that was off topic…
Comment by DoubleL — October 30, 2008 @ 8:14 am
A couple of article about late term abortion and why it might be necessary:
Partial Healing
A Doctor’s Right to Choose
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 30, 2008 @ 9:01 am
I equally agree that people are entitled to their own opinions. It is just unfortunate how people are responding to one another’s differences. That is what I meant, not the opinion of each individual.
Comment by ascott — October 30, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
I’m going to say right off that I didn’t read word for word all the comments.
John McCain actually does support abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to a mother’s health. He said so way back in 2000. A simple google search will show you what he has said on the topic.
This particular statement, edited to show just the moment of the air quotes, is not an accurate depiction of his viewpoint. They were talking about partial birth abortion, where the baby is born alive and then allowed to die. Not only does that horrify me, it scares me that people would defend it. The baby is born alive. McCain was talking about stretching the “health” of the mother to allow practices like this.
Reese, I have true compassion for you and your situation, but you clearly don’t fit the bill here. You were not trying to abort your baby, you were delivering because of a significant health risk to you and your child. If you decide to try and give birth again, you will be faced with aborting the pregnancy due to your health or seeing it through. John McCain has repeatedly said he supports protecting your right to protect your health.
Comment by Sarah — October 30, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Ad hominem is such a good argument!
So Alison . . . you really want to reduce abortions? Or do you just like the sound of your voice yelling about existing solutions that have been Proven again and again and again not to work?
Please cite your sources, Lisa. I’m interested in knowing all those who abstained from sex and still needed an abortion. (Actually, I posted the percentage above, but you can add your take.)
Oh, wait, you mean they CHOSE not to refrain from sex and CHOSE not to put their babies up for adoption. And so abstinence and adoption are “proven not to work” because people would rather get an abortion? So, the bus “is proven not to work” if I’d rather drive my car?
Alison Moore Smith, thank you so much for questioning my motherhood and calling into question the love I feel for my daughter and for my unborn child.
Quimby, YOU stated firmly that YOU were more “valuable” than an unborn child and gave some reasons why, like your experience and education. Are you taking that back or is it just that you can’t stand to be questioned on your position? Let me find your quotes:
…there’s no way in hades you can convince me that its life is as valuable as mine.
…my life is more valuable by any measurement.
How do these same measurements not ALSO apply to a newborn? A two-year-old? When does your child become VALUABLE ENOUGH to risk your life for her?
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — November 1, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
[…] Starfoxy (speaking of John McCain): he was saying that the health exception could be abused to make abortion restrictions meaningless. […]
Pingback by Zelophehad’s Daughters | My Nacle Notebook 2008: Interesting Comments — September 8, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
[…] it can occur, and there’s one variant that would demand immediate action: HELLP syndrome. Here’s how Reese at Feminist Mormon Housewives describes her experience with HELLP: Earlier this year I had my first child. He was born at 28 weeks because my life was in danger. It […]
Pingback by Catholic Nurse Cites Her Conscience in Refusing to Help Gravely Ill Woman « Kittywampus — December 17, 2009 @ 11:27 pm