Sunday

Pro Choice Nanny + Anti Abortion Employer =

Received Sunday, January 18, 2009
Perspective & Opinion I'm a nanny in Philadelphia. I've worked for a family with two wonderful children for the past 6 months. The parents were fair and treated me very well up until this past week.

Here's the thing: I am staunchly pro-choice. My boss is not. I do not want to start a debate here. I am glad that we live in a country where we have the right to express our opinions. While I reserve the right to express mine, I know that my workplace is not the right place to do it and would never bring it up with the kids.

On Friday my boss invited me to join her at an anti-abortion protest on the 22nd, which is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The kids were in the room. I declined, and when she pressed me for a reason I told her that I would be more comfortable talking about it elsewhere. Her response was that the children would be at the protest and they knew all about "baby killing." I explained that I did not agree with her on this issue and that I would not attend the protest. She immediately became upset, calling me a number of unsavory things. In front of her children. They did not seem surprised. I do not plan on returning to work for this woman, but I am incredulous that I have been treated this way by a woman who seemed so pleasant and respectful.

Here is my question, and I think it applies to many different issues, not just this one:

Is it appropriate to bring up these sort of things in an interview? I am not sure what my response would have been if, when we first met, the mom had said "We have very strong views about abortion and are looking for someone who shares them." No doubt I would have been slightly taken aback, but I would have appreciated the candor and it would have been better than having her scream at me in front of the kids. It also puts me in a weird situation when future employers ask me about this job.

159 comments:

mom said...

Wow, your employer sounds nuts, not to mention way out of line.
I don't think you need to bring this issue up in interviews...this is a rare of crazy and you would(HOPEFULLY) be very unlikely to encounter this situation again.

cali mom said...

Your (ex?) boss is a whackjob who had NO business in the first place trying to coerce you into participating in her political demonstrations. It's one thing to invite you to demonstrate with her, but totally unacceptable under any circumstances, and quite possib;e illegal (Mom?) in ANY industry, to try to coerce your employees into engaging in any political activities they are not comfortable with. There may be certain limited circumstances, (for instance if you were being hired as a candidate's campaign manager) where it *could* be a condition of employment, but this woman is way out of line, regardless of the political cause that you 2 disagree on.

To answer your question, I think you also would be out of line to ask questions like that of your prospective employers at interviews. You could just say something to the effect that you believe politics and religion should be kept separate from work, and YOU make it a policy to never mix the two.

cali mom said...

Mom, we crossed posts!

mom said...

So we did.
I'll ask my husband about the legal issue. However, my first guess (it's only a guess) is that employers of less than a certain number of employees tend to be exempt from most of the employment laws we are all so familiar with.

In a big company, yeah, I'd guess she had a hell of a lawsuit. And although I really hate people suing one another (ironic, huh?) I might actually pursue this one myself if I were her and the laws applied.

This is just so incredibly out of line...at least morally, if not legally.

ATL Nanny said...

This woman is a total nut. Regardless of who believes what, it is inappropriate for an employer to pressure an employee to participate in any political cause or protest. And the fact that she would berate you in front of the children only shows that her issues go far deeper than a simple political disagreement.

As for bringing political issues up in an interview, I'm of two minds on the issue:

1) I don't think there is anything wrong at all with asking in an interview if the family is politically active and if that activity may spill over into your duties. (This is no weirder to me than asking whether the nanny will be in charge of any religious instruction.) However, as long as you are the type of person who can easily work for someone whose views differ from yours and just agree to disagree or just avoid discussing the issues at all, then I see no reason to discuss these things in detail in an interview (or at all, really). MOST people operate this way, and your current employer is a nut who should not influence the way you live your life.

2) On the other hand...if you are politically active and/or have strong religious/political feelings that cause you to feel uncomfortable working with a family whose beliefs differ from yours, I definitely think these are things that should be discussed in an interview. Personally, I would find it MISERABLE to work for an evangelical christian family. And, as a lesbian, I would never subject myself to a homophobic workplace. Therefore, I bring these issues up early in the interview process to weed out homes where I would be uncomfortable or unwelcome.

So really, it just depends on your comfort level.

Pink Nanny said...

I am sorry this happened to you. I myself am pro-life but Gees Louise.

The good news is you have to brought to light something new. I will definitely be asking all potential employers if they have any particular beliefs that would influence or affect my job as their nanny.

Or I will at least ask if they are tolerant/open-minded to having a nanny with differnt beliefs, or if it is important for the nanny to support the same beliefs.

You get what I mean. Wow.

nyc mom said...

Sorry this happened as your employer was clearly a nut, just a matter of time before it became clear. I'm guessing if it wasn't this issue, it would have been something else that she acted crazy/inappropriately about eventually.

I don't think there is much point in bringing this up during an interview unless it is one of your OWN personal views that you know you cannot tolerate in such an intimate relationship as a nanny is.

Trust me, this kind of unpredictable and impulsive response, particulary in front of the kids, almost certainly reflects much bigger personality problems than just a staunch abortion viewpoint. Consider yourself lucky that you escaped after just 6 months and that it was not under much worse circumstances. As far as a reference, I would be most likely to claim a period of unemployment. I can see the argument for honesty, but as an employer even the honest story would still leave me with (admittedly unfair) doubts about you simply because I would not be able to speak with the former employer and would always wonder. If I loved you otherwise and you had two or more long term prior references, I would consider hiring you. But otherwise, I would not consider it worth the risk because there would be no real way to verify either side.

occasional sitter said...

What a total whack job. I agree with the previous poster about not mentioning this position on your resume. I've left jobs due to too much drama or unruly children who are "testing the boundaries" when in fact there aren't any boundaries. I just don't list them on my resume.

TC said...

Wow op, I feel for you.

I made the mistake of mentioning to my (former) boss once that I have a famous uncle who's known for his political views...he automatically thinks I vote and think like my uncle and that's simply not true. He's never called me names or such but he does still (as recently as this Friday) make comments about my uncle's political views and things of that nature.

It's very uncomfortable and all I can do is laugh it off and go on...but it's also taught me never to bring up any sort of political views with bosses, or co-workers.

Beezle said...

You should never, ever be discriminated upon for your political beliefs by your employer. Your political views and values are your business and you don't have to reveal them if you don't want to. Your employer sounds like a zealous, ignorant control-freak. Say good riddance. Heaven forbid her children ever form an opinion of their own. Sounds like she really Bill O' Rileyd you.

Nanny in Cali said...

OP, I am really sorry this happened to you. It was your right to decline the invitation as well as state your reasons why. She had no right to call you some unsavory things, especially in front of her children. I think she is nuts and you should definitely not return to work for her.
As for bringing this up in a future interview, you can always tell this story to explain why you stopped working for this family. But I personally think politics such as this have no business being discussed in the workplace.
I wish you luck in your next position. You sound like a wonderful nanny and it is their loss.

chgonanny said...

This totally sucks! I'm so sorry for you.

As to asking future employers about their political opinions, I'd say no. I currently work for a staunch Catholic family, and when I started working I was "living in sin" with my then fiance (now husband). It was never talked about, and it was obvious the parents had talked to their kids about the fact that their nanny doesn't go to church and won't be getting married in one.

It has never been an issue with them, just like I have no problem with reading the kids their Children's Bible if I'm asked.

Seriously? said...

In terms of how you reference the job in the future, you can just say that you chose to leave because of political differences that made you feel uncomfortable. That way they'll know it wasn't a matter of your performance, but you don't have to go into details about what did happen.

And for the record, "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" are not mutually exclusive terms. I don't believe in abortion myself as a rule (I see it as a "necessary evil" at times), but also am firm in the belief that no one has the right to dictate what a woman does with her own body. It seems to confuse a lot of people when I mention this about myself. ;)

Also PRO CHOICE said...

If you are PRO choice doesn't that mean you support BOTH sides depending on the indivdual and the choice the woman makes for herself?

