Friendly Atheist

I follow Angie on Twitter and on YouTube, so although by being male (and prochoice) this really could never affect me personally, I can still see how by doing this Angie is helping to make abortion seem less like the nightmare that prolifers profess it to be. There are definitely people who disagree with her choice, calling her a killer and debating her on Twitter, but those people are the same assholes who have always been fighting against the freedom to have an abortion, their arguments are no more realistic and no less emotional than they’ve always been.

Angie is an amazig person for doing this, despite what some prolifers on twitter have to say about it.

Natural abortions are quite common. They are called miscarriages. Miscarriages are the body’s way of sloughing off cells in which the internal conditions were not quite right. Abortion is merely a human’s way of sloughing off cells for reasons including when external conditions are not quite right. It is nice that there is a pill available and I hope that is all you will need.

Just to be contraversial….

I have two personal rules about abortion:

1. I’m not fond of it: I think it is a last resort option that should be avoided if at all possible.
2. It’s none of my damned business what anyone else thinks or does with their body in respect to abortion.

While I’m fascinated by this insight into the mind of someone on the horns of this dilemma – I’m not sure I’m comfortable with someone making this my business.

Thank you for doing this. I have such a hard time with my parents, my father in particular, who are under the impression that “every” woman who gets an abortion lives with “deep regrets” about the “horrible thing she’s done”. It’s hard to explain to him that the only stories he’s heard (the only stories that seem to be considered acceptable to publish) are the ones that do regret it. So often they are the ones who had some uncertainty or guilt mostly left by religious indoctrination, and they seem to be sought out by the Religious Right groups as poster children for the “evils” of abortion. We need more women to make the larger reality more visible and steal the fangs from the anti-choice crowd’s propaganda.

Then there’s my sister, who intones that “you should have thought about it…WHORE” regarding women who want an abortion. I told her point blank that if you regard pregnancy and childbirth as “punishments” for being a “WHORE” (ie: having sex), then calling yourself pro-life or a defender of children is a joke. You don’t see a human life being forcibly brought into the world unwanted, you see that child’s life as the proper punishment for WHORES and you are unconcerned about what quality of life that child can have as a result. You are right that other people should not be the judge of what is a “good” reason to have an abortion. If you are pregnant and do not want to be, whether it is for health reasons or because you don’t feel you can do enough for the child or anything else, that is still a “good enough” reason.

My mother was an unwanted child who was abandoned by her mother at an early age and dumped on religous realtives. She is in her sixties now and still cries about what she went through, and often says that she would have prefered to be aborted if her mother didn’t want her. That has had a profound effect on me, which is why for myself I consider abortion a better moral choice for an unwanted pregnancy than adoption.

Which is the essence of the question: choice. There is no pro-life, there is only pro-choice and anti-choice. I couldn’t live with myself if I brought an unwanted child into the world, whether I keep (and resent) it or whether I put it up for adoption. Perhaps you couldn’t live with yourself if you had an abortion, so for you, keeping it or adoption are better choices. It’s a major decision and one that can only be made by the woman herself, as only she can know what she can live with. One side is all about choice, not about enforcing abortions, and the other side is all about forcing all women into a single role and a single option, forcibly removing any and all autonomy of the woman in a decision about her own health.

Yet those same anti-choice people feel they should be able to do whatever horrible thing they want to actually living and breathing children–deny them any education, deny them any choices or personal growth, teach them that their every instinct or doubt will result in eternal hellfire, deny them medical care and watch them die in agony from treatable conditions, beat them with various implements until they die of tenderization–and that’s just peachy. I guess children are precious non-property only when they are in the womb. Afterward, they become their parents’ total property, to be dealt with in any manner the parent chooses, no matter how scarring or fatal, and how dare anyone interfere!

Nauseating monsters.

A bitter debate and a feminine fate
Lie in tandem like two precious babes
While the former gets warmer it’s the latter that matters
Except on the nation’s airwaves
And the custodians of public opinions stayed back
After vainly discussing her rights
Lay hands off her body
It’s not your fucking life
-Bad Religion, “Don’t Pray on Me”

Thanks to both Hermant and Angie for this post. I wish Angie the best of health.

No comment on the abortion, that’s her business.

However as an only child, I do hope she figures out one day that while it’s not ALWAYS best, it’s better. For the child. And it’s not about a childhood playmate, or confidant, or any of that. She seems to tell herself that the child is better off because she can give him more attention while forgetting that at some point he will have two parents and a life of his own to worry about. Yes, while you get the benefit of rearing just one, he gets two elderly people to care for.

Not always the case I’m sure, and I know there are craphead siblings who leave the caring for the parents up to just one child, but at least the odds are improved.

Just a thought from my own experience.

Good luck Angie. I can imagine it takes major guts to live tweet something this personal. I hope you have a swift recovery.

(Note — I’m not the Angie who wrote the above post. I’m a different Angie.)

I’m proud of the other Angie for writing this account of her abortion. It’s crucial that people understand what an important right abortion is for women, and how it can be the best choice in certain situations. On behalf of women everywhere, thank you!

Yes, while you get the benefit of rearing just one, he gets two elderly people to care for.

Not always the case I’m sure, and I know there are craphead siblings who leave the caring for the parents up to just one child, but at least the odds are improved.

When the kids have such a high risk of being handicapped as in ths case, “caring for elderly parents” will probably not be an option anyway. Even if the second child was healthy, it would end up having to care for the parents AND the special needs brother. I’m living that life and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

Angie.

You go girl! Thank you so very very much for sharing your experience and letting everyone know that the situation isn’t what the religious community would have everyone believe of all tears and guilt and shame.

In England, my mother had three children in just over three years and during her pregnancy with me, (I’m the youngest), she developed a thrombosis in her left leg that almost caused her to have it amputated. After she got pregnant again, (fertility is very often a curse rather than a blessing), she had an abortion. This was nearly half a century ago.

What bothered me was that she waited until she new my position on the abortion issue, which was some time in my late teens, before telling me about it. So, my mother was ashamed to tell the truth even to her own son who loved her more than anyone could ever imagine. She can remember that she spoke with such self loathing; I know that if I had developed the alternate opinion of abortion, she would never have told me. I wonder how many anti-abortion activists today are oblivious to their own mothers having an abortion.

Thanks again for sharing your experience with society. If every women was like you and refused to be intimidated into being a second class citizen, the abortion “controversy” would simply evaporate.

Doug

Thank you.

Thank you so much for posting this, Hemant and Angie. It takes a very brave woman to write about this as you’ve done and to hold your head up high and show that you aren’t afraid or ashamed.

She’s finally made a video about it.

Good for you; you’re clearly doing the right thing. I’m male, but I got a casual girlfriend pregnant shortly after college graduation. IUD failure, just like you. I’ve since learned that’s quite common.
There was never any debate what to do, we weren’t planning to get married and were still living like kids.
A couple of our douchebag friends told us pregnancy is wonderful and how could we even consider abortion, etc. My girlfriend was barfing constantly and started lactating almost as soon as she got preggers, making her nipples crusty and sore.
We went our separate ways a few months later.
A few years later I got the vasectomy and am now a cheerfully child-free old man.
I don’t think either one of us ever had a second thought. Be strong.

In my opinion, there are many reasons to have an abortion, and, it sound like Angie has an excellent one. However, I think that abortion is a horrible means of birth control when there are so many other less destructive ways to do that.

I am going through something very similar and have my appointment on Wednesday. I also am not ashamed of this, and am an atheist. Thank you for putting this out there. It has brightened my morning a little bit. I have 2 children and can’t imagine having another, and the birth control didn’t work. I am sick as a dog, and just not interested in finding out what would happen in the next 9 months. Take care, and thanks.

Thanks for what you’re doing! You’re incredibly brave and inspiring.

And it is fantastic to see false religious propaganda being countered with the truth. It was a very easy decision for me too and not a scary process at all, and I certainly haven’t been plagued by any kind of guilt.

I completely agree with your position, btw, that there’s no valid reason to be secretive or ashamed about it, especially if you haven’t bought into the religious doctrine. It takes brave people like you and Hemant to start making some noise about it, though, and damn but there’s a long way to go in raising awareness! But somebody’s got to do it and start the ball rolling, so thank you.

Now I had an abortion myself as a 20 year old college student but was not equipped to be an advocate for destigmatization at that time, esp. since I was going to a Catholic college. I sometimes have occasion now to mention it in passing conversation if it’s relevant, but in the future I will try to take your example as inspiration and be more proactive and vocal about having had an abortion.

Thanks again.

@Polly: I don’t know about Angie’s case, but it can be amazingly difficult to get a tubal ligation. As a childless woman in the UK, I can’t get one from the NHS and my private health insurance doesn’t cover it. The only realistic way I can get sterilised is if I save up the £1340 and go to a Marie Stopes clinic. And as a surgical procedure, it has some small risks.

It’s often easier, cheaper and/or safer to get an IUD, which is what Angie did and what I’m considering.

*thank you* for doing this. from one who has been there and done the same, but was always afraid to speak of it.

Polly – in my US insurance experience, sterilization has always been an optional procedure and very expensive. I wanted to be sterilized ~25 years ago – it was 1000′s of dollars (I was told >$20,000 in early 80′s – but they could have been lying to me to discourage me) and I couldn’t afford it. Besides being expensive I was discouraged from doing it constantly: Some docs… “won’t do it – you’re too young”, “you’ll change your mind”, “you’re still in your reproductive years”… *my* opinion wasn’t counted.

So… just sayin’… it might not be that easy to get a voluntary sterilization in the states, both monetary and psychological pressures thrown at women. Things might be a lot different now… I’m just relating my experience

I commend Angie for being so confident in sharing. I’ve always disliked that the “default” is that women have to feel bad about abortion.

Firstly, I hope yer feeling better Angie. It warms the cockles (wtf is a cockle anyways?) of my heart to hear an intelligent young person treat this issue as a medical decision as opposed to a moral decision.

Interestingly, (and anecdotally) I have heard that in countries with high rates of atheism, like Russia, having an abortion is considered a quite rational decision.

We need to get to a point in this country where “I don’t want to have a baby” is no more controversial than “I don’t want to look fat in my prom dress”

Thanks for sharing your story, Angie. I’m following you on Twitter now. I’m happy that you were able to make the best decision for yourself and your family.

Angie, you’re one of the bravest women I’ve ever heard about. Thanks for sharing this story and trying to make things better for all the women out there who have to make a choice.

Most important part: “I’m thankful I live in a country where I can have an abortion legally and safely.”

amen to that, sister.

Angie is not using abortion as birth control — her method of birth control failed. Statistically, that happens. Re: tubal ligations. My doctor would not perform one for me as it was not medically necessary and she felt that the IUD would be safer and healthier for me at my age. So it’s conceivable that I could wind up in the same situation, although at my age doubtful.

Thanks Angie, for posting this. I’m sure it was not an easy decision. Also thank you for posting about the pregnancy itself. Pregnancy is typically depicted as the rosy blush of happiness, and the sickness is glossed over as a humorous side effect. The few of us that have “bad pregnancies” are seen as an aberration, not to be talked about. Serious depression? Severe medical complications? Well, “the next one will be easier”. Yeah, no thanks. I’ll stick with my one and only child, too.

First of all, can we all stop with the unnecessary disclaimers (“I personally would never get an abortion, but…”, “I feel abortion should not be used as birth control, but…”, “I feel Angie should have been more responsible with her birth control methods, but…”)? We get it. We believe you, really we do. You shouldn’t feel the need for justifying your reasoning and intelligence to us before you type, however: this post is just about Angie’s experience and what she’s trying to do with it.

Secondly, what was so TMI about this post? This post is considerably more tame that other discussions I’ve seen that aren’t even about abortion (see beautifulcervix.com for an example). If reading this was going to make you feel icky on the inside, then don’t. read. it.

Finally, I think some of you should remind yourselves that Angie’s pregnancy resulted from the choices that she and HER PARTNER made in the birth control department. Not just Angie.