But to answer your question. Eventually, she would probably be sued for asking such a personal question in a job interview.

minneapolis nanny said...

to answer your question, during an interview when i'm telling about myself, i always add something like "because of my liberal views, i believe in setting a positive example, so that you're children grow to be respectful of themselves and their community."

NEVER be afraid of stating WHO you are. you should be proud. if they don't like it, then you aren't a good match.

F gator said...

I would only hire a republican nanny.

But speaking of good matches, she would also have to believe in God, not be a part of any whackadoodle religions, be height and weight appropriate, have no tatoos, no piercings, no visible scars, no pockmarks and solid, non yellow teeth. Additionally, she would need to dress appropriately, beginning with supportive foundation garments. And no accents, I can't stand them.

F gator said...

My point was, if I established all of my requirements, I would not need to delve into her personal beliefs. I could be reasonably satisfied that she was not too far of course.

SAHM in CT said...

One who employs a nanny in a home can ask said nanny candidate anything she wants during an interview or at anytime during her employ. My husband once had a client, a young nanny from Utah who quit her job and wanted to file for sexual harassment. Her employer would make comments like, "Did you forget to wipe" and "you know if you don't use it, it's going to wither up and die" (in reference to her vagina because she was a virgin). But the nanny had no case because private employers are not bound by any restrictions. The only thing they cannot do is hold you without your will or beat you about the head. Susan Tepper got away with a whole lot before she started slapping her nanny across the face with a 2lb bag of baby carrots.

fox in socks said...

OP, this boss is a nut job. Don't worry about asking future employers probing questions about whether they are whackos. Just move on and forget about this nut. In time, her children will probably realize mom is nuts, at least in terms of how she reacts to people who disagree with her on this issue.

Quit, if you haven't already. Explain that you love the children, and up until now have loved the job. But you just can't be treated so disrespectfully for having a perfectly reasonable view, and one that is shared by more of the US population.

(I say this because it will show the mom boss she was mean and inappropriate, and not to invite people on this blog to start tallying up whether they share this view or not.)

If mom boss apologizes for treating you this way and speaking to you inappropriately in front of the children, and she would like you to continue working for them, feel free to do so but tell her you'd like her to speak up about it to the children with you there. She should say to the children something like, "I've apologized to OP for what I said to her. I spoke too harshly, and it was un-called for. More importantly, everyone should be able to hold their own opinion and I shouldn't have gotten so upset. I won't do that again. OP has accepted my apology and she knows how much I value and respect her. I'm sorry."

Good luck and let us know if anything else happens.

#1 fan said...

Susan Tabas Tepper is a God and would do well to write a book on how to manage pesky, obstinate, lazy and entitled household help.

fox in socks said...

What does Susdan Tabas Tepper have to do with pro-choice and anti choice nannies/bosses? Nothing, as far as I can tell. I guess you're just trying to spice things up.

#1 fan said...

If I wanted to spice things up, I would link to this.

:)

My point was employers can and will do whatever they want. Sucks to work for a private employer. No unions.

Philly Nanny said...

OP here, thanks for all the great responses...I'm really impressed (although not surprised) that the commenters here can talk about this without it turning into a big shouting match.

As far as talking about it in the interview goes:

I would never bring it up. I would not mind working for a family who was not pro-choice if they did not try to convert me/force me to participate in political activities. It's not a deal-breaker for me. For my ex-boss though, it was. This woman was obviously perturbed that I had even been in contact with her kids.

Naomi said...

I don't see how it's any of your (future or present) employer's business what your political/moral view points are.

I don't think a workplace is somewhere where these debatable topics should be discussed. Unless you work in that field.

Obviously what your boss did was very unprofessional. And not only can you not work for her for the opinions you two disagree on, but she also degraded you in front of the children you work for.
Good luck finding a new job

mom said...

Cali,
My husband says there is no protection under the law for political views (as there is for race, gender and sexual preference, for example) in an at will employment situation, so OP probably has no legal recourse. And she wasn't fired, just embarrassed and annoyed. And I should clarify my position as well. When I said I would probably sue if possible I had misread and assumed she had been fired. I personally don't like when people sue for being annoyed, so I would personally actually not in this situation after all...I mean, if there was actually a case to be had.

But I still think the employer in this situation sounds terribly rude and obnoxious. She has no right to push her political views on her employee. I'll bet she'll be shocked to find that OP is quitting over this, because people who act that way so often to think they are perfectly in the right and entitled to behave however they want toward toward other people.

Seriously,
I share your veiws on abortion, exactly...and you expressed it very well. Pro choice doesn't mean one advocates abortion, as is so often assumed...weird really, when you think about that. I hate that abortion happens...but there are times it is necessary, and I am under no delusions about Roe vs Wade ever being overturned...and I'm not even sure that would be the right thing to do. I will say that I am 100% vehemently opposed to partial birth abortion. That's just inhumane and completely unnecessary. If the child has grown to a stage where he/she will be born alive, for gosh sakes let him or her live and be adopted! That's my two cents on that anyway.

mom said...

OH and I forgot...

Fox in Sox makes an excellent suggestion regarding the employer potentially apologizing and asking you to come back to work, OP. She needs to make it perfectly clear to the children that she was the one in the wrong and that you are a good person. And all that is assuming you are even willing to work for her again.

cali mom said...

Mom, I meant legally questionable not in requiring employees to hold certain political views but legally questionable as in requiring employees whose job has NOTHING to do with politics to participate, as part of their job requirements, in political promotions which they might not necessarily agree with. It seems to me I heard about a case in SF where city parks dept. employees were handed stacks of literature promoting some candidate and were then required by their boss to distribute these flyers, ON the clock. This is a bit different certainly, but I can't see how it would be legal for OP's employer to require her to attend ANY political demonstrations. Anyway, just unacceptable and indicative of what a loon the boss was. Good riddance to her OP!

And Mom, just one point about the "partial birth" abortions: they are not done routinely in cases where someone just decided they didn't want to have a baby after all. Sometimes at a late stage in pregnancy, life threatening problems will develop for the mother and this must be considered. I had no problems at all until I hit 5 months and then had life threatening (for me) complications to the point where my doctor advised me that if one more such complication developed, I might have to consider ending the pregnancy. I'm just glad I did NOT have to make that horrible decision but such situations DO exist.

cali mom said...

#1 fan, what does the sinking airplane have to do with psycho bosses?

NannyInCharge said...

I would not go back to work for this looney of a Mother. What kind of Mom argues with her Nanny in front of the children, regardless of the topic?!?! And calling names? That lady needs to grow up.

OP I don't think there was anything differently you could have done in this situation. Luckily the odds of it happening again are slim to none! I like another poster's suggestion though about saying up front that you do not discuss or mix politics/religion/etc with work.

Good luck to you.

mom said...

Cali,
I know how you feel. I faced the potential you describe here with my second son...after having tried for a very long time to get pregnant with him and having already had two miscarriages after the birth of my first son (which was also followed by a miscarriage) and before the pregnancy which resulted in my second son. OMG what a nightmare...and I cannot imagine my life without that boy, who is sitting eight feet away from me at this moment...so thank God he made it.
But terminating a preganacy for medical reasons has nothing to do with partial birth abortion. (At least as far as I understand...and I may be misinformed.) Let me be more specific. The practice I abhor is when they take an otherwise VIABLE OR POTENTIALLY VIABLE infant, deliver it to the shoulders and then either inject something into it to kill it or force a sharp instrument into the skull to make sure it will not survive the birth, then deliver it dead. This they deem somehow different than letting the bottom 12 inches of the child slip out and then killing it. The difference in time could be seconds or minutes. One would be an abortion, and the other would be infanticide. Those few extra moments (a technicality, really) are too close for me...and I imagine it would be as excruciating for a fully formed infant to suffer that as it would be for one of us. I think that both you and I would agree that if it had come to that horrible decision with either of us, we would have wanted the child to have every possible chance at survival...or at lest if they were born too soon to live and there was no chance, that they could have slipped away naturally and peacefully in our arms instead of in that way. The babies I am speaking of in my prior comments are those that had already been allowed to grow long enough that they could be delivered and put up for adoption. That, to me, is going too far.