That being said, thank you SO MUCH Angie for doing this (simply put, yes, but 110% genuine). You are truly courageous and very much appreciated. I look forward to your updates.

There is no afterlife. Reincarnation is a lie. Heaven and hell are both pure fantasy. This, I believe, and I’m certain most of you all do as well.

That is why my mind is absolutely boggled by the strident advocation here of what is essentially robbing another individual of their sole chance at ever existing in this world. If this is indeed all we have, shouldn’t we protect everyone’s right to have it? Isn’t denying someone this chance the gravest of wrongs against them?

Lumping “atheist” with “pro-legal-abortion” is a pet peeve of mine. It makes no sense from an ideological standpoint. I might understand it if one were a Christian or some other faith and thought that the “soul” of the individual would go live it up in heaven, or be reincarnated into another body until they finally had their chance to live, but for us, this is it, and just as I would never want to be deprived of my single and solitary chance to be a part of this world, I will continue fighting for the rights of others to be protected by law and allowed to live this life they have been given, for better or worse.

I have had an aspiration surgery in new york at a clinic that was very nice to me less then a year ago, i was 18.

I was 3 weeks pregnant and there was a chance that having the abortion this early would not get all of the implanted egg which freaked me out a bit imagining me giving birth to half a baby.

Luckily it worked very well, they gave me a numbing drug in the surgical area which caused loud ringing my ears.

The process was expensive but very well worth it especially for the age that i am, i cant handle a baby and neither could my parents.

Good post.
Given the background it seems like a very sensible decision, and demystifying both the process and the thought process is good.

OK, to be absolutely clear from the getgo, I’m pro-choice and absolutely respect Angie’s decision of what to do with her body and the tiny proto-life inside her.

But (and there had to be a but).

I have to take issue with people commenting and saying that the issue is as simple as one side wanting everyone to be free to make their own choices, abortion or not abortion, and the other side wanting to impose their arbitrary views. There is certainly an element of that but the issue is by no means that simple.

Not addressed is the chief argument of the pro-life movement; that a fetus is a human life (incidentally Angie should know that she’s technically aborting an embryo, not a fetus) and as such has some basic rights, chiefly the right to live.

Now, leaving aside those cases where the life of the mother is threatened by her pregnancy (like ectopic pregnancies), where many even vehement pro-lifers will admit a right to an abortion, if you allow for a fetus to be a human life then it becomes difficult to make the argument that individual A (the fetus) can be denied the right to live to avoid individual B (the mother) the inconvenience/struggle/emotional trauma etc. So once you’ve admitted a fetus as a human life with rights, it makes all the sense in the world to not give others the choice of ending that life. When we’re talking about people outside the womb, we call it murder, even if it’s a one-hour old baby.
Of course, I don’t believe that a one month old embryo is a full human individual. Pro-lifers mostly don’t believe it either, because if they did there would be no exceptions for rape or incest and they’d be advocating processing women who got abortions for murder and doctors for mass murder. Most don’t. However, what about a 4 month fetus? 5 month? 8 month? If Angie were discussing aborting a baby (note the word) two weeks before its due-date, would anyone praise her bravery?

We should at least recognize that its not a simple matter of one side being all virtuous and the other evil, no matter what side we’re on. The fact is there are actual, real moral questions about when “life” begins, and when that life starts to have rights and “choice” becomes less relevant and how that is affected by the health (mental and physical) of the mother and the physical state of the fetus.

I have grown up in a christian household all my life and went to Christan school up through high school. I have always been told what I believe but I am away at a military college now and thinking on my own. Abortion in itself I do not like but I believe that every woman should have a right do make her own decisions. What is right for me may not be right for you. When I thought I was pregnant (ya I messed up and am now a “saved again virgin”) I was planning on an abortion before anybody found out. Thank you Angie for sharing with the world. I wish I had been exposed to things like this when my school was brainwashing me.

Yes, I think this is absolutely awesome what Antitheist is doing.

However, one correction, abortion is always birth control, no matter how many times it is used. It controls when birth happens. After all, if you use one form of birth control then use another contraceptive, they are still both forms of birth control.

Again, I think this woman is just amazing, and you, too, Mr. Mehta for reposting this. Thanks!

Lynda,

That is why my mind is absolutely boggled by the strident advocation here of what is essentially robbing another individual of their sole chance at ever existing in this world. If this is indeed all we have, shouldn’t we protect everyone’s right to have it? Isn’t denying someone this chance the gravest of wrongs against them?

a) You can’t steal something that doesn’t exist from somebody that doesn’t exist. By “individual” you mean “person”, but this is not the case. I don’t agree that non-persons have the right to life.

b) Following the logic of trying not to “deny chances to exist” means that every time a woman refuses to have sex and become pregnant they are committing the “gravest of wrongs”. If you’re advocating for chances for persons to exist then you must advocate women to have as many children as they possibly can.

Lumping “atheist” with “pro-legal-abortion” is a pet peeve of mine. It makes no sense from an ideological standpoint. I might understand it if one were a Christian or some other faith and thought that the “soul” of the individual would go live it up in heaven, or be reincarnated into another body until they finally had their chance to live, but for us, this is it…

The vast majority of atheists are pro-choice because it usually takes irrational beliefs in souls to think that embryos should have a right to life. It’s rare for an atheist to come to the conclusion that something such as an blastocyst is equivalent to a rational, conscious, human being. Some Christians believe things with souls are sacred life that must not be killed because God commanded them this way.

@Claudia – Ethically, I understand it as: does human A have the right to utilize the body of human B in order to live? Ethically, I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument that it does.

I had an abortion twenty years ago, and I was pretty fine with that decision then, and I’m still fine with it. Never had a nightmare, a crying fit, or even a moment of remorse.

People can claim that life starts at conception, or quickening, or at birth, but here is my line in the sand: as long as the embryo is dependent on me for “life” it is a parasite. Literally.

In another context: if someone would die without a kidney transplant, no one would say “as you are a match we require you to donate, no matter the risks involved or you personal feelings on the matter.” We would be apalled if we were forced to donate blood or tissue, no matter how noble the cause, and no matter whose life was on the line.

So by an accident, I had a creature that required my donation of body space, blood, nutrition; and the occupancy carries huge risks to my own life. It does not matter if it is a baby or embryo, human or potential–it exisits only by feeding off my body, which gives me an absolute right to refuse to continue donating.

Just as I have a right to refuse to donate my blood or organs to anyone, no matter how needy or deserving.

Thank you Angie for sharing your story with us and I wish you and your family the best. Re tubal ligation, I know two women who became pregnant after getting them. Whether snipped or burned they can grow back–nature struggles to find a way!

Thank you for sharing this story, Angie and Hemant. I am touched by some of the personal stories that this blog inspired others to share.

Getting tubal ligation is not always an easy process. There are doctors who are hesitant to perform this procedure because they think the patient will change her mind, especially if she is unmarried and of a certain age. Heck, it can be a challenge to get an IUD for the same reasons. It makes me angry when women are treated like they can’t be trusted to make their own reproductive decisions.

As for the issue of children taking care of elderly parents, there is no guarantee that the children will live that long either or be of sound mind/body to do so. It would be a better investment to set money aside for excellent elderly palliative care than rely on the kids if that was the sole reason for having children.

Oh, and for all the “just don’t have sex” people out there:

That celibacy thing works real well. Just go ask some catholic priests.

I mean, really?

My husband had a vascectomy, and there is a failure for that, too. One which had us nervous for a few days. Why should I be held hostage for nine months just because of a mechanical failure? That is like the whole “well, she was wearing a short skirt” school of thought–blame the victim of a mechanical failure and sentence her to nine months of difficulty, a risk of death or permenant damage, potential psychological harms, and if she keeps the baby, a life sentence.

Because a condom broke? How is that in any way a fair punishment? And why should there be a punishment? Sex is fun, it’s healthy and good for bonding and establishing and maintaining a relationship. It is a wonderful intimacy, and why should I refuse it because no birth control is 100%?

Claudia, a fetus can exist outside of the womb as early as 6-7 months, and the 9 month mark. However, 8 months is a death sentence. The specifics, I don’t understand, but for sake of the argument I figured I’d supply it.

@God is Real: Every time I hear this tired, sad argument you’ve just trotted out, I’m forced to wonder why people view children as a punishment. I don’t know about you, but I actually *like* kids.

I love my niece to pieces. She’s the most adorable parasite EVER, and I’m happy every day that my best friend chose to have the darling little parasite, and that in return, said darling little parasite didn’t cause her serious bodily harm in the process.

I could get in to it with you about rape, or about how sometimes bad things happen to people who are being responsible, but I’m not going to. There’s no point to it, and it’s frankly none of your business. You can be as judgmental as you like, and think women who have abortions for whatever reason are terrible, selfish human beings, and that’s YOUR right. Making decisions about my body and my health is MINE.

Sticks and stones.

I used to by an indoctrinated catholic, along my life I met real people going through this difficult process and it changed by views; these are really good people going through something rough, not evil people or evil-doers.

Fundies destroyed my sister’s mind (and life) with their guilt-trip. Here is a question for them, ok if your religion says it is murder, it is murder, (even though Jesus said nothing on the topic) but isn’t your god/religious view condemning this ‘life’ to eternal perdition since as you say “it is a life” and that life never was baptized or said “I accept christ as my lord and savior” or any other buga buga your conflicting, vague and arbitrary rules come up with? Nice real nice, which is worst? And I know you cannot see this and you excuse your vicious omnipotent idea of a god, because you cannot question him. sad really sad and tragic for so many. I reality you Fundies are the destroyers of lives. Ironic, if you only could see it, but you are blind (yeah another ironic reference, but this is too real and sad all-around). and now I see Fundies targeting Black women with Billboards “Endangered Species”. I would ask you, “Have you no same’ but we all know the answer to that question.

@God is real: Last time I checked, my uterus is attached to me, though, and is mine to do with as I please.

Katsu, so you are in fact absolutely fine with aborting an 8 month old fetus? One day before term? I fail to see how absolute physical dependency is a proper measure by itself, especially considering that being had no say in the matter of whether it was there.

MCA, viability is a tricky one. The issue basically is that due to increasing technology its not a “hard” line. Babies born viable today would have been dead 100 years ago. Does that mean they weren’t people before but are now? Doubtful. Eventually I’m pretty sure we’ll manage to make “viability” all 9 months (women will be able to have extra-utero pregnancies). Obviously that doesn’t make a blastocyst a person. The best I could come up with is development of the nervous system (between the 3rd and 4th month), but even that isn’t very good.

@God is real. So what is your answer to the 13 year old girl raped by her father? Does she deserve to be “punished” with her rapist’s baby? Just to clarify, if an embryo or fetus of any stage is equal to a baby, then exceptions for rape and incest fall rather flat no?

Yay for debating both sides!! Lol

Yes Claudia, it does mean they weren’t people but are now. We are extremely fragile beings and our value varies widely as times change. Like currency, we have no set interger because of so many vast modifying factors that redefine us on a cultural and technological basis.

But you cannot rationally compare the actions of one era to the next and expect them to be morally equivalent. A choice now may be viewed barbaric in the near future. Choices a thousand years ago are horrendous in today’s view. Rape a woman and deny it? The woman is stoned to death. Cheers.

@claudia, an argument for removing someone from your body, regardless of whether or not they are a person, is a completely different argument than whether or not you have the right to kill it. The first I believe you ALWAYS retain. The second, you do not, if technology can keep the fetus viable. So for the 8 month old fetus, if it can be removed from your body with a procedure that is no more risky to the person carrying it than an abortion would be, than one would most definitely NOT have the right to kill it. But, if it becomes dangerous to the point that, in the eyes of the person *being the incubator* it is too dangerous to continue (I don’t think anyone else should be able to say how dangerous is too dangerous a risk for one person to take on involuntarily for another) than you are always allowed to get the other person out of you.