I am actually pro-choice, but pro baby too. As I said, I don't like that abortions happen, but I know that sometimes it is necessary, for any number of reasons. And as I also said, I don't think that horse is going back into the barn, so I really don't understand why people keep fighting over this. The decision has been made and it's legal. I cannot imagine it even being possible that we as a country would go back to it being illegal. No possible way.

Philly Nanny said...

if you'll allow me to step up on a soapbox real quick...

While abortion may never again be illegal, Bush made a great effort to encroach on women's rights before he left office, putting into place the Conscience Rule.

"This gives an open invitation to any doctor, nurse, receptionist, insurance plan or even hospital to refuse to provide information about birth control on the grounds that they believe contraception amounts to abortion." (from http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-conscience19-2008dec19,0,6352558.story)

This allows an ER doctor to refuse emergency contraception to a rape victim. It allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill a birth control prescription.

The outgoing administration has done it's best to make abortions hard to get, but has also done everything in it's power to prevent women from having unwanted pregnancies to start with.

Abstinence only education, anyone?

Being pro-choice is not just about abortion, but about all of the reproductive choices women have, and the fight is not over!

mom said...

Philly Nanny,
You make so me excellent points. And just as I think women should be given the option to choose, based thier own beliefs and individual circumstances, I also think doctors and other healthcare professionals should be given the right to choose based on their own beliefs and circumstances.
As you said, pro choice involves a lot of CHOICES...not just the right to choose abortion. People are allowed to choose YES to abortion, but by the same token, individuals should be also allowed to choose NO...and that ought to go for giving them as well as getting them. Imagine how horrific it would be for a pro life doctor to be forced to perform an abortion while fully believing he is committing murder! That is as completely unfair to him as it would be to force an 11 year old rape victim to carry a child to term and give birth against her wishes.
Remember, when people exercise their rights...it is their right to choose as they believe, not their obligation to choose as we would want them to.

you don't get it said...

Someone who is opposed to performing abortions should not work at an abortion clinic!

Someone who is opposed to filling birth control prescriptions should not work at a pharmacy!

Someone who is opposed to relaying information about emergency contraception should not work in an emergency room!

If your beliefs do not allow you to do something, do not take a job where you might have to do it!

I don't want to use my regular name on here said...

Yes, isn't it sad MOM. I read about the partial birth abortions. It made my stomach turn!! The poor child feels the pain of being jabbed. And they don't administer any pain reliever for the child. (But that may be changed in the near future).
They asked one doctor why women wait so long. And it wasn't for medical reasons. What he stated: they broke up with their partner. They are depressed (hello I think you must go thru a major depression after killing your child). Or they just decided they don't want to be a mom. If they can deliver the baby like MOM said why not give that child to a loving couple that may not be able to conceive. Why kill it? And what about the cases where the baby comes out on the delivery table before the procedure is done? That child is either cradled by a nurse in a private room or if the nurse doesn't have time, they leave the baby alone in the room to die. No warmth, no food, no human interaction.

And the part that really gets me is how can a doctor do this and sleep at nite? They see their little feet kicking, and their arms flaring around especially after they jab a scissor in the brain.

My sister became pregnant at 19 years of age. She went to get an ultrasound and I think an amino after, because they saw something. There was a dark spot they saw in the brain. They mentioned that it could be serious. Maybe, Down Syndrome, etc. Her doctor told her your still young and can have more kids. But she refused to get an abortion. Well my niece came out early and weighed only two lbs. She lived for a few weeks in the hospital. It was really sad don't get me wrong. But my sister stayed with her everyday. It wasn't easy not going to lie. But she was able to hold her, sing to her. She responded to her voice, I would say her name and her little head would turn. Her hands would move,etc.
My sister and her husband of course was devasted when she did pass away. But she is so happy that she didn't abort her no matter what. We held out hope that she would be born healthy!! Like she said she was able to hold her. Look at her, feed her etc. Take pictures. She visits the grave site a few times a year. She has two other children now. And she hasn't told them yet. But when they get older she is going to explain to them that their older sister was sick, but they will see her again when the world is a better place.

you don't get it said...

I don't want to use my regular name on here:

Who is this "They" you speak of???
If you're going to state something as a fact, you need sources to back it up. You are very poorly informed and wrong about a lot of things. Almost everything you said is untrue.

In fact, the kind of Partial Birth Abortion you describe is ILLEGAL (save for extreme cases where the mother is in danger of dying) in the US. So I don't know what your panties are all in a twist about.

I am sorry to hear about your sister and her child. No one should have to go through that. I can only imagine how uncomfortable, painful and scary the child's short life was...it's preventable suffering.

I don't want to use my regular name on here said...

That is really uncalled for. How can you judge someone for not aborting their child, and then act like its their fault the child came out sick!!! Its called imperfection.

Yes she knew the child had a chance of having something wrong like Down Syndrome. But it wasn't 100%. Theres always hope everything will be okay. But thats not a reason to abort a child.
Are you telling me all the moms that decide not to listen to their doctors and their child comes out disabled somehow they are to blame???

You are really a cold hearted bitch.
I can't believe someone would comment on my story in such a way to hurt someones feelings.

anon regular said...

I don't want to use my regular name,

Calm down, sweetie. That was really mean what "you don't get it" said. Just ignore the drivel that comes out of their slimy pie-hole.
(((hugs)))

you don't get it said...

Everyone is free to make their own choice. I do not judge people for having or not having an abortion. I do judge people who go around spreading misinformation about it.

I saw the plane crash outside from Weehawken said...

I apologize I shouldn't call anyone a b---. Even if I am very angry.

you don't get it said...

...and I shouldn't use the death of a child to prove my point.

I'm sorry for writing that. It was uncalled for. This is such an emotional issue. My sincerest condolences to you, your sister and your family.

mom said...

You don't get it. You really don't get it. First, that type of abortion has only very recently become illegal. I want to say a year or two has passed at most (I am guessing 'cause I have a shockingly inaccurate sense of time)...so something like that is in danger of being reinstated...especially since the new president wasn't for making it illegal in the first place. So, don't be too hard on yourself fom sprading misinformation...you probably just didn't realize.

Second, what you said to "I don't want to use my regular name" was cruel, hateful and completely uncalled for. Losing a child is painful enough without having ingnorant judgments tossed at you.
In fact it was so mean that I suspect that you are one of those troll people wanting nothing more than to stir up trouble. So, everything you have to say form now on will not be taken seriously by me. Shame on you.

I don't want to use my regular name,
I'm sorry for your loss, but your sister was very brave and loving to give her daughter first a chance to live and then as much love as she possibly could while she was here. Don't even bother responding to the hateful troll who is trying to bait you. We'll just all ignore her further comments.

I don't think anybody can pass judgment on somebody in that situation...no matter which way they choose to proceed. There's no way to comprehend what it must be like unless you have walked that same road. And anybody who hasn't had to should be thanking God every day for their healthy children instead of judging those who have.

mom said...

You don't get it,

We posted at the same time. That was big of you to apologize and I take back my comments to you also.

I just get very heated when I see somebody I think is being purposely hurtful...especially when it comes to the loss of a child.

A Nonny Mouse regular said...

This is a bit more extreme... but,
I had wondered in the past if my employer has to perform abortions as part of her job (when I was first hired, I thought she was an OB-GYN, and it was all very vague. Later, I found out her area is the NIC-U.)

So, at that time, if indeed she *did* perform abortions as part of her job, I would not feel comfortable working for her anymore.

What I would NEVER do, is make a scene about our opposing views in front of her children. Absolutely not. I would part ways with the family, however- because a nannying job is so much more personal than most other jobs. I just would rather find a family that I fit better with.


ANYWAYS- long story short, you are better off this way. She was out of line, but clearly you two are total opposites and it would probably be in the best interest of everyone to part ways.

honest nanny said...