@ claudia If you think prostitution should be legal, more power to you

since you said it again, i’ll say it again as well…if you dont want kids, dont have sex.

In regards to your other comment, no people should not be forced to give kidneys, because they have no direct responsibility to the other persons condition that may need one. You are however responsible (or supposed to be) when you decide to have sex with someone.

Your same argument could apply to a 6 month old baby, totally dependent on his or her mother for survival. Is it still ok?

Doesn’t follow. A 6 month old baby does not need a particular someone’s body to survive. The task of caretaking can be given to anyone.

I am am pro-choice Catholic. As in, every woman has the right to choose what she wants with her body. On the other hand, you must be willing to live with that choice. There are many cases where abortion saves the mother. Then again, using abortion as a convenient form of birth control is not something I condone. If her pregnancy was so bad the last time, perhaps her partner should have had a vasectomy before this unfortunate situation.

I know most of you, probably all of you, disagree with me that human life starts with conception, as you are atheists. All I am saying is that you should understand that you are taking a life, you are making that choice to end another human’s life. But that is a personal choice one must live with for this life (and eternity for some believers). That doesn’t mean you will be ‘condemned’, as there is no black and white in judgement. I think, there should be remorse for having to make a difficult decision.

I personally do not see how some people can abort babies that are 6 months along in development. Then again, unless the child was threatening my life, I do not see how one could abort any child. But that’s MY personal decision.

What I find distasteful here is making something so private so public. You are taking a life, and you are broadcasting this to the world. I do not think that can be forgiven on a religious or humanist level. Have some respect for the life you have stopped.

Furthermore, as part of a health class, I watched an abortion. Let me tell you, taking a pill that will abort your fetus is not the same as having a doctor scrape a body out of your uterus, or vacuum a body out of your uterus. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it, I am just saying, don’t expect the experience to be the same, at all. If so, I worry about humanity, and not just from a religious perspective, I mean how we humans value life and the lives of others.

Well mathew, if you think that its fine for irresponsible people to have kids, i just dont know what to say

@ katsu, if you were driving carelessly i would say you should be charged with something or take some responsibility.

And if it was your friend, im not sure why you would have a problem giving blood…it does replace itself after all.

@ God is real
If you do not want kids, then don’t have sex.

Really? Do you think that’s a logical and viable argument? Reproduction isn’t the only purpose of sex. And penetrative sex isn’t the only way to get pregnant. Unlikely yes, but that doesn’t change that it does happen. “Yes, it can happen. Just because there wasn’t penetration doesn’t stop the fact that some sperm could have got into the vagina.” And during sexual acts (without penetration) there are plenty of chances for sperm to get into the vagina. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/I_feel_nauseous_everytime_i_eat_could_i_be_pregnant

So if an adult doesn’t want to reproduce they don’t have any sexual contact? That sounds like one hell of an unrealistic, simplistic answer. Even if you think its a reasonable trade off others disagree. There will also be many who would agree- and surprise(!) will turn up pregnant. I guess if you’re not okay with being a breeder you should be confined to asexuality or masturbation alone. Wow.

And getting pregnant after sex is not like complaining about getting wet when you just in water. Its more like complaining when you specifically purchased full body gear, water proof, guaranteed 99% effective at keeping you dry, then jumping in water to find you have the faulty equipment. And yes, that it an event to complain about. While there was a small chance you would get wet you did in fact take reasonable precautions. Do you not ride in a car (or anything else you do for that matter) because there is a small chance you may be involved in a life ending or life altering accident?

Also, I think you are misunderstanding the definition of what “child” or “kid” actually mean according to the English language.

A little something about ‘whatever it is inside of a pregnant woman’ – Different people have different opinions, feelings, conclusions, and thoughts even when inspecting the same information. You seem to demand that people agree with your interpretation of what that is and your interpretation of what that meaning requires. Moral codes fluctuate.

@ ann, yes its very viable. If you dont want kids dont have sex. If you dont want to get wet, dont jump in water. To me its painfully simple.

Child, kid, baby, or whatever you want to call it, i dont really care about the semantics

Also….moral codes only fluctuate if you have no standard to base them all.

Mathew, if you think most people shouldnt be parents, then most people shouldnt have sex.

I do consider children to be a blessing from God, but no doubt we disagre there.

@God is dead,

you know there exist such things as murderers! And you know that sometimes they are psycho and kill people who they notice! So, if you go out and talk to anyone, and you get killed, well tough luck! You knew that was a chance!

The whole having sex and getting pregnant dealy is NOT a one to one correlation thing. Yes, one is necessary for the other, but most assuredly does not ALWAYS result in it, and there are PLENTY of things you can do to reduce the risk to less than that of dying in a car crash or something. NO ONE says of people who die in car crashes, well, if you didn’t want to crash, you just should have stayed in your house. Sex has strong psychological and bonding benefits and can seriously increase quality of life. Enforced celibacy is on about the same level being forced to stay indoors all the time.

Well, there is a subjective tinge to this argument Claudia. A woman in Sudan does not have the technology available to her, so as a moral person, how can she make the best possible decision if it is an incapability? If you want to make your decisions based on optimum situations, that’s cool, but it’s also easy as you displayed by bringing up this point that is more difficult.

You say that if we give humans a fluctuating value, we will beget a dangerous situation. If we give human life a static value, however, we will also tread dangerous territory… transforming humans into numeric ideologies and not individuals. The idea, then, is to avoid a definition? Then we will forever debate this topic in rhetoric.

Situational is the human condition, and the best that we can do. It is the acceptance of our short-comings as finite creatures. Do the best that you can, adhere to the golden rule that everyone can accept, and for the case of this argument, let us set the rule based on current technologies, and adjust it where necessary. If it cannot survive in our environment with assistance, then it is not autonomous. If it lacks autonomy, it is not equal.

Most women keep it private because it’s a private decision. Thank you so much for sharing your point of view.

@ ann, as i said, i can sympathize with rape victims, however thats not what an overwhemling majority (over 99% last time i checked) of them are being used for…

@ God is real:

Okay, you’re either you’re being purposefully obtuse, or you really are incredibly dense. No one has compared having sex to getting murdered or dying in a car crash. They compared sex to driving and going for a walk. They also compared the possible consequences for those actions – possibly getting pregnant, crashing, or getting murdered. The point is that someone can take every reasonable precaution and still have a bad outcome.

Thus, saying “If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex EVER” is analogous to “If you don’t want to die in a car crash, don’t drive a car EVER” or “If you don’t want to get murdered by a psychopath, don’t go for a walk EVER.” We think all three of those are ridiculous statements, while you only think (presumably) that two of them are. You need to give us a compelling argument why the one about sex is different.

If you can’t understand that, there is no point in any of us trying to continue this discussion with you.

Matthew, that is an extremely faulty analogy. Getting killed is not a natural byproduct of going for a walk, however becoming pregnant is a natural byproduct of having sex.

@ Mathew Wilder: Why not eat a baby? Isn’t that what atheist pro-choicers do, anyway?

Mmm, baby….

Oh, and also. Late term abortions are not “convenience” abortions. They are done when the mother’s life is in danger.

I worked in ob/gyn and labour and delivery and we performed abortions. I’d rather see a late term (or any) abortion than some of the monstrosities that anti-choice women wait to miscarry. I still have nightmares about the “baby” whose head was growing out of it’s abdomen. It lived for a few minutes after “birth” and we still talk about how horrendous it was.

@Sarah
*hugs* good luck on your pregnancy! I hope things go well for you, regardless of the early labor scare. I have also read that girls do better at a given gestational age than boys, so you also have that going for you and your daughter’s long term prospects.

Ughh I like how everyone else is writing long and thoughtful posts about this subject and “God is Real” keeps saying little 1 or 2 sentence dogma replies he (or she) keeps regurgitating from Sunday school. Anyone else notice this?

@jemand: thanks for the hugs. I’d heard about girls having better preterm prospects than boys. Also, apparently girls are less likely to die of SIDS. (And you men say women are the weaker sex) *wink*

I used to by an indoctrinated catholic, along my life I met real people going through this difficult process and it changed by views; these are really good people going through something rough, not evil people or evil-doers.

Fundies destroyed my sister’s mind (and life) with their guilt-trip. Here is a question for them, ok if your religion says it is murder, it is murder, (even though Jesus said nothing on the topic) but isn’t your god/religious view condemning this ‘life’ to eternal perdition since as you say “it is a life” and that life never was baptized or said “I accept christ as my lord and savior” or any other buga buga your conflicting, vague and arbitrary rules come up with? Nice real nice, which is worst? And I know you cannot see this and you excuse your vicious omnipotent idea of a god, because you cannot question him. sad really sad and tragic for so many. I reality you Fundies are the destroyers of lives. Ironic, if you only could see it, but you are blind (yeah another ironic reference, but this is too real and sad all-around). and now I see Fundies targeting Black women with Billboards “Endangered Species”. I would ask you, “Have you no same’ but we all know the answer to that question, don’t we.

Regret lasts forever.

Shouldn’t have opened your legs if you were going to be so selfish as to not accept the consequences of your actions.

If you have no regret then you have no soul, God or moral compass and I pity you.

So you are unable to accept responsibility or you are an attention whore.

Neither would be acceptable if you had any principles.

(Note: I am not the Angie who wrote the blog post. I’m a different Angie)

@ God is real — I think you’re pulling statistics out of your ear. Where are you getting this supposed statistic that only 1% of abortions are due to rape? Back it up. Cite the article or report from which that statistic came from.

@truth & @”god is real”, read Matthew 7:1

First, Angie, cudos to you. Great thing you’re doing with this. Go, girl!

Since I stayed up past my bedtime to read all the comments — man, this is an interesting thread — I’ll have my say for what’s it’s worth.

I too am the mother of one and I knew after the hell of giving birth, if I ever got pregnant again, I would abort, plain and simple. I got pregnant by choice and had one baby I wanted. Things, like my marriage, for instance, did not turn out the way I wanted and I had to skip state with her to protect her from an abusive father (Christian btw; that’s mostly irrelevant though it pisses me off when Christians assume that Christians make the best parents; just ask my daughter about that and she’ll set you straight in very short order).

Still, I’m glad I have her. I went through a brief period a few years ago when she was going through some very devastating mental problems that ripped out my and my grandson’s hearts when I, yes, did wish maybe I hadn’t. But we’re past that rough stage and she is managing the illness now and I am once again glad to have her. If there should be any future regress, at least we all three know it can be weathered and I don’t expect I’ll feel that way again simply because I’ll know there’s a light at the end of the tunnel and she can function. At the time I hit that point of despair, it did not seem that way.

I had a very difficult time giving birth. Prior to doing so, I was pro-life. Giving birth, with five days of labor and a blood transfusion and a pregnancy full of feeling ill and uncomfortable followed by hell on earth, changed my mind. No woman should ever have to go through that for a child she doesn’t want. Point blank. Period. End of discussion. It was freaking torture for a child I did want and have loved very much since before I gave birth to her 27 years ago.

I agree with katsu on this. It doesn’t matter if it’s a life or not. I don’t freaking care. If it has to depend on me for life, I have the right to refuse it that option. Point blank. It does not have the right to inhabit my body and make me ill. It does not have the right to life until it can live apart from me. End of story.

As for all these discussions as to when in the future, a fetus may be viable, that’s a silly discussion to have now since that is not currently the case. That is for future generations to hash out when and if it ever becomes the case. For us to decide, no abortion at conception because at some future point in time, an embryo might be kept alive is as ridiculous as it would have been for men in the 1800′s to say no buildings over 10 stories tall because they thought maybe we might have been able to build one 20 stories tall and they thought that an atrocious concept.

As to don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex. What are you 12? Speaking as someone who has been celibate by choice more often than not in part because I didn’t want to risk pregnancy and disease, I call you out on the ridiculousness of that. Some people are able to be so; most are not. Quite honestly, I’ve been able to be so at those times when I chose to be (I am very picky when it comes to men and they do have to work to get me) because I have trust issues due to being an abused child and also because I had some very huge personal issues to deal with and a romance would have just made those more difficult and added to the stress in my life.