I think that it is ok to bring this up in an interview. I'm a Christian and I always make sure I mention that to my prospective employers. But I also reassure them that I'm not interested in shoving my faith down their throats and if they would prefer their children not to be exposed I will respect that. So I don't see a problem doing that with political issues. You can just explain your previous experience to them as precedence why you are bringing it up. Open communication is the most vital aspect of a nanny-employer relationship.

this is not my usual name said...

This discussion of late term abortion is really out of hand. Statements are being made that are not based in fact.

Late term abortion is legal in at least 3 states. Late term abortion is an option, or is oftentimes done, when there is a fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life. This is often a non genetic abnormality (since nowadays genetic abnormalities are discovered by early tests such as CVS or amniocentesis). So, typically, because CVS or amnio is done fairly often (where indicated by various factors such as "advanced maternal age" i.e. mother is 35 or over, or other factors) there are fewer late term abortions for genetic reasons than one might expect.

A typical and realistic case is a married woman who already has children who finds out late in the pregnancy that the fetus she is carrying is incompatible with life. (This means it cannot live beyond a short period of time.) She and the doctors know the fetus or baby is going to die, and soon. If late term abortion is not available, she is forced to walk around carrying the pregnancy to term, if the fetus survives that long.

Furthermore, "bans" having to do with late term abortion have often pertained to banning a certain METHOD of performing a late term abortion. These bans actually force a doctor to be limited in his choice of what kind of method of surgery to do in these very unfortunate incidences.

The bans forbid the procedure that is actually the one that is most likely to preserve the health of the mother. The ugly truth is that the fetus' head, in certain abnormalities, becomes so large that it is impossible to get it out of the woman successfully, without flaying her uterus and rendering her unable to have future babies.

And this after finding out that her current fetus is incompatible with life, having walked around for so many months with her protruding belly and hope for the future.

Perhaps she is left in the horrifying position to hope and pray that the fetus dies before she goes into labor so that her uterus will not be lost and she can have children in the future.

First, there are not precedents where politicians have made laws restricting the method of surgery or method of procedure that doctors may use. Doctors ought to be trusted to choose among the safest alternatives for their patients. No one wants a late term abortion. Would you? No. So don't assume anyone else on this board would want one.

If you were in a position where you were walking around late in your pregnancy, elated at your soon to be born child, being feted at baby showers in your honor, and you found out your fetus will die soon or will die soon after it's born, you might consider the possibility of a late term abortion, if it were available in your state, but it probably isn't. And if you had enough money to travel to a state where you could get a late term abortion, you just might consider it, or, you might not. If it's not legal anywhere in the country, you won't be able to consider it.

I will try to save the lecture on another point, the point that if you don't believe in abortions don't work in a pharmacy, etc. for another time. There are lots of people who work for pharmacies who deny people Plan B contraceptives (known as the morning after pill) because scientists and doctors theorize that technically it prevents implantation of a fetus rather than preventing a fetus from forming in the first place. Secondly, do you realize that physicians in training do not have to be trained on how to do abortions (I mean regular, routine, first trimester abortions here). Physicians can opt to never be trained in how to perform an abortion, if they so choose to abstain because it goes against their moral compass. I respect the position of allowing people to refrain from certain things that go against their beliefs. However, there comes a point where there are no abortion providers available in a certain person's area. A few years ago, the accurate statistic was that 80% of counties in the US has no abortion provider. While I respect a physician's right to follow his own beliefs, the medical needs of a patient come first and physicians have certain responsibilities to patients that ordinary citizens do not.

I'm not an OB/GYN. I am not an abortion provider nor do I work for one. This type of thing is part of my professional area of expertise though.

Philly Nanny said...

Oh boy. I hoped that my story wouldn't bring this sort of stuff up, and I think that my soapbox comment fanned the flames. I apologize for that.

I don't want to use my regular name, I'm sorry to hear about your sister and her kid. It is not anyone's place to judge another person's decisions, especially in a situation like that. Thanks for sharing.

cali mom said...

I just have to point out that Downs Syndrome does not show up as a "dark spot on the brain" in an ultrasound. It can ONLY be dignosed by an amnio, becaue it is caused by an abnormal chromosome.

I don't want to use my regular name on here said...

Well I think she had both tests but not sure.

antiobama said...

Do you get this? Your commie loving, hippie, smoking, liberal president is 100 % for partial birth abortions and was the only member of the senate that lent his support to a bill authorizing them.

We are driving at 200 miles an hour toward a time and a place where there is no sense of right and wrong and life has no meaning.

down's syndrome diagnosis said...

New poster here, but have to agree with the frustrated respondent above - I hate when people start proclaiming medical information as "fact" when it is far from it.

It is true that Down's Syndrome is a trisomy and thus only 100% diagnosed by chromosomal analysis. However, this can be down by CVS as well as amnio. It can also be done by preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the case of patients who need to do IVF.

Further, a nuchal translucency test is now commonly done as a screening test in many pregnancies, and likely to become increasingly common. Nuchal fold thickness combined with a simple blood test, and other signs on ultrasound done by a skilled radiographer can detect as much as 95% of DS.

Thus, the story above in which the poster's sister was told about a "dark spot in the brain" was likely a doctor's attempt to explain a serious anomaly in simple terms. Since poster said an amnio was done, we can assume the diagnosis was not Down's but rather a less common and much more serious problem. Down's is considered quite compatible with life in most cases and would not lead to a prognosis of a baby to live only a few weeks.

you don't get it said...

antiobama,

I seriously doubt that anyone is FOR any kind of abortion.

Obama is FOR choice, he wants to ensure that everyone woman can make her own decision about whether or not an abortion is right for her.

Also, I think you should google communism and maybe try reading the paper instead of just regurgitating the crap you hear on talk radio.

Lindsey said...

I don't agree with the other posts that she is a whack job, but she was totally out of line. I my self am very pro-life, and it can be very easy to let our emotions get out of control when we are talking about something we so stronly believe in, no matter what the topic is. She has no right to try to pressure you into going or belittling you in front of the kids. I would also not return to work for her. Not because her beliefs are against you, but because she displayed such disrespect for you infront of the kids. You are right this is a conversation that would have been best if done some where else.

DPA said...

It's very easy to be pro abortion, yes for abortion, not just for choice when you have no respect for life.

And in this country, we are losing respect for life.

If you live in Newark, NJ, you can murder someone and be back on the street in 6 years. And then you can rape and pilage and murder some more.

People who respect life believe in an eye for an eye. Believe it or not, the foundation for respecting life lies in executing at once those who kill.

i miss austin said...

For the one or two posters who have made comments to the effect of "if you don't want to perform abortions, you shouldn't be a certain type of doctor" or "if you don't want to prescribe contraceptives, don't work in a pharmacy" etc. that is just silly. Pro-choice means you are supportive of everyone being able to make their own choice, and these people can choose that! People have to travel for specific medical procedures all the time, so what if they have to travel for abortions? If some doctors are of the mindset that performing an abortion is the same as committing murder, for you to say that the patient's need should still come first is ridiculous. There will always be plenty of drs willing to do this, even if the girl in question has to drive a few hours.

They can choose not to provide services that they think are morally compromising, but still be in a certain profession. An actress can say she will never go nude for role; it may limit the parts she can get, but it is her choice. If a restaurant owner's religious beliefs say that it is wrong to consume alcohol, he can choose not to serve any at his establishment; it may limit the clientele, but it is still his choice and he shouldn't have to serve it because that is what people want/expect.

In most cases, a person isn’t going to suffer/die without an immediate abortion, so she should have the foresight to be able to plan a day trip to the nearest clinic if their own town doesn’t have a dr willing to do it for her.

you don't get it said...

DPA

YEah!!! Respect life by killing. Pure genius...like the name says, you just don't get it.

you don't get it said...

i miss austin,
If you think you can compare Actors and restaurant owners do doctors, you are confused. Doctors take an oath! An ER doctor cannot refuse to work on a child molster whose life is in danger. An ER doctor cannot choose to let a serial killer die. They take an oath to do their job and put feelings aside...