I am not someone who can have casual sex (and whether or not an adult has casual sex is their own choice, what’s right for one isn’t right for all) and a committed relationship takes work, more than I’ve been willing to put into one at times when I’ve had too much on my plate to even think about it.

I left a man behind when I skipped state, a good man, not my daughter’s father because my daughter came first. It’s hardly any wonder that I was able to be celibate by choice. It’s also hardly any wonder that most adults can’t be as the sex drive is a natural human urge as is being emotionally close in a loving, supportive way. To demand these urges be repressed is just stupid and ignorant. If I wasn’t facing such an extreme situation at the time, I don’t think I could have been. I still can be because I’ve learned how to be but most people, though I’ve known a couple other single heterosexual mothers who had no interest in dating for similar reasons, haven’t gone through that. This is why abstinence only sex education fails so miserably. It denies human nature. It does not deal in fact.

I couldn’t give a child up for adoption. It would drive me crazy. I have extremely strong maternal instincts and would always be worrying about my child out there. An abortion, however, is final and complete and there’s no agonizing over a child out there. It would be way easier than giving up for adoption.

I don’t think I could even stand to lose a grandchild to strangers. I’m not sure what I would ever do if my daughter ever had a child and gave it up to strangers. I very well might try to intervene and take custody myself because that child would always be my grandchild regardless. Fortunately, I don’t see her being able to do this either but, hopefully, we’ll never have to cross that bridge because it would strain our relationship.

But obviously, as those of you who are regular bloggers know, I don’t say that not being willing to help her out with a child. I have been doing that for six years with a child she didn’t plan but always did want. I’m glad she didn’t abort not only because I love my grandson but because, for her, abortion would not be something she could live with even though she’s Atheist. She always liked helping with babies since she was a small girl and she would have had a hard time not going through with the pregnancy.

It’s a tough decision for any woman to make and I’m glad Angie’s sharing what it really is like to have an abortion because fear of the physical process shouldn’t be another factor to what is already a hard decision.

@ AJ Depends on the size of the fetus. If it’s pretty young then it won’t be very filling.

@ truth Okay, just piss off (sorry Hemant, thougfht I was on Pharyngula for a sec).

@ all The cognac flambeed baby was delicious!

Angie, you rock!
Hope you feel better soon now the meds are working.

And please ignore the trolls who are only trying to make you feel awful because they can’t enjoy sex for what it is instead of what their religion tells them it should be.

@ AJ
If I choose to euthanize my child because she is crippled with cancer, or some other disease, and no longer wants to live, I have the right to put a video online of me doing this? Or blogging about it? Showing pictures of me shooting her up with morphine? Pro-choice covers more than abortion. Would that not be disrespectful to the life of my child? Especially if she asks me not to? Well heck, I MADE her, so I can do what I want! PLEASE. Even if euthanasia isn’t legal in the US, it is still covered by the tenets of Pro-choice, and IS legal in other countries. If life and genomes are NOT important? What is? Selfishness? Disregard for all life? Also, evolutionary biologists would disagree with your ‘life and genomes are not important’.

@ Stephanie

Come on, that’s just ignorant and arrogant. Just because someone is religious, does NOT mean they don’t enjoy sex. You call religious people narrow-minded and irrational. Pot meet kettle.

@ infophile
You do realize that it is legal to do third trimester abortions? So your argument is flawed…

Life is life. No matter what stage, no matter what species. Respecting life is not something that only religious people should subscribe to…

We are wary now of destroying the earth, and the harm we’ve done. We were selfish in our actions towards the earth, and now look at the world! One day we will realize how we’ve harmed each other.

I still contend that it is a choice, a personal choice, but it is not right to say that life doesn’t matter because it hasn’t been born yet.

Wow, a gazillion comments while I slept.

@jmand, I understand where you’re coming from. Certainly it would be nice to think that someone who had the option of continuing the life extra-utero and then giving it up in adoption (assuming the personal health of the mother wasn’t the problem) would opt for that instead of abortion. However its an emotional minefield and I’m sure there are a fair number of circumpstances where people would feel emotionally unprepared to know they had a biological child out there in some other family.
It also doesn’t solve the very thorny issue of defective babies. Lost in this thread is the fact that the VAST majority of late-term abortions are due to severe danger to the mother or severe deformity or illness in the fetus. People who think there is an abundance of women waiting until the 6th month to abort a child on a whim have their heads up their asses.

@ everyone who gave a variation on the theme “if you don’t want a baby keep your legs crossed” please come back when you’re ready for an adult conversation. While you’re away I’d like you to look at the teen pregnancy stats for the states where your point of view prevails. Compare to pro-choice states. Now think.

@cass_m : Yes, I understand that most late-term abortions are crisis events. I use those examples because I believe that in the same way that pro-lifers don’t REALLY think a zygote is a person, most pro-choicers don’t REALLY think that an 8-month fetus is just a “clump of cells”. Personally I wouldn’t even classify the removal of a dead fetus as an abortion, but I don’t make the rules.

@AJ, certainly there are a lot of religiously motivated loons, and ridiculing them is perfectly fine. However I have seen a tendency in other pro-choicers to paint any concerns or wishes to limit the scope of abortions as religiously motivated oppression, and I find it irritating because almost everyone I’ve ever interacted with personally, religious or not, holds an intermediate, difficult to explain and multifaceted position and recognizes that there can be legitimate differences of opinion. I flatly don’t think all forms of abortion are morally legitimate, and I can assure you my objections do not stem from any holy book.

@ Claudia and AJ

Ridiculing religious people is not the answer, healthy debate is the answer. I’m not sure if you’ve lumped me in with the “loons”, but I don’t think that is fair if you have done so. I am allowed my opinion, one of being religious and pro-choice.

I don’t believe in ridiculing atheists for what they believe, or don’t believe, nor do I engage in ridiculing fundamentalists for what they believe. I may not agree with either side, but your personal journey is your choice.

I consider myself moderate on the spectrum. As long neither camp doesn’t try to “convert me” that’s fine.

This is meant to be a debate. I’ve seen some ridiculous comments from both sides to be honest. I will never understand why atheists and Christians hate each other so much. I see strengths in atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam… acceptance people, not hate.

The bottom line is, abortion is legal, and there is no clear cut answer for this debate other than it is a personal choice. Full Stop.

Furthermore AJ – I didn’t say she couldn’t post it online, or write about it or post videos, I said I disagreed. There’s a difference buddy. I’m not the internet police.
And now back to working on my graduate seminar I am holding tomorrow…

“@truth & @”god is real”, read Matthew 7:1 ”

Also, do not judge does not mean we need to pretend like there is no difference between right and wrong. Please understand the verse before you ask someone to read it.

Do we look at robbers and say “hey dont judge”? look at rapists and say “hey dont judge”? This is not a matter of judgement, its a matter of discernment.

[...] continuación el escrito traducido al español usando Google. El artículo original está aquí. Soy atea, activista de los derechos de los niños, y su madre feliz de un niño de 4 años, que [...]

“Even if euthanasia isn’t legal in the US, it is still covered by the tenets of Pro-choice”

No, it’s not, but nice try.

I believe things happen for a reason. If your IUD failed and you may or may not have been using condoms the day you conceived, and you survived child abuse and your first pregnancy and you gave birth to a child you love, and you didn’t have a tubal ligation afterward, it’s just possible that this second pregnancy happened because it was meant to, that there was a reason for it. Now of course, you won’t know what that reason was.

As for the women you disparage who regret their abortions and say so, you may yet find yourself in their ranks. If you do, please know that help and healing are available to you. I’m sorry you felt you had to make this choice. I believe in my heart it was the wrong one.

“24 weeks is about the minimum for viability in a pregnancy and even then the baby will have lifelong problems.

Anything less than that and the doctors won’t even bother trying to resuscitate it. (I learned this when I thought I was going into premature labour at 21 weeks).”

@Sarah: The youngest preemie to ever survive was born at 21 weeks and 6 days. She is now 2 and has developmental delays, but is otherwise healthy. Most micro-preemies will have an outcome like you describe (and most doctors will act like your doctors did), but survival is possible at a young gestational age. Good luck to you.

@Emily: You didn’t say you disagreed with Angie’s choice to be open about her abortion, you said it was “distasteful” and that you don’t think it can be forgiven on any level. The idea that abortion is ok, but only in secret and only if you feel remorse is, to me, a strange definition of pro-choice.

Lesson for today: Don’t become an obstacle to an atheist, they have no compunctions about killing you.

Food for thought: Under German law, no humans were killed in the concentration camps because the Jews et al were ‘scientifically’ determined to be sub-human.

I can’t get over how good this article made me feel. Reality is that thousands of women have abortions for their own reasons and have no guilt. It happens, it’s ok, it’s their life and who the hell cares what anyone else thinks!

@Wendy

Isn’t that the most logical choice? Let me remind you that this is an atheist website grounded in logic, reason, and the utmost rationale thinking.

You should understand that.

@Emily the non-Catholic
There is a difference between being open about your abortion, and publicizing your abortion. It should also be noted that this article is misleading, abortion-by-pill is not as invasive as other forms of abortion. Would you want to see a life vacuum aspiration on the internet? I just think it is something that she can be open about, but it is not something everyone needs to know about. We’ve become a world where every details of our lives is public knowledge. We have desensitized ourselves as a society. Difficult decisions are made, unpleasant things happen, but it’s not for the world stage.

@ Yvi.
In my country – the debate over euthanasia falls under the realm of pro-choice. Should one not have a choice over their own life, or does someone have the right to end another’s life out of “pity”? Do Americans not euthanize sick animals every day due to mercy? Have you ever seen this in person? It’s a horrible decision, but it’s usually the right decision. I still don’t want to see a video of it, but no one should be made to feel like their ‘choice was wrong’.

So do you agree with abortion but not with euthanasia?

In my country abortion is legal across the board. Is this not the case in the US? I have the feeling of ‘pro-choice’ states versus ‘pro-life’ state means yes.. For me, it is a matter of personal choice. There are no laws that say I cannot. In fact, in my country, abortion was legalized a long time ago.

So perhaps what I don’t understand is why there is such a backlash in the US for having abortions, and why there is a need to publicize such actions…

@Wendy

No, no sarcasm, just pure logic.

If you don’t want something in your body, you get rid of it, that is also pure causal logic.

I assume your extreme measures include birth control whether medicinal or physical.

So why the emotional involvement, hence the all caps “PERFECTLY”?

I’ve always been conflicted with this issue. I don’t think abortion is right, but ultimately i believe it should be a women’s choice. Is that being hypocritical?

@Sibs

It is ultimately a women’s choice, the fetus resides within her physical body; wherever she goes the fetus goes as well.

For those who want to make abortion illegal, they fail to ask the question:

If abortion was made illegal, what should be the punishment for illegal abortions?

Undoubtedly, women will still get abortions whether legal or not. People still obtain and consume marijuana even though it is illegal, do they not?

@Sibs, not really no. It just means that you don’t feel that your value judgement on abortion is enough of a self-evident or rationally grounded one to be imposed as a law, or that you don’t feel its wrong enough (like murder) to warrant the imposition of your view on others.

Despite the fact that many people want to pretend that it is a simple debate (don’t have sex if you don’t want to get pregnant vs. I can do whatever the hell I want till the doctor slaps it on its butt) it is anything BUT a simple debate, and where the border is between a personal value judgement and something grounded in enough science and ethical discourse to be worth of legal enforcement is one more of the many questions raised by the issue.

I’m unflinchingly pro-life until about the third month because of neural development stuff, and then become increasingly uneasy about it from there. I find the idea of aborting a 7 month fetus horrific outside of special cases (physical risk to the mother where live birth was impossible or severe problems with the fetus) and think that aborting a 7 month old healthy fetus should most certainly be illegal, though I can’t really see it as a full murder. But everyone has a different position, and when push comes to shove almost everyone has a gray area between “I don’t like it but it’s your choice” and “This is unacceptable and should not be legal” where we simply don’t know what to think.