You just don't get it.

mom said...

i miss austin,
Good points. And, BTW, a procedure to end a life threatening procedure is not necessarily considered an "abortion" (in the sense we are talking about anyway) to a doctor who otherwise refuses to perform abortions. My OBGYN did not perform abortions because of his beliefs...but he did perform medically necessary pregnancy terminations because he was the doctor of the patients who needed them. People get so black and white on this issue. Nobody is going to let his preganant patient die because she has a dead child inside of her, or because an illness she has is threatening her life. Why do some people feel compelled to have to take what could be a logical discussion to the farthest, most unlikely, extreme? Cpuld it be that the actual facts are not enough to support their argument?

And to the dufus above who suggested that the babies heads need to be crushed sometimes because they have grown abnormally large and will tear the woman's reproductive organs to shreads during delivery...um,dingbat...then it seems that surgical intervention could do the job quite nicely...just as is done when fibroids, or anything else that needs removed, is too large to remove vaginally. No decent doctor is going to rip somebody's body to shreds...duh!

K said...

I am anti abortion,pro-life..that said..
a boss,friend,parent,teacher,spouse or friends should never force a discussion of politics on anyone.
OP,I am sorry that this situation happened. Rather than ask about political veiws conflicting with the job,I would simply state that one job condition is the right to decline discussing politics or religion as they can often cause conflicts between employers & employees.That should cover you well.

"You don't get it" I do not want to argue with you but you are very mis-informed when you state"I seriously doubt that anyone is FOR anykind abortion"
There are many young women who opt for abortions several times a year instead of using birth control.And any presidential candidate that supports abortion supports that gross mis-use as well as for medical reasons. I know of two women myself.(relations by marriage). They both live in large cities,have little income and are supported by welfare or boyfriends.It is sad but staggering that they are not alone in this decision.This information came to me through my sister who remains in contact with them(her sisters in law).
Not being argumentative,but lets be honest,many women opt for abortion because it is an easy out for some who choose not to be responsible when having sex. I cannot argue objectively on this point,and am willing to admit that however,I hate the fact that several pro abortion people claim it is mainly used for medical purposes when this is just not true.
BTW,I am not debating the living in a country where we are,as women,free to choose, issue...simply wanted to clear that up. Obama is FOR Abortion,..medical or otherwise...lets atleast be honest about that.

not a park slope nanny said...

I have to agree with K, that unfortunately, I also had a friend that used abortions as her method of birth control. I couldn't believe her reasoning when I asked her about it: BCP's make me fat, I don't like how a condom feels, diaphragms and creams are messy......
It's really sad.

RagDoll said...

Hi everyone. I'm new to posting here, but I do read often, for all of the intelligent and thoughtful advice regarding this field of employment.

I have a question. The childrens' mother intends to take them to an anti-abortion rally, and she also intends for you to accompany the family.

Aside from the obvious moral dilemma, is there away to appeal to her sensibilities regarding health/safety concerns?

Political rallies will expose the kids to people with colds, fevers, throat infections, etc. It won't be physically comfortable given the weather right now. The best case scenario is that the kids come down with nasty colds/sore throats/ear infections/what have you.

Worse is the potential that the rally could turn ugly. The issue is one that is highly charged with emotion, and if any participants on any side of the issue begin to get out of control, there is the potential for the children to be exposed to some pretty harsh crowd control tactics.

Has this mom considered the fact that the kids might be exposed to a sudden surge of a throng of people? The could be lost or hurt. What if tear gas is used? It has been known to happen.

Perhaps appealing to her desire for her kids to be safe is the way to o.

If she doesn't respond to this, I think you are well within your rights to express concern for your own physical well being due to the above described circumstances. Might that be a way to decline participation without bringing politics into the employer/employee relationship?

mom said...

Oops" Make that "Life threatening pregnancy" (not "procedure") in the second sentence of my last post.
My point was that doctors do not typically consider terminating a dangerous or seriously flawed pregnancy an "abortion" in the sense we are speaking of abortion...and so they do not send their patients searching for doctors in other states to have these medically necessary, or medically prudent procedures done.

I knew a woman who had a second trimester pregnancy terminated because testing found a serious case of spina bifida. The child may or may not have lived after birth but was determined to have a serious enough case that his life would have been painful and greatly diminished and my doctor gave her the choice of whether she wanted to terminate...and she did. And he performed the procedure. If I remember correctly, something (maybe saline?) was injected into the womb and labor induced. My same doctor refused to perform an optional abortion for a friend who came up pregnant and simply didn't want the child. That's his right to choose in action, and he deserves it.

And the idea that somebody should have to opt not to become a pharmacist (it's a very well paying profession) if they are unwilling to perform acts that they personally equate with murder is very selfish. Each person is here to live the life they choose...and nobody should be obligated to compromise their beliefs and principles in order to be at the beck and call of people who think the world revolves around what they want when they want it. A lot of things in life are not easy to come by. So what if somebody is inconvenienced by having to visit another pharmacy or doctor because the one they went to first happens to be pro life? Is that really a tragedy?

I don't want to use my regular name on here said...

Good point Mom.
I wish I could word my thought like you. : )

On a side note. Even though my sisters baby was born early. They did say at 2lbs she may be able to survive. She was able to drink breastmilk. My sister pumped it and they put it in a tube. She had so much the nurses asked her if she would donate some to another child in the unit and she did. She gave the hospital so much milk they had to tell her they can't take anymore at time being.

Anyway, she was drinking, breathing on her own and everything. She wasn't hooked up to a breathing device. Then the sad part is that she started to bleed inside the brain.
My sister was torn at that point. I remember wanting to visit in the hospital. But they wouldn't let us in the room. I saw two doctors and one nurse at least and I think a social worker talking to them. On what to do. The head doctor didn't want to give up. He started crying, because he didn't want her to die. He thought she could be saved. But in time they saw it wasn't working. So she had a room next to the NICU. Her husband and her stayed there. She was able to keep the baby with her. During the nite the baby did fall asleep and died.

My sister didn't cry no emotion. Not until a week later. At that point she had to see a counselor, etc. Even at the funeral she seemed "put together".
But it finally came out. Even now she will talk about it to us.
Shes been through alot. At such a young age. She did have two healthy children after. But when her kids were 2 and 3 her husband passed away.

Just thought I would post this because it wasn't like it was guaranteed this child was going to die. Yes, they saw a spot on the brain, but nothing is guaranteed in life. We all try and think positive especially when it comes to the ones we love.

mom said...

don't want to use you regular moniker,
That whole story just makes me cry. I am so sorry for all you have all been through. Nobody can judge what anybody else does in the midst of such a difficult and tragic situation.
We may all have ideas about what we think we would do, but I have found in life that when confronted face to face with some difficult situations, I haven't always reacted as I expected I would. I suspect that is the case with most of us.
Again, I am so sorry. And please don't feel that anybody judges your sister for her decisions...nor would/should we judge her if she had chosen the other way. Even the one person who said someting negative initially and in the heat of an argument immediately came back and apologized.

snarkymama said...

Your employer was way out of line. None of her business how your feel about this issue. She made an offer for you to join her at a social event and you declined, end of conversation.

WTF? said...

Mom, you are the one who is a "dufus." About 99% of what you've represented as "fact" about PTA is pure, unadulterated BS of the highest order as are the "views" on the subject that you attribute to our new president elect. There's a certain ugliness and dishonesty to your character that I see whenever politics come up.

mom said...

WTF,

You're right, I must be woefully misinformed. For instance, I have never in my life before heard anything about this apparent epidemic of giant headed babies that must have their skulls crushed before birth in order to save their mothers from having their reproductive organs torn to shreds...hence the apparent necessity for plentiful facilities to perform partial birth abortions.

Thanks for the "educated and informed" update. It's been a pleasure for us all, really.

WTF? said...