Johnny, you are purposfully assuming that everyone on this thread shares your evaluation of abortion as an unacceptable recourse. Almost none of us do and hence your argument does not work.

Your assumption is that the benefits of sex are outweighed by the possibility of pregnancy if the idea of pregnancy is 100% unacceptable to you. That is true ONLY if you discount abortion as a legitimate recourse. Which it is to you and hence in your construct avoiding sex (even amongst married couples!) if you can’t accept the risk of pregnancy is logical.

However for me and for the vast majority of people on this thread abortion (and especially early-term abortion) IS a legitimate recourse. If we were on that back road on a motorcycle with a helmet on but despite our best efforts took a spill and broke our leg, we wouldn’t assume that since we had an accident we had no legitimacy in seeking medical help at a hospital. Most of us have sex (and hopefully most of us with the neccesary precautions) but if, despite our best efforts, we get pregnant, we feel it is perfectly legitimate to seek out an abortion. Hence doing something natural and normal like sex when we have no wish to get pregnant and understanding that accidents happen is perfectly reasonable, as long as abortion is considered morally legitimate.

Claudia,

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Now the big question here is “legitimate”. You “feel” it is legitimate to have abortion as a recourse for unwanted pregnancy. Do you know this to be the most legitimate recourse to an unwanted pregnancy? Where is this legitimacy based? Preference?

Yes, sex is natural and normal, naturally resulting in pregnancy if the conditions are right. You can’t have sex and not wish to get pregnant. Even with the proper precautions. That makes no sense.

Why would it be necessary to have abortion considered morally legitimate if it is your preference to have an abortion? If you are talking about socially acceptable morality, why even bring up that question if it is within your morals to have an abortion?

@Jeff P:

The religious get an infinite period of enforcement but it is deferred until after they die. The secularists only get a finite period of enforcement but it is in effect while they are alive.

You make a great point. I sometimes wonder if the religious busybodies who insist on sticking their nose into other peoples’ morality know, deep down, that there isn’t any afterlife, so any judging has to be done in the here and now.

After all, if you’re so certain that your god is going to judge us in the hereafter, why don’t you just relax and let him worry about it?

@Johnny

To argue for the legitimacy of something simply because it is a preference is dangerous

But what about in the cases where it isn’t a preference? Are you also arguing that if a woman gets pregnant by rape or incest, she simply shouldn’t have gotten raped? That’s wonderfully tidy.

And, incidentally, we argue for the legitimacy of things based on our preferences all the time. I prefer to live in a house rather than in an apartment building, even though if everyone lived in apartments it might be a more efficient use of resources. I’m assuming you don’t also argue that single-family homes should be banned.

(Note: I’m not the Angie who wrote this blog entry. I’m a different Angie.)

@ God is real – Those aren’t the abortion statistics I’ve seen. According to one study, 9% of women seeking help from the Women’s Reproductive Rights Assistance Project (WRRAP) were pregnant due to rape. Also, 11% of women helped by the Women’s Medical Fund (WMF) were pregnant due to rape.

Abortion Funding: Matters of Justice (2005)
http://www.nnaf.org/NNAF_Policy_Report.pdf

Rape-related pregnancy happens more often than many people think, which is access to emergency contraception and abortion are so important. One researcher estimates that rape results in 25,000 pregnancies each year in the U.S. (Stewart, Felicia H. and James Trussell. 2000. Prevention of Pregnancy Resulting from Rape. A Neglected Preventive Health Measure. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4):228-229.)

Studies in other countries show high rates of pregnancy from rape. In Mexico, for instance, studies have found pregnancy rates as high as 26% among rape victims. At a maternity hospital in Peru, almost 90% of the pregnant girls there age 12-16 had been raped. In a study of a Costa Rican shelter, 95% of the pregnancies among girls age 15 and younger were due to rape or incest. (de Bruyn, Maria. 2001. Violence, Pregnancy and Abortion: Issues of Women’s Rights and Public Health. Chapel Hill, NC: Ipas.)

Oh, and to boot, people don’t seem to realize that some unwanted pregnancies result from reproductive coercion, in which a male partner uses threats, violence, or contraception sabotage to impregnate his female partner. Newsweek had an article on the problem recently.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232542

THIS is why the right to choose is so important. Many women become pregnant through no fault of their own.

So… thanks to all of you who have just reminded me why I don’t believe ridiculous things like “gods exist” or “a few cells = person with a soul.”

And as for the troll who said:

Also….moral codes only fluctuate if you have no standard to base them all.

I shall assume then that you believe shellfish is an abomination, as is eating a cheeseburger or wearing cotton with linen. Because, you know, that’s in your book of fables. Further, I shall assume that you believe an appropriate punishment for little children who tease bald men is to be eaten by bears. So much for their right to life, huh?

@ Angie #2 and all those who indignantly hold up examples of pregnancy resulting from rape:

We can all agree that rape and sexual coercion are terrible things. But it’s also not the baby’s fault if it was conceived by force or violence. Aborting that baby doesn’t solve anything. It’s not like getting an abortion somehow erases the crime or punishes the rapist.

We should be more concerned about the PREVENTION of rape and sexual violence, rather than presenting abortion as some sort of consolation prize for the victims.

Lots of comments since I went home last night. And lots of blah blah blah don’t have sex blah blah blah. Yawn.

It must be time for a rousing chorus of “It’s my body (and I’ll f*** if I want to)” sung to the tune of “It’s my party (and I’ll cry if I want to).”

I had to stop reading half way down because I couldn’t help but wonder if God Is Real’s glass house was spotless and clean or if there were some birdshit droppings in various places.

Carry on.

@Aj

Oh Atheism – the new intolerant fanatic zealots! You, are exactly, what people don’t like about atheists. You are just as bad as the right wing Christians you spout hate about!
You are disrespectful and ignorant. My views do deserve respect, just because you don’t believe what I believe, doesn’t mean it is not valid. Your view is not the only view.

I never said that you believe life is sacred. But life should be respected, in fact I think ALL life should be respected. Death is natural, yes, and inevitable, but that doesn’t mean I should shoot someone because well, hey, death was going to happen anyway.

And no, I am not comparing abortion to murder. I already, clearly stated how I feel about abortion.

Euthanasia or assisted-suicide is an argument for pro-choice..maybe not in America “the great”. But there is a whole, big, giant world outside your tiny decaying empire. Sorry, it might not be a tenet, but it fall legally, under the same jurisdiction of having the right to do with your body what you want. Both would be for the most part, overseen by medical professionals. One is legal in most countries, one is not.

Your hate and disregard for the views of others is just as bad other zealots. Are you going to raise an atheist army and kill all the believers of different faiths? Come on, the key to peace is living together and having healthy debates.

And not attacking people. I didn’t attack you, I don’t agree with your opinions, but I didn’t call you names (trust me, I have many I could), because you have a right to express your views, although after your personal attacks, I no longer respect them.

Your inability to engage in a conversation with someone believes in “imaginary friends” is wrong. A breakdown between communication is wrong. And no, you might not believe in gods, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. This is not like evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact, faith and spirituality belong in a different realm.

Learn to be more tolerant, and less ignorant. Perhaps you will see my views do make sense. And in regards your remark that I am ‘dense’, sweetheart, I could run circles around you academically.

If only the moderates outnumbered the crazies of either side of the liberal/conservative divide.

Authority figures tell us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies all the time for the benefit of other members of society and their well-being. Saying that no one can tell you what to do with your own body, therefore you can do whatever you please to the point of resulting in another’s premature demise is ridiculous.

If a mother who chooses to bottle feed her infant because she does not want that infant to have “unfettered access to an use of” her body is snowbound in her home without formula for a week, and her newborn starves to death even though she could’ve saved him/her by breastfeeding, do you think the law would prosecute the death? I’m pretty sure they would.

The law is DEFINITELY a little different when it comes to one’s children. I am required to care for/provide for/house my children. Random strangers, not so much.

@Lynda:

Actually, for the most part we *do* get to do what we want with our own bodies. The only examples where out bodily integrity is interfered with that I can think of off the top of my head are:
1) Illegal drug use, which is sort of hilarious when you consider that people can legally smoke and drink.
2) D-bag doctors who tell women they can’t get tubal ligations/horrible doctors that sterilize women without their permission. The former is something that obviously ticks women off, the later is actually illegal.
Though of course I may have missed something. Or many somethings.

Either way, I think my determination over what goes on with my body isn’t ridiculous at all. I can’t be *forced* to accept medical treatments as long as I am capable of making my own decisions, even if those treatments could save my life. I can’t be *forced* to donate blood or bone marrow or an internal organ to save someone else’s life. I similarly fail to see how anyone has a *right* to hole up in my uterus for nine months, change my body chemistry, and possibly attempt to kill me. I can *choose* to allow that – and many people do, and good on them.

Now, if you think I should be legally required to donate blood or bone marrow or a kidney or what have you in order to save someone’s life, well, then we’ve got a fundamental disagreement there and at least your argument is consistent. But if we are treating an embryo/fetus as a human being and completely skipping over the definitional argument (which I’m absolutely fine with, since it’s a mess) then I again fail to see why an embryo has an absolute right to unfettered use of my internal organs when not even a helpless newborn infant does.

I don’t think your counter example is a particularly good one; if your hypothetical woman feels so strongly that the infant in question is an unwelcome invader, I find it pretty hard to accept that she’d carry it to term in the first place. As is, I would hesitate to equate breast feeding with either pregnancy or blood/tissue/organ donation since as far as I know it can’t potentially kill you, profoundly affect your health. (Though as I’m not a doctor, I could well be wrong.)

“So do you agree with abortion but not with euthanasia? ”

I agree with both. But ‘pro-choice’ is a very specific word in US-American contexts, associated with abortion, not euthanasia.

Also, I am not from America. I am curious what country you are in where abortion is “legal across the board”, though – I am not aware of countries that allow abortion for all women in all stages of pregnancy.

I just wanted to thank you Angie for being so forthright and honest with your sharing. I’ve learned things from following you on Twitter and reading this blog post. For one, I had no idea that chemicals were an option. I’ve always believed the myth that women who get abortions are wracked with guilt and regret for the rest of their lives. Thank you so much for demystifying abortion.
I hope you’re back to your old self soon.

@GabrielSyme: Godisreal mentioned that if someone doesn’t want a child, then they shouldn’t have sex, because a child is the natural outcome of sex. So I mentioned some natural outcomes of other things in life.

I learned a long time ago that you can’t argue with crazy. You just can’t. They will always be able to trump you with nonsense. So I joined in with random nonsense. No valid, science based facts are going to ‘prove’ anything when you are dealing with people who’s ‘God told them so’.

I would be hard pressed to have an abortion, which I mentioned earlier, but I know that I am prepared if I need to go down that road.

I think Angie deserves a spa day after all of this nonsense.

I think Angie deserves a spa day after all of this nonsense.

I think you missed the “y” in “spay”. Then you’d be right.

@Emily “legally under the same jurisdiction of having the right to do with your body what you want.” Um, you do realize that legal jurisdiction is strictly a matter of what government you are under? So, the fact that they are not under the same legal categories in the US means that they are not under the same legal categories in the US. The US constitution specifically mentions birth in defining citizenship, so it makes perfect sense that birth would make a legal difference. If they are under the same legal codes in you country, that does not nessecarily relate to any logical reason for them to be placed in such a way. “One is legal in most countries, one is not.” This suggests that many nations make a distinction in their legal codes. Legal codes vary from country to country and this blog and Angie’s are written in regions under American legal jurisdiction, so american legal jurisdiction are extremely relevant to the cases. So, when you discuss legality and pretend that it is universal, you are the one making the mistake of not knowing what the laws are in the area where the person you are discussing lives. Such as third trimester abortions, not legal in the US except for health or nonviable fetuses (would not survive outside of the womb at term).

“Your hate and disregard for the views of others is just as bad other zealots” I don’t respect stupid ideas about imaginary things with no evidnece. I don’t respect the views of adults who believe in Santa, nor those who believe in other stupid things. All people are equal and valuable, but not all ideas are. Stupid views deserve zero respect, though we should remember the basic human respect for everyone, including those who believe ridiculous things.

As to the sex issue, I really do wonder exactly how terrible some people’s sex must be for them to have such a hard time understanding why someone would do it for reasons other than begrudging reproduction.

As to the sex issue, I really do wonder exactly how terrible some people’s sex must be for them to have such a hard time understanding why someone would do it for reasons other than begrudging reproduction.

A satisfying and fulfilling sex life is not incompatible with empathy for others and a strong sense of personal responsiblity. I elected to get my tubes tied after choosing not to birth anymore children (although, in the RAAAAAAARE chance that might fail, I’m perfectly willing to allow any resulting child to live rather than kill him/her). I don’t think that’s very much to ask of others so as not to end anyone else’s life just so you can get your rocks off. Sex is good, and great, and wonderful. Sex, however, is NOT EVER worth ending anyone’s life over.

Mariana,

Suppose you were given a loaded gun. You’re told that you’ll get a million dollars every time you fire it. The catch is, you have to fire it point blank at another person. I’m sure that nobody would agree to do this, right?

Now you’re told that there’s a 99% chance that you’ll shoot a blank each time and nobody will get hurt. Would you do it now? Even if you were to give all the money to charity, is it worth the chance of killing another person? Would you say it’s not your responsibility if they die?

False analogy, no person is killed in an abortion.

I’m sure nobody is taking this lightly, I don’t think anybody takes abortion lightly.

I don’t like it, but I am glad that a person has access to it because the alternatives are pretty terrible.

I’m not sure what I would do if I got my future wife pregnant and we weren’t ready. Honestly if it happened tomorrow I’d be ok with it. I’m an adult with a good job, I have no reason to not step up. But if the girl was going to have the problems that were outlined here I’d seriously rethink it.

I grew up catholic but am for the most part pro choice I am against the death penalty also which is a basic facet of the catholic religion but I find most christians don’t agree.

False analogy, no person is killed in an abortion.

Prove it.

Also, I am an atheist feminist. I object to “pro-choice” being by default attributed to both “atheist” and “feminist”. One can be an atheist and accept that they are not the center of the universe/not condone ending human life prematurely in the womb. One can be a feminist and realize that women are strong enough to be effective, intelligent, productive, strong members of society-every bit as much as men-and not require the imagined “right” to kill their children in order to do so.

Hence why you consider abortion to be killing children and I consider it to be killing cells.

Well, that’s an incredibly ignorant comment to make. We are all made up of cells, the only difference between you and I or an infant, or an embryonic human is the amount of cells. That’s an incredibly arbitrary point at which to draw the line at “person/not a person”, considering the amount of cells of any one human being varies considerably, and it is a variable physical human condition as are so many others, yet most would be appalled to hear that someone considered those who have no legs to be “non-human” for instance, and with good reason.

Can we stop talking about the personhood or lack thereof of the fetus? I agree with you, you don’t have the inherent right to kill a fetus. You also don’t have the inherent right to kill someone who wants to have sex with you, if you don’t want to have sex with them. HOWEVER, if they force themselves on you, to use your body for things you do NOT consent to, you have the right to pursue steps to STOP them from violating you. You don’t have the right to KILL someone on the kidney transplant list, but you DO have the right to refuse them the use of your kidney. Go right ahead, you can have the fetus after it’s aborted, I don’t care a bit (and I think it’s probably morally wrong to insist that it dies) but I DO have a right to get it out of me.

They are two completely separate questions and you have to justify BOTH of them to argue that abortion should be illegal. And just to cut off one particularly idiotic response at the pass, if someone wants an abortion, that’s absolute proof they don’t consent to the use of their body for pregnancy. So no “She consented to pregnancy because she deigned to be born FEMALE! Waaaahhhh!!” dreck.

Thank you, Angie. I hope that, if I even need an abortion, the facilities will be safe and available for me as they are for you and that I will have the courage to be open and proud of making the right choice for myself and my family.

Thank you for sharing.

@Lynda

Well, that’s an incredibly ignorant comment to make. We are all made up of cells, the only difference between you and I or an infant, or an embryonic human is the amount of cells.

Wow. The ONLY difference between these things is the amount of cells?…

[...] she deemed really off the charts.  I clicked on the link only to be disturbed by the accounts on a blog, in addition to watching a YouTube video that brought tears to my eyes listening to the accounts of [...]

Forcing women to reproduce so that you can boost certain populations is eugenics 101, as is coerced sterilization of those you do not want to reproduce.

Sorry, but once a woman is pregnant, she has already reproduced, and the only thing which prevents a baby from being born is action taken on her part to kill it in utero.

For starters, for the first 22 weeks of its life an embryo/fetus does not have the equipment to reason and act morally. If this equipment wasn’t functioning in an adult, we consider it death. Human life becomes self-aware and self-motivated after birth. Virtually all abortions happen before 22 weeks.

“IN AN ADULT”. That’s like saying that since a female toddler isn’t sexually developed enough to get pregnant and produce offspring, like an adult, she’s not ACTUALLY a human being and can be slated for execution at will. What about the mentally handicapped? No definitive self-awareness/self-motivation, let’s put them on the chopping block too. Comatose? Who cares if the doctor gave a 100% chance of recovery prognosis, they can’t do anything about it NOW…so let’s off him.

I really can not believe all of the comments that refer to pregnancy and child birth as a punishment.
I am not an atheist, so I can not comprehend from whom you think such as such a “punishment” would come.
As a scientist who uses logic to solve problems I can only see cause and effect when imagining an atheistic point of view. So, please quit referring to pregnancy as a punishment for having sex and at least say consequence instead. No only does calling it a punishment not make logical sense, it could be easily misunderstood. What does calling pregnancy a punishment seem to say about you and everyone you know born as a result of a pregnancy?

See my “biological, non-custodial mother trapped in a blizzard” comment above.

This is Angie of #livetweetingabortion Just wanted to let you know, I’m reading the comments. There are too many to respond to, but I get the gist I’m surprised the slippery slope fallacy has been given so much attention, but otherwise not surprised. I’m glad I’ve been able to help a few people.

I had an abortion when about 23 years ago. While I was sorry to find myself in that situation, I’ve never regretting the abortion itself and I will be eternally grateful that I was able to chose a legal abortion over, say, throwing myself down a flight of stairs. I too had suicidal depression, was loosing weight, could barely stand I was so sick – and this was in the very early stages. I was also single, had no insurance and a crappy part-time min. wage job with no paid time off. I know other women who chose abortion and never regretted it and women who chose to have the kid and regretted it terribly. So to suggest that all women who get abortions are traumatized for life while all who “choose life” are thrilled with the result is just crap.

As for the religious arguments, religion is a matter of faith. Fetal brain and sentient development is science. Anyone who things a embryo and a fully developed person should be given equality has a serious misunderstanding of “rights”, IMO. But as this has been addressed above, I will not dwell on it. Suffice to say that freedom of religion gives me the right to disagree with your God-based conclusions. I do wonder, however, why you would conclude that the soul you believe was destined for the aborted fetus isn’t possibly born in a different body – why you seem to think it’s a one-shot deal. As to the issue of never having been born at all, this is so nonsensical as to be irrelevant. If I hadn’t been born it wouldn’t matter to me one way or the other. And I’m willing to be we could find people who would have preferred that option.

lovely, lynda, donating your organs is on the same order of magnitude as giving a plate of food to a toddler. Also, blizzards last 9 months, too. Seriously, you are an idiot. If there WAS no food in the house, would the person with the child be prosecuted for not chopping off a leg and serving it up to the child? Because THAT is the more germane comparison.

You people are strange.

First, to claim that you own your bodies, that’s a hoot. Its as if you went out and provided the impetus for your development, saw to it tha the materials necessary were provided, and then assembled yourself. Beyond that the only claim you have is that you are ‘you’ at this moment, regardless of where ‘you’ came from.

Second, that the developing person inside a woman is uninvited. With the exception of rape, all intercourse quite effectively invites him (or her) in. In fact that is how the vast majority of the 6B+ people alive today were invited into the womb. Reproduction, while not the only benefit of intercourse, is the primary biological function of the reproductive system. Did you miss that part of sex ed?

Third, to assert that the ‘self-awareness’ is the metric by which someone is a person. So only someone who is self-aware can be harmed or offended. By that logic, no one can be offended by being murdered. They are assaulted, sure, but by the time they die (i.e. murdered) they are no longer self aware, so no ‘person’ was harmed. Only if you recognize something beyond their present condition can you claim that a person was murdered.

oh man…this is a trip. I like how im a “troll” because I think that if you are mature enoough to have sex, then you should be mature enough to deal with the natural consequence of pregnancy without killing the unborn child.

I also find it highly ironic, that you are only a “freethinker” if you think like every other athiest who denies God

To those who say no human life is taken…what type of life is the growing and developing human fetus? Alien?

The fetus is human…i dont think anyone can deny that. So how is killing a fetus not taking destroying human life? Beyond made up definitions of “personhood”

gotcha Joe…my fault for misreading. I agree wholeheartedly

also…interesting tidbit i came across

“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th? ed. PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

I just cant wrap my head around the notion human beings should be killed for the sake of convienence.

@ Baron Korf

First, to claim that you own your bodies, that’s a hoot. Its as if you went out and provided the impetus for your development, saw to it tha the materials necessary were provided, and then assembled yourself. Beyond that the only claim you have is that you are ‘you’ at this moment, regardless of where ‘you’ came from.

If we are not masters of ourselves, than who is? Your god? Drat, and I was so loving that free will bit, too. Society? Perhaps – I must deal with the consequences of being born in a midwest state, and while that had environmental influences on who I am today, but it doesn’t change the fact that I have control over how those influences affect me. None of that changes the fact that had I not been born, I wouldn’t be around to care that I hadn’t been born!

Second, that the developing person inside a woman is uninvited. With the exception of rape, all intercourse quite effectively invites him (or her) in. In fact that is how the vast majority of the 6B+ people alive today were invited into the womb. Reproduction, while not the only benefit of intercourse, is the primary biological function of the reproductive system. Did you miss that part of sex ed?

Unprotected sex causes babies?! OMGNOWAI. Too bad there isn’t a sensible solution that remedies that. Hint: Celibacy isn’t one.

Third, to assert that the ’self-awareness’ is the metric by which someone is a person. So only someone who is self-aware can be harmed or offended. By that logic, no one can be offended by being murdered. They are assaulted, sure, but by the time they die (i.e. murdered) they are no longer self aware, so no ‘person’ was harmed. Only if you recognize something beyond their present condition can you claim that a person was murdered.

Actually, someone *was* (as in, the past tense) offended by the act of being murdered. They are (present tense) no longer offended because they are dead and gone. Their family and friends may be offended by action and the loss of the individual, but the murdered person is gone and painless once the brain has stopped functioning. You can’t offend a body that does not react (physically, mentally, or emotionally) to an offense, hence, a little bundle of cells that has no moral standing cannot be offended.

On a side note, I am genuinely surprised this article has not been linked: http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/scourge.pdf

“The Scourge: Moral Implications of Natural Embryo Loss”

If you are in for penny, you are in for the pound!

No one said anything about celibacy (except you) and no one is saying not to use contraception, only that there are consequences for every action that one takes and when you know what those consequences are you are then expected to take responsibility for them even if 99% of the time it is “safe”. It is simple cause and effect.

Second. The point is that a zygote, once formed has EVERYTHING that is genetically needed to be considered a human. Sperm and eggs individually do not. Do you base your pro-choice argument on science or an opinion?

Hi Angie,

Thanks for doing this. Word on the slippery slope argument getting out of hand.

Two quick remarks to the louder commenters here: Folks, rape isn’t the point. Let’s stop arguing statistics. The point is that you, a person, have the right to decide whether or not to go through a life-altering procedure (whether that procedure is pregnancy or abortion is your call).

To the responsibility advocates: you’re disproportionately interested in enforcing your stated principle in situations where women bear all the physical consequences. (As a local instance of this, count how many on this thread are asking why she didn’t get a tubal ligation; compare that to how many asked why her husband didn’t have a vasectomy—a cheaper and far less risky procedure).

Sure, actions have consequences. And yet, if you’re a smoker and discover a tumor (a cluster of cells that will develop and grow unless interfered with), no one will cite your “irresponsible behavior” as a reason for refusing you the right to have that tumor removed.

Angie, thanks for making this process public. Philosophical issues aside, it’s hard for women thinking about it to find out what a chemical abortion is actually like. *That*–to my mind–is what’s most important about this piece. Anyone thinking about this is drowning is misinformation and spin, so to have an account of what physically happens is crucially important. It is emphatically, absolutely not “TMI”.

So, Angie, to add another voice to the intelligent and respectful majority on this thread, most of whom think human beings deserve to exert reasonable agency over their bodies, regardless of their gender: thanks.

“human beings deserve to exert reasonable agency over their bodies”

A finger is “your own body” A human being with developing systems of its own is not “your own body” Neither is it some uninvited guest that a person has no control over how it got there.

@ nerdette this has nothing at all to do with semantics of life, its a scientific fact that a zygote is alive. If it wasnt alive there would be no need to kill it.

“If we are to say that all human cells are human life, then the human tongue is human life.”

No, bad analogy… a human is still alive if you removed thier toungue. What human being gets a chance to live after the abortion? (and i am fully aware that some fetuses survive abortion, in which cases they are promptly killed)

Then you are not sticking to the same definition of life, are you?

@Godisreal:

“its a scientific fact that a zygote is alive. If it wasnt alive there would be no need to kill it.”

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

Angie: thanks again for what you’ve done here, and take care.

To that amiable crankpot, God is real: cognitive dissonance is not your friend. See, you can’t name yourself after a faith-based assertion, then expect to be taken seriously when you give logic a shot. It’s okay (and I mean that). It’s not your weapon. Abandon the forays into science. Own your faith–it’s its own power and it’s what you’re bringing to the table. But realize that you’re starting from a different set of starting premises and give up the syllogistic work. (Or, if you’re absolutely set on the thing, at least have the decency to improve. Reread your Augustine.)

Fallacies are fun, though, if you feel like playing. For example! A finger is not actually “your own body,” unless you speak in metonyms. It is a finger. Unless you are a finger puppet, in which case, God help you. (And I’m sure He does.)

Over and out,
M

“A finger is not actually “your own body,” unless you speak in metonyms. It is a finger.”

You really need to explain that one…how is a finger not your own body?

I commend her for her bravery when having to make such a difficult decision. I had to make the same decision recently (and I’m married) but the state of our marriage is in complete shambles (we can barely stand the sight of one another and our attempts at faux-friendly conversations for the sake of our son are still barely more than polite grunts)! The thought of bringing another child into a world devoid of mutual respect and love would be selfish and cruel but we found ourselves there and I KNOW I’ve made the right decision. Make no mistake: he’s a great father to our son; the best, but the “we” in the romantic, “should be married” stage of our relationship is over. It feels over every second of every day that I spend with him (and vice versa, I’m sure). And like the writer pointed out, even through my own guilt, I do know that having siblings don’t guarantee life-long happiness. I’m one of 8 children and as adults, I am only close to two of them. (I don’t even have a clue where my oldest brother is; sad, I know but not unrealistic nor even painful at this point.) Great article although a tad bit cringe-worthy at times but sometimes it takes being made uncomfortable to understand one’s perspective!!

(Note: I am not the Angie who wrote this blog post. I’m a different Angie.)

:: gawks at the computer screen ::

Wow … 269 comments as of 9 p.m. on Wednesday. People from many sides of the abortion debate are clearly passionate about the subject. I’m eager to see how big this dialogue will grow.

There is no doubt in my mind that abortions go against all things morally correct. No matter how small the baby may be, it is still a baby, and you are killing it. Okay, abortions are alright in circumstances such as rape where you have no choice over what happened to your body. But I expect that if you make the conscious willing decision to have sex, you are making the conscious willing decision to carry a baby and give birth to it. No matter how many risks accompany the decision to carry out the pregnancy are associated with it, it was after all your fault to have sex in the first place. If you do not want to have any more children and want to continually be sexually active, I would expect a surgery to remove the organs necessary for producing another human. Yeah, the pregnancy could end your life, but I guess you should have thought about that before you got stupid and had sex huh?

You go, Angie! This is such a wonderful thing you’re doing, sharing your experience. There was a brief moment in the late 90s when women all over the country were encouraged to do what you’re doing. I told my own story to my girlfriends, but I never had the incredible public platform you’ve created for yourself. Thank you so much for speaking out.

Angie, I saw your video on a feminist blog I frequent, and I just wanted to tell you thanks for braving YouTube and Twitter. May you recover quickly.

@ Aj

OK man, please stop blasting everyone and speak your beliefs and reasons for them if you’re got it all figured out. It’s easy to criticize without adding anything to the discussion.

Yes, it is subjective, because the decision of what attributes define a person are chosen subjectively. Also, some animals can recognize themselves in a mirror, but they are not considered persons.

My arguments are far from ignorant or insane. That is a major cop out that again let’s you criticize without adding anything relevant. As far as cautiousness goes – we’re working with information that is 70 years old at best. We have just scraped the surface as far as scientific knowledge about “life” goes, so in that light we are all ignorant. I say we consider the fact that previous ways of thinking worked well for the last several thousand years, so maybe with this extremely important issue we should slow down and think before going full bore into the brave new world.

Also one of the key definitions of life: Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not. Explain to me again about comparing a fertilized egg to separate sperm and eggs.

Finally, I’m not telling anyone to do anything. I’m just asking that they CONSIDER taking responsibility for their actions. In MY OPINION this does not include abortion except in extreme cases. When abortion is no longer treated as a serious, difficult decision, then there is no consideration taken.

@ Nurdette

We are having a reasonable debate, and I think that reasonable people with opposing views can find a meeting place that doesn’t go to extremes. Do you not agree that the fertilized egg is something much different and than separate sperm and eggs? Would you compare a zygote with skin cells in cell physiology discussion?
Also the point about the Romans actually strengthens my first point. Consciousness is not measurable, so attributing it to one organ based on our current understanding may very well make us seem as so-called ignorant as the Romans in 50 years.

“As for your brain and consciousness bit, I think you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.”
Please provide me with a link that provides scientific information dealing with the source of consciousness, it would make for good reading. If you have anything about mind-body research I would also be interested.

Finally, to one of your earlier comments that a fetus needs a womb to survive – does this mean that we cease to be people outside of an earth-like atmosphere that we need to surbive? The Earth and the environment we live in could be considered an extended womb. I can see this going to “but the fetus imposes on the rights of the mother”. So do people who pollute the Earth impose on the rights of everyone else who shares the Earth? What implication does this have for how they are allowed to be dealt with? But now I’m going off the deep end.

Also I read the article and it kind of misses the point and simplifies “The Claim”. This is like saying all people who argue that abortion should be a last resort all believe it for the same reason. The author also says that most people who read the Conclusion will dismiss it for being preposterous. Is this common in ethics papers? It seems to me that the author is weakening his argument before it is even made. Also, when you say something like that it is a self-fulfilling prophesy and a sly way of dismissing anyone who disagrees. I get the point that author is making, but surprise, I disagree. He misses the point that the issue is people are making the choice to abort after the time when 90% of the fetuses will survive.

Good debate let’s keep it going.

Thank you for sharing this with us. We need more truth – more truth about abortion, about miscarriage, about pregnancy and birth. We need more information, in short. So thanks for braving all the judgement and threats to reach the rest of us.

I want to tell you how much I love you for being willing to open up at what should be a completely private moment. If we could shield you from the haters at Twitter and YouTube, we would. You rock.

Would you tell someone who foolishly had their hand chopped off to not reattach it, and to take responsibility? No, because it’s not about responsibility at all for you. Tell us your real reasons for why you think abortions are serious and difficult decisions.

I’m sorry, what naturally occurring bodily function causes one’s hand to fall off again? I don’t think I’m familiar with it. Oh, and at what point does this process ALSO cause another human’s growth and development cycle to begin starting a new life which then is ended in the procedure to restore this hand? Oh, you mean this is a faulty analogy because you’re missing the entire objection of every pro-lifer because we actually DON’T care what other people do with THEIR bodies, we just want to stop the destruction of the OTHER body harmed in an abortion? Of course it is. When have you guys ever said anything relevant?

Lynda,

I’m sorry, what naturally occurring bodily function causes one’s hand to fall off again? I don’t think I’m familiar with it.

I don’t see why it has to be a bodily function or how I suggested that it was. You only care about taking responsibility for bodily functions? Fine. So if you ate something and it causes you to vomit, you shouldn’t take some medication that would help? People with severe afterpains shouldn’t suppress lactation?

Oh, and at what point does this process ALSO cause another human’s growth and development cycle to begin starting a new life which then is ended in the procedure to restore this hand? Oh, you mean this is a faulty analogy because you’re missing the entire objection of every pro-lifer because we actually DON’T care what other people do with THEIR bodies, we just want to stop the destruction of the OTHER body harmed in an abortion? Of course it is.

Exactly, it’s not about responsibility at all. Thanks for openly admitting it. Look at how many people talk about responsibility and accepting the consequences of sex in the comments. I’m well aware that the real reason is that people feel embryos have the right to life, usually based on irrational reasons like souls, inherent value of “human life”, or potential.

Aj wrote, in reply to Lynda:

[Linda]
Please define “person” vs. “human”.

[Aj]
A person is conscious, reasoning, self-motivated, self-aware, and has the ability to communicate.

Forgive me for intruding on the conversation, but: surely you realize that these are your raw opinions, and not objective facts? Take a look at the qualifiactions you listed:

“conscious”: If that is necessary for personhood, then it would stand to reason that all unconscious humans are non-persons; correct? This includes anyone who’s currently asleep, or under anaesthesia, etc.; and I do wonder what you’d think of those whose consciousness isn’t communicated in normal ways, such as those with severe autism, etc.

“reasoning”: if necessary for personhood, then infants, young toddlers, and any human who’s incapable of demonstrating (to a supposedly disinterested third-party observer, apparently) the ability to “reason” would be a non-person; true?

“self-motivated” is too ambiguous a term for me to address; could you clarify what you mean?

“self-aware”: again, this would imply consciousness, would it not? See above.

“has the ability to communicate”: this would “depersonalize” anyone who’s not conscious, along with anyone who fails to meet your standards of “recognizable communication ability”, right? Some persons may not be able to do that (see: http://www.rense.com/general44/vege.htm ). And would this allow you to “depersonalize” babies who are blind and deaf?

…focusing just on the part where people are alive.

You mean “where people are conscious”. Fetal humans exhibit signs of life pre-birth. Personally, I don’t see why just a.) being human and b.) being alive aren’t enough. Anything else seems to be opening the door for some bad situations.

Paladin,

“conscious”: If that is necessary for personhood, then it would stand to reason that all unconscious humans are non-persons; correct?

Personhood is not intermittent (unlike consciousness), personhood is persistent until these qualities are lost permanently. It’s a necessary quality, but a person doesn’t have to be it all the time. Some birds stand on the ground, but that doesn’t necessarily make them flightless birds.

“reasoning”: if necessary for personhood, then infants, young toddlers, and any human who’s incapable of demonstrating (to a supposedly disinterested third-party observer, apparently) the ability to “reason” would be a non-person; true?

True.

“self-motivated” is too ambiguous a term for me to address; could you clarify what you mean?

Acting other than through instinct or direct external control. I guess planning would a combination of reasoning and self-motivation.

“self-aware”: again, this would imply consciousness, would it not? See above.

It would.

“has the ability to communicate”: this would “depersonalize” anyone who’s not conscious, along with anyone who fails to meet your standards of “recognizable communication ability”, right? Some persons may not be able to do that (see: http://www.rense.com/general44/vege.htm ). And would this allow you to “depersonalize” babies who are blind and deaf?

I take it from that link you’re some kind of right wing Christian? If so, apparently I’m just like you.

Firstly, the title “She Recovered From A Persistent Vegetative State” is wrong, and predictably so is Bill O’Reilly, the woman was not a vegetative state, she was locked in which is something entirely different. The woman seems to have an agenda, because she appears to be claiming to know that someone who was almost certainly in a persistent vegetative state is aware, I don’t know how, perhaps telepathically.

As for your question, I’m pretty sure deaf-blindness doesn’t stop people from communicating. As for people locked in like your example, it’s an extreme case that needs a more specific definition of the ability communication than the vast majority of people. Likely to have the ability if no paralyzed, and had the ability, to communicate, I think is a sufficient but if I had to write all the qualifiers I probably wouldn’t write anything at all.

Aj wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
“conscious”: If that is necessary for personhood, then it would stand to reason that all unconscious humans are non-persons; correct?

[Aj]
Personhood is not intermittent (unlike consciousness), personhood is persistent until these qualities are lost permanently.

Ah. Then you meant something like “the enduring capacity/potential for consciousness”, correct? I’ll comment on the content, in a bit; but I want to get your position quite clear, first.

[Paladin]
“reasoning”: if necessary for personhood, then infants, young toddlers, and any human who’s incapable of demonstrating (to a supposedly disinterested third-party observer, apparently) the ability to “reason” would be a non-person; true?

[Aj]
True.

(??) Just to be clear: you consider infants, young toddlers, etc., to be non-persons? More specifically, you think it’s morally licit to kill them at will?

[Paladin]
“self-motivated” is too ambiguous a term for me to address; could you clarify what you mean?

[Aj]
Acting other than through instinct or direct external control. I guess planning would a combination of reasoning and self-motivation.

All right… but this strikes me as rife with subjectivity; how would you ever demonstrate “self-motivation” (as opposed to “mere instinct”, etc.)?

[Paladin]
“has the ability to communicate”: this would “depersonalize” anyone who’s not conscious, along with anyone who fails to meet your standards of “recognizable communication ability”, right? Some persons may not be able to do that (see: http://www.rense.com/general44/vege.htm ). And would this allow you to “depersonalize” babies who are blind and deaf?

[Aj]
I take it from that link you’re some kind of right wing Christian?

You take an inaccurate supposition, I’m afraid. I’m certainly a Christian (albeit a sinful and fallible one)… but “right-wing” is a political term (and not a religious one)… for which I have no use whatsoever. Some of my views would be seen by the politically-minded as “conservative” (e.g. opposition to abortion in all cases), and some of my views would be seen as “liberal” (e.g. opposition to the death penalty).

If so, apparently I’m just like you.

(??) Do tell?

Firstly, the title “She Recovered From A Persistent Vegetative State” is wrong, and predictably so is Bill O’Reilly, the woman was not a vegetative state, she was locked in which is something entirely different.

Well… surely you know that her “locked-in” state was the only requirement for my example, and that any fastidious hair-splitting about the definition of the subjective term “persistent vegetative state” is beside the point? (And I do not take Mr. O’Reilly’s word for anything; I linked to the woman’s own testimony–which I saw on video, and which I’m convinced wasn’t just an elaborate hoax.)

The woman seems to have an agenda, because she appears to be claiming to know that someone who was almost certainly in a persistent vegetative state is aware, I don’t know how, perhaps telepathically.

Um… did you miss the main point of the interview, which dealt with her own example (above and beyond her guesses about Terri Schiavo)? Surely you consider her “claims to know” what was happening in her own case to be accurate? The old philosophy axiom, “That which has happened, is therefore possible,” applies here, I think… which sufficiently demonstrates my point: that your “persons are those who can communicate” standard is far too subjective to be of any practical use.

As for your question, I’m pretty sure deaf-blindness doesn’t stop people from communicating.

No? Not even infants and toddlers, who haven’t had the “Helen Keller-esque” training to be able to do so?

As for people locked in like your example, it’s an extreme case that needs a more specific definition of the ability communication than the vast majority of people.

The fact that it’s extreme doesn’t help your definition, I’m afraid; if your definition allows “locked-in” persons to be killed at will–as a matter of course (and not simply the occasional mistake), then it’s morally inadequate.

Likely to have the ability if no paralyzed, and had the ability, to communicate,

So you'd simply "write off" those who aren't able to do these things, with a shrug of your shoulders and a "sorry, nothing personal–we just need to be practical and expedient in our death decisions"?

Paladin,

Ah. Then you meant something like “the enduring capacity/potential for consciousness”, correct? I’ll comment on the content, in a bit; but I want to get your position quite clear, first.

I wouldn’t use the word potential, but enduring capacity is probably accurate.

(??) Just to be clear: you consider infants, young toddlers, etc., to be non-persons? More specifically, you think it’s morally licit to kill them at will?

Yes, they are non-persons for the most part. Although perhaps not all of the attributes are necessary, if someone has all of them then they definitely are a person, if something has none of them they definitely are not. No, it would not be morally licit to kill them “at will”.

All right… but this strikes me as rife with subjectivity; how would you ever demonstrate “self-motivation” (as opposed to “mere instinct”, etc.)?

I think the delay test would separate mere instinct from conscious action.

Um… did you miss the main point of the interview, which dealt with her own example (above and beyond her guesses about Terri Schiavo)? Surely you consider her “claims to know” what was happening in her own case to be accurate? The old philosophy axiom, “That which has happened, is therefore possible,” applies here, I think… which sufficiently demonstrates my point: that your “persons are those who can communicate” standard is far too subjective to be of any practical use.

It’s not subjective, it’s just not always possible to diagnose, and sometimes there are mistakes in the specific case of locked in syndrome. Death also has this problem, it’s not far too subjective to be of any practical use. I don’t know of any reliable statistics on locked in syndrome, do you? Hopefully we do our best with the information we have, and we know there are people looking into improving diagnosis with advancements in knowledge and technology.

No? Not even infants and toddlers, who haven’t had the “Helen Keller-esque” training to be able to do so?

If you deny an infant access to communication, regardless of their senses, they don’t spontaneously develop language. I think the ability to acquire communication is sufficient. I think my use of the word “ability” is regrettably confusing you, although I cannot think of a better word, you are not understanding my meaning.

The fact that it’s extreme doesn’t help your definition, I’m afraid; if your definition allows “locked-in” persons to be killed at will–as a matter of course (and not simply the occasional mistake), then it’s morally inadequate.

It’s not descriptively sufficient, although practically nothing written about such complex issues is, especially not in this kind of environment, written this quickly.

So you’d simply “write off” those who aren’t able to do these things, with a shrug of your shoulders and a “sorry, nothing personal–we just need to be practical and expedient in our death decisions”?

Those that aren’t able to communicate even if they weren’t paralyzed. As in they’re not mentally capable and will not be in the future? Like a person in a Persistent Vegetative State? I wouldn’t say “write off”, but they’re not persons with a right to life.

@ Joe

My apologizes for a tardy reply – my life does not revolve around this thread

We are having a reasonable debate, and I think that reasonable people with opposing views can find a meeting place that doesn’t go to extremes. Do you not agree that the fertilized egg is something much different and than separate sperm and eggs? Would you compare a zygote with skin cells in cell physiology discussion?

Much different? No, not at all. I consider it akin to two ingredients combining to form a batter. It is simply a sequential step towards a finished cake. And why wouldn’t you compare a zygote with skin cells in a cell biology class? It wouldn’t be far off from comparing liver cells to lung cells, or mucus membrane cells to bone marrow cells. Vastly different in their physiology, yes; vastly different in what makes them human, no.

Also the point about the Romans actually strengthens my first point. Consciousness is not measurable, so attributing it to one organ based on our current understanding may very well make us seem as so-called ignorant as the Romans in 50 years.

Well, people have their stomachs removed and retained their consciousness. People have new hearts and not received new forms of consciousness – same goes for every other organ in the body. Yet mild brain damage (say a concussion) makes someone not conscious. When we experience REM sleep (say, dreams), our brain activity skyrockets as we regain a step below normal consciousness in our sleep. The Romans didn’t have the tools we did today to investigate consciousness and relied only on their rudimentary experiences to suggest where it might originate. Do we have a big sign that points to the brain that says “Origin of thought here!” No. Do we have neurologists whose decades of research suggests that it does? Yes.

Please provide me with a link that provides scientific information dealing with the source of consciousness, it would make for good reading. If you have anything about mind-body research I would also be interested.

Alas, I am not a neurologist, nor do I have any education on the subject beyond the basics of my undergraduate biology degree and what I read in science texts, but I can give you a wonderful quote by Allan Ropper, a Boston neurologist, replying to a study claiming that patients in a vegetative state can signal yes or no via brain imaging: “Physicians and society are not ready for ‘I have brain activiation, therefore I am.’ That would seriously put Descartes before the horse.’ I can’t provide any evidence about the point where our brains develop consciousness nor would I have any idea as to where to start plowing through the research, but I have no doubt that it exists. And from what I learned from my studies in a developmental psychology course, it may not even exist until several years after we are born! This, of course, gets into the familiar debates of “killing a born baby since it’s not self conscious,” which I’m sure we can all agree with heinous. However, I would venture to suggest that it does remove the consciousness argument from the debate completely.

Finally, to one of your earlier comments that a fetus needs a womb to survive – does this mean that we cease to be people outside of an earth-like atmosphere that we need to surbive? The Earth and the environment we live in could be considered an extended womb. I can see this going to “but the fetus imposes on the rights of the mother”. So do people who pollute the Earth impose on the rights of everyone else who shares the Earth? What implication does this have for how they are allowed to be dealt with? But now I’m going off the deep end.

Actually, I do believe that people that pollute the Earth impose on the rights of everyone who shares the Earth. Just as people that kill whales imposes on my right to a healthy marine ecosystem, and as smokers impose on my right to not get cancer when I breathe. All of those have an impact on my well-being and the well-being of my future offspring – and that’s the point I’m trying to make with this example. We check pollution because of its impact on the entire ecosystem of the planet (and thus, our species.) To address your argument, well, if we leave the Earth’s atmosphere unprotected, we die and are no longer existing as an ‘person’, only a dead body and in people’s memories. If we had the technology for embryos to live outside the womb as we do people outside the Earth’s atmosphere, who knows where our ethics would take us once that is possible. It doesn’t exist (yet), so it is a void argument outside of the hypothetical.

Also I read the article and it kind of misses the point and simplifies “The Claim”. This is like saying all people who argue that abortion should be a last resort all believe it for the same reason. The author also says that most people who read the Conclusion will dismiss it for being preposterous. Is this common in ethics papers? It seems to me that the author is weakening his argument before it is even made. Also, when you say something like that it is a self-fulfilling prophesy and a sly way of dismissing anyone who disagrees. I get the point that author is making, but surprise, I disagree. He misses the point that the issue is people are making the choice to abort after the time when 90% of the fetuses will survive.

I believe he is making the argument from common sense that most people would dismiss the Conclusion as being preposterous – after all, would you care to tell all the people suffering from cancer that their pain is less important than a zygote?

Paladin,

You don’t think it’s possible to lose the capacity for consciousness, and then regain it?

That’s not what I mean, consciousness can be intermittent but enduring, even while unconscious the wishes of the person have to be considered. Also, the three sites you’ve linked to aren’t objective, they’re heavily pushing an agenda that could poison their reporting.

Why wouldn’t you consider it licit to