Try googling "severe hydrocephalus", genius. That's what PTA is FOR. Oh, and it's really, really rare and essentially only performed by two doctors in the entire U.S. Your ignorance on the topic is overwhelming. You are an interesting poster when you stick to what you actually know.

mom said...

There ya go, WTF. Now you can actually know what you're talking about before you start foaming at the mouth trying to defend your bogus information. It's all there, even your hydrocephaly theory...debunked.

Seriously, where do you get your "information." You say some seriously odd things.

http://www.actionlife.org/content/view/298/1/

BTW, not that it will probably matter to you, but I specifically stated that my problem is with people killing fully formed viable infants with this inhumane procedure when they could just as easily be allowed to slip out, without the scissors being jammed into their brains, and be adopted by one of the thousands upon thousands of childless couples who would give anything to have that child in their arms to love. (Although, I don't think fatally malformed children should be forced to endure this torturous type of death either.) But given that, I can hardly understand your venemous fervor.

I don't want to use my regular name on here said...

Exactly Mom. I don't understand how jamming a scissor in a child that is fully formed is acceptable.

It must be so painful for that child to endure that.

H said...

If these young women would stop aborting children recreationally, we wouldn't need to run off to Bangladesh on the Kremlin to adopt children, but rather from the receptacles of the conscious less, we would have our babies.

you don't get it said...

I don't want to use my regular name on here...

You guys are such a joke, no one is JAMMING scissors into anyone's brains. This is what happens when you get all your information from a whacko pro-life website.

Seriously, learn the facts from an unbiased source, then talk.

Christ on Cracker said...

Well "mom's" perhaps if you'd stop using the misnomber Partial Birth Abortion the educated on the board could take you seriously. I'd also stop at using pro-life anti-choice sites and go with factual scientific sites. They do exist.

mom said...

The testimony on the link I gave you was given before congress, and as a result of their research, partial birth abortion was made illegal. (didya happen to notice that exception for medical necessity has never been taken away? Just thought you ought to know...since you're spouting all the crap about women in dire medical need having to travel to other states to get lifesaving treatment. What a load of bull.)

mom said...

Oh, and before you go blowing a gasket, here's some advice.
Lower your "voice" and improve your argument.

K said...

Christ on Cracker and You just don't get it

as a pro life/anti abortion poster I am asking you to pls guide me to the factual scientific sites that you are speaking of.(Partial abortion) I have been unable to find them. IN fact,
I have been unable to find any that shows anything other than a pregnancy in the 5th or 6th month with a baby's body being delivered up to the neck(the head remains inside the uterus) and then a pair of scissors or other sharp medical instrument peircing the skull and a suction device suctioning out the babies branial matter.`

Pls list your "educated" resources for those of us who are still unable to see the difference between your concept and moms. Thanks!

NannyT said...

I had someone say to me they would only hire me if I voted for Obama. I do not support that man or his opinions. I told them Sorry, that if they were going to bring politics into the interview then i wouldnt be working for them cause I dont talk politics. And I told them SORRY I VOTED FOR MCCAIN!

WTF? said...

Sorry Mom, but I have no intention on relying on your whacko pro life websites for accurate medical information since they're pretty much just full of sensationlistic untruths. I just couldn't believe you'd call someone else a "dufus" when you were so completely ignorant on the topic.

mom said...

OK, WTF, Please accept my apologies for calling you a dufus.

I am interested in seeing that information K asked for. I have never seen anything like what you are telling us and if you had some factual information to show us it might go a long way in helping us understand what you are talking about. So far, all you're doing is spewing angry insults...which is far from being either educational, or supportive of your claims.

cali mom said...

OK, just to play devil's advocate a bit more Mom, what would you say if someone became a priest but refused to grant absolution to anyone coming to confess of adultery? Just because of all the sins, that one was something they had major issues with and could just NEVER find it in themselves to feel comfortable granting absolution for that one. Is it OK for priests to pick and choose which "patients" they help and what parts of their job they will do, and if someone doesn't want to have to prescribe the "morning after" pill, it's just something they shouldn't have to do as a doctor?

Jesus Crispies said...

No, dumbass, PBA is not a medical term. It's called a late term abortion or D & X. Try JAMA. But if you put in PBA, you won't get crap because the term doesn't exist in the medical world, just the fundie one.

Mom SQUARED, Congress has it wrong and stopping this type of abortion that's between a WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It's the individuals and the individual can not have their rights taken away by the Fed or State.Not to mention, Congress also voted to go to Iraq, STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. How about an original thought?

mom said...

Calimom,

I don't know much about priests, but I think they are not allowed to pick an choose which sins to absolve? But I suppose that, just as I would do if I didn't agree with the beliefs or practices of the pastor of the church I go to, I would go somewhere else.

Let me try to think of something similar that inconveniences me and see if I can make the point another way...hmmmmm. Well, OK, this is similar, but admittedly not that big of a deal in the scheme of life. I enjoy a cold beer or glass of wine and like to keep some of each on hand in the house. That was simple enough when we lived in California...just pick some up up at the grocery between the bread and the cheese aisles. When we moved to Texas we found that the old "Blue Laws" were still in effect, which means that it was illegal to sell or buy alcohol within city limits (at least everywhere within an hour of where we lived...I can't speak for all of Texas.) This meant that we had to drive to one of the out of town patches of land that was in between cities and purchase liquor in what invariably turned out to be a seedy store with scary people inside and outside, and typically witnessing at least one person sitting in a car outside consuming a bottle of something or other out of a paper bag. It kinda stunk, but we learned to live with it. Although I suppose by "we" I mean my husband, because after my first trip inside one of those I never went in again. I waited in the car and watched the people enjoying drinking their "beverages" from the bottle (and shockingly ofter from the driver's seat, I might add.) In one of the last couple of local elections our city, and the neighboring city, both put on the ballot a provision for making it legal to sell alcohol in our grocery stores inside city limits. (Beer and wind only.)It turned out to be a very contentious issue. It passed in our city, so now I can pick my wine up at the grocery store. It failed in the next city over...so now they simply come to my grocery store to buy their alcohol. Anyway, that's the closest I can relate to a law making something that is perfectly legal for me to do seriously inconvenient to do. But we made it work the times when we really wanted to. And I would venture to guess that we wanted alcohol far more frequently than most people want an at-will, non medically necessary, partial birth abortion (the only kind made illegal), or even the morning after pill. I think as far as the pills go, there are plenty of people who are pro-choice (as I mentioned, I myself actually am)...and there is a drug store on practically every corner these days...so that it would be incredibly easy to get one of the pills at any given time. I really just think that as long as we're pro CHOICE, we ought to give EVERYBODY a choice on hw they want to participate or not participate in the giving or receiving of abortions. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that seems fair to me. If somebody wants an abortion, they are free to get one in our country. If somebody doesn't want to give them, they should also be free to make that choice.

I guess its sort of akin to that argument about whether drug companies should be able to charge an arm and a leg for lifesaving medicines. Both sides have valid points. Poor people should not have to die because they can't afford medicine. That totally sucks...and yet if we force the drug companies to give away their product they will be far, far les inclined to do the very, very costly research necessary to discover those cures at all in the first place.

Jesus Crispies,
You do realize that the right to Partial Birth Abortion was never taken away from people who need it for medical reasons, right? That means that the right has been taken away mostly, if not exclusively, from people who wait until the child is almost fully grown and viable to decide, "Naaah, I'd rather not have a baby. But good golly, I've waitied so long to make my choice that if I have it now it may actually survive!"

Christ you're thick... said...

Mom-There is no such thing as a PBA. You're a bit thick aren't you? Yes, I realize it hasn't been outlawed in cases where it's necessary and I hate to tell you twits this,it hasn't changed the statistics one iota from before the ban either. Sucks for those of you who think an infant should suffer outside the womb. You give more humanity to a dying dog.

mom said...

Thick,
I admit that this is not one of my major "causes", so I am not a wealth of information. (Probably why I am not feeling the passion and anger as we discuss this that you seem to be.) But what I did find I found by looking up "Partial Birth Abortion" on the web. There were a ton of entries. I heard a lot of it when the legislation was recently passed and I was sickened.

You have been invited to present opposing information, but have thus far declined to do so? Why is that?
People are for the most part willing to learn. If you have factual information that is different to what I have read, heard, and repeated here, by all means present it and I will be more than willing to look with an open mind. In fact, I would welcome nothing more than to know conclusively that VIABLE babies are NOT being harmed in this horrific way. I don't need to be right on this one. I prefer that I am not. I think we would all feel better knowing that I have believed lies about this procedure than to have to go on thinking people are killing nearly full term infants in a painful way, or at all really. Can you just present some factual information?

I'm not trying to fight with you. Really, I am sort of at a loss to understand your anger.

Drake said...

I don't really want to jump on the bandwagon here, but I had done some research a few months back on the subject of PBA, and I have to agree with Mom. I found no evidence to dispute her argument. However, I will also say that if you have some information that I may also have missed, I would love to see it, too.

WTF? said...

Mom, you called SOMEONE ELSE a "dufus." If you'd like to apologize to THAT individual, you'll have to figure out who that is. It's got nothing to do with me.

I don't want to use my regular name on here said...

Mom is not being unkind in her statements. Why are you attacking her?

mom said...

WTF, what is wrong with you? I feel bad for you that you are so angry? And really, "dufus" has your panties in a bunch...for days on end?

Get over yourself and be rational and give us some facts or let this thread be done. This is entirely unproductive as it is. You have an audience willing and ready to hear your point of view. An audience who hopes that you are correct. This could be your moment to teach a lot of us something we may be missing and have us come over to your way of thinking on this issue. Why are you throwing it away? I would love nothing more than to be wrong about these poor babies. Make my day!

you don't get it said...

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS NOT A MEDICAL TERM. IT WAS MADE UP BY PRO-LIFE LOONIES TO SCARE WOMEN.

There are several methods of late-term abortion. And the one you describe so melodramatically is rarely ever used except in cases where the mother's life in in danger.

you don't get it said...

Didn't get to finish:

You women seem to have a hard time understand why you have never seen any information on Partial Birth Abortion that doesn't come from a religious/anti-abortion source. People have been TRYING to explain it to you.

It's like if I got together a group and we all suddenly decided to call milk "White cow juice." We made a website about it full of half-truths and exaggerations.

If you googled "White cow juice" YOU WOULDN'T LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT MILK. YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE ACESS TO MISINFORMATION.

It is the same with the term "Partial Birth Abortion"

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW!?

you don't get it said...

I can just keep on going. Coming to this site makes me sad. Obviously it's fine if we do not share the same opinions.

However, You are unwilling to educate yourselves about the TRUTH and then decide what you believe is right and wrong. No one should follow anyone else blindly. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. REAL RESEARCH. I don't think I want to be part of an online community that fosters ignorance.

mom said...

You don't get it,
YOU don't get it.

Our research has given us what we believe. Obviously the information on this type of barbaric abortion is most likely to come form those who oppose it. Just as I would not expect a pro choice site to post those gory details and then, after they have seen that, try to convince people that abortions are OK, or even good to have.

So, If you have something legitimate to say, oyu're going ot have to back it up.

I could come on here and angrily accost everybody with the statement that the sky is green in post after post after post...and call everybody names who disagreed with me....but that wouldn't make it true, or convince anybody that I knew what I was talking about.

Make with the facts, or pipe down already. This is getting very tiresome. I don't care to have along winded debate where only one side presents any information at all.

mom said...

Cali,
I do have a hypothetical for you that may better illustrate my thoughts:

Suppose your little guy from this moment on grows up with a dream of becoming a doctor...because some kids do know that long in advance what they want to be, and go on to become that. Say he has a lifelong dream of wanting to help people, to heal them of their sicknesses. And say he grows also into a man who has pro-life leanings and believes at the very core of his being that abortion is murder...and he doesn't know if he could live with himself if he ever personally performed an unnecessary one. And then say that , just as he is about to enter medical school, or worse, just after he graduates, the government passes a law that says he must perform abortions on demand if he wants to practice medicine...and for no other reason than the patient "feels like" abortig a child...which he, remember, feels would be the same as committing murder. (Because there are some people who do feel that strongly about non-medically necessary abortion of any kind.)

Should he have to choose between his lifelong dream and his moral/ethical code? Should he be made to agree that if he wants to save people and cure them of their sicknesses, he must also agree to kill a few as well? And if he was just that strongly moral of a person that he chose to not be a doctor rather than compromise what he feels in his soul is wrong, wouldn't we all be worse off for having forced such a fine young man out of a profession where somebody like him could make a world of difference in countless lives?

I feel this is not a whole lot different than the situation where restaurant owners choose not to have smoking sections in their restaurants. (Although this is, admittedly, a whole lot more volatile of a topic.) Sure smokers have a right to smoke, but a business owner has the right to decide how he will conduct his business and what he will and will not allow concerning his own business. It's inconvenient, sure. And smokers are outraged. So now a smoker has a choice to choose a different restaurant and smoke there or go to the non-smoking guy's place and refrain from smoking. True, more and more places are becoming non smoking establishments...but there's always going to be somebody out there who wants to pick up all that good business that all of the other restaurant owners are turning down...and that guy will be busy, available to all, and make a killing (no pun intended) in the process. I just feel that there are enough pro choice people out there that allowing EVERYBODY to stand where they want on this issue will not result in women no longer having a choice, or being able to get what they want and need within a reasonable distance from their homes. Why should we force anybody to do something that they feel will hurt them to the core?

Abortion is Anti Woman said...

If you can stomach spouting Bullshit rhetoric in order to defend the killing of human children, then surely you have the stomache to watch this.

pt 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T33BpDzkDOs&feature=related

pt 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJzSiAPXTiQ&feature=related

this is not my usual name said...

Whew! You guys have been busy while I wasn't on here for a few days! I must loudly applaud Jesus Crispies, WTF?, Christ on Cracker, and You Don't Get It, for their not only funny monikers, but their spot on rationality!!!! Here's to rational educated women everywhere!!

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but unfortunately Obama is NOT a defender of legal late term abortion. He has stated he is not in favor of late term abortion unless the woman's life/health is in danger, and he has specifically stated that mental health or mental wellness does not qualify.

This means that Obama would NOT support late term abortion in a case where the fetus is incompatible with life. The expectant mother would just have to walk around fully pregnant, until it dies and can be aborted, or will have to walk around fully pregnant, give birth to it and watch it die shortly thereafter. Sounds like fun, right? Something we would all want to defend right? Something you'd want for your daughter, no?

Do you realize that the fetus being incompatible with life does NOT mean a late term abortion is medically necessary??? It seems like genuises like Mom do not realize this, so I figured I'd point it out.

The only prominent politician to actually have the balls to come out in public and state that she is in favor of legal late term abortion is . . . .(drumroll please) Hillary! Hooray for Hillary.

REMEMBER folks, legal late term abortion does ****NOT**** mean late term abortion ON DEMAND!! It just means that if the fetus is incompatible with life, then a doctor *could* (if he/she so decided) do something about it instead having the mother walk around suffering. Now, it's currently NOT legal and not possible in all but a handful of states!

Wake up!

mom said...

Please don't make me use the "d" word again. I've known a few women in my life who have had unborn babies with defects that may or may not have been incompatible with life. None of them has even had the doctor suggest she continue the pregnancy against her wishes.
Taking your argument into fantastical, unrealistic scenarios just makes you sound silly. You know that would never happen...some poor woman forced to carry a doomed fetus to term. Grow up. And frankly, this whole argument about incompatible with life infants is kind of way off topic as far as it relates to me and my position...since what I object to is healthy viable infants being killed.
If you can show me something that makes it clear that that doesn't happen, there's nothing to talk about here. Otherwise it just seems you are arguing for the sake of argument. Unless you are arguing against the one thing I have said and you do think healthy viable infants should be subjected to this and I missed your point between all of the factless, insult ridden, angry posts?

chick said...

Mom, I have a question for you. You seem to be against abortion. Does that feeling extend to cases involving rape and/or incest?

I ask because I think people who call themselves "pro-life" should only do so if there is NO wiggle room in their belief about abortion. If it's OK to have an abortion for certain reasons, it should be OK to have an abortion for virtually any reason.

It's black and white, IMO, when it comes to legalities and the opinions of people NOT faced with the choice of having an abortion. The woman facing that choice, her partner, and her doctor are the only people capable of distinguishing their own particular shades of gray.

I am pro-choice, and I frankly find it ridiculous to think of use of the BCP or the "morning after" pill as an abortion.

IMO, pharmacists that believe preventing implantation of a zygote to be abortion should always have another pharm working with them, so that women can get the meds they have been prescribed.

I also think that far far fewer women use abortion as BC than many people would like us to believe. Maybe that's because I don't want to believe many women could be that callous, but...who knows? I certainly wouldn't think aborting repeatedly would be a choice many would make.

So, I will hop off my soapbox, and wait for your response.

cali mom said...

Mom, my argument is NOT that all doctors should have to perform abortions on demand. More that the refusal to prescribe RU-486 aka the "morning after pill" is based on nothing but an absolutely ludicrous "every sperm is sacred" hysteria, and that a doctor, like a priest, should NOT be able to pick and choose parts of their job based on outlandish and unreasonable personal opinions. Seriously, in one millisecond an egg is floating around on its own, and .08 seconds later it has joined with a sperm so now it's "murder" to prevent it from attaching to the uterus? THAT is the argument being used to allow doctors to refuse to perform parts of their job for patients in need. I can understand refusing to end a life, butI'm betting these "doctors" kill ants all the time without a second thought and even ants have a whole lot more than 2 cells. (Yes, bring on the loons who will now scream about these 2 *specific* human cells being a "life". One egg, one sperm. No brain, no heart. "Life?" Really?

Just as a doctor would never be allowed to refuse to prescribe blood pressure medications for black people because they are actually a white supremacist and want all black people to die, I don't see how a doctor can be allowed to refuse to write a prescription for a woman for this pill. Sure, black people who need the medication could eventually find another doctor who would see them, and so could a woman who wanted her doctor to prescribe the pill, (in 24 hours or less?) but where do we draw the line? (And does the patient who has paid money to a doctor who then refuses to perform the necessary service get a refund of their fee?)

mom said...

Chick,
I'm answering you and Cali mom together. I am not answering that multimonikered whacko again unless she comes up with some facts. I've pasted your original e-mail Chick, so I can respond to each section.

Cali, if its just the abortion pill we're talking about here, I personally don't consider that abortion any more than I consider birth control pills abortion. If I were a pharmacist I would readily dispense it. Still, because some people feel very strongly in the other direction, I hate to impose my will on them. I LOVE Chick's suggestion below that pharmacies make every effort to have somebody on duty who will dispense that pill to customers if they have somebody on duty who will not. And yeah, I would hope a doctor would not charge a patient if they refused to give them what they came for. Maybe the nurses could be sure to ask what patients are coming in for and let them know up front that doctor x will not prescribe that pill for personal reasons, so as not to waste anybody's time.


chick said...
Mom, I have a question for you. You seem to be against abortion. Does that feeling extend to cases involving rape and/or incest?

mom said:
Chick, This whole thread has taken the weirdest turn with nut job on my tail making all sorts of weird accusations. I am actually pro life. I believe all I have ever objected to here is the practice of killing late term VIABLE infants inhumanely...and actually I hate doing it at all. I am waiting anxiously for somebody to show me that that practice is, in fact, not taking place. I would prefer to know that I am wrong there.

CHick said:
I ask because I think people who call themselves "pro-life" should only do so if there is NO wiggle room in their belief about abortion. If it's OK to have an abortion for certain reasons, it should be OK to have an abortion for virtually any reason.

Mom said:
Chick, I agree. I don't agree with all of the reasons why people have abortions, and I wish a lot didn't. But at the same time there are so many valid reasons why people do have abortions...and if I start to choose which reasons I personally find acceptable and which ones I don't...well then I'm just playing God at that point, and that's not a job I want or am in any way capable of performing. So I feel I have to go with the "all in" stance of Pro-choice.


Chick said:
It's black and white, IMO, when it comes to legalities and the opinions of people NOT faced with the choice of having an abortion. The woman facing that choice, her partner, and her doctor are the only people capable of distinguishing their own particular shades of gray.

Mom said:
Well spoken, Chick.

Chick said:
I am pro-choice, and I frankly find it ridiculous to think of use of the BCP or the "morning after" pill as an abortion.

Mom said:
I agree concerning the BCP pill, alhtough I do not go so far as to think others who think the opposite are ridiculous. I realize this is a very sensitive subject and that some people do consider any of it at all "murder." Although I don't agree that using that pill is murder, I feel I have to respect the feelings of those who do.

Chick said:
IMO, pharmacists that believe preventing implantation of a zygote to be abortion should always have another pharm working with them, so that women can get the meds they have been prescribed.

Mom said:
Such a great idea I wish I had thought of it myself!


Chick said:
I also think that far far fewer women use abortion as BC than many people would like us to believe. Maybe that's because I don't want to believe many women could be that callous, but...who knows? I certainly wouldn't think aborting repeatedly would be a choice many would make.

Mom said:
I hope that is true!

So, I will hop off my soapbox, and wait for your response.

Chick, (You too Cali!) thank you for taking the time to ask your questions of me considerately. I think this is an important subject and discussing it rationally may help us all learn some things we didn't know...or help us have some compassion for those who think differently.

The Silent Scream said...

Anti-woman, you listed two Pt. 2's, and then 3.

Here's the complete video for anyone interested in watching it.

cali mom said...

I will check out these links later (they're long!) but have to say first that "information" on abortion presented by a group that declares itself "pro-life" is as suspect as going to a neo-nazi website to find "facts" on the holocaust. And I can fully see you don't get it's point-that to get accurate medical information, it's necessary to search for the accurate medical term.

K said...

yeah well Hillary walked around with her husbands balls in her purse for years too but that was nothing to brag about either!

Advocating D&X,late term abortions is outrageous not to mention morally wrong. Playing God is a very dangerous thing to do.
Your attempt at justifying such proceedures is also questionable? While your info may be tru(yet lacking statistics) You have forgotten to mention that in addition to performing these late term abortions in the manner which you describe,
They are in fact also performed when babies are diagnosed with Downs,Spina Bifida and other life changing but not threatening abnormalties that often are not detected until between 15 to 20 weeks into the pregnancy.
Thousands of pregnancies are terminated daily in this country becuase of undesirable defects and abnormalities and unwanted pregnancies(25.5% according to the CDC) while only a few hundred are performed due to true medical emergencies.(3.3 risk to fetal health & 2.8 risk to maternal health again according to CDC)The number 1 reason (according to CD stats) given for the reason for the abortion is :

25.5% wanting to postpone childbearing
21.1% cannot afford baby:
14 %relationship problems:
12% to young
Rape accounts for less than 1% of all abortions

Late term abortions performed after 16 weeks..reasons given for waiting
71% misjudged gestation or did no know they were pregnant
48%had trouble making arrangements for abortion
33% afraid to tell partner or parents
24% just simply took a while to decide weather or not to have abortion
2% fetal problems diagnosed late in pregnancy

Okay so,as for all of the emergencies and dangers to mom and baby or rape that is just a nice try to justify an otherwise unjustifiable proceedure that has become common place for woman who take no responsibility in their own sexuality!
As I have stated, I admit that I am not objective when it comes to this issue,however,these are not stats that I made up. They speak for themselves and to sit here listening to someone try and push the whole justification process just blows me away!
Just be honest. The percentage of women who truly REQUIRE an abortion for "dangerous,medical reasons"( or rape) is staggeringly low and does not support the millions of abortions performed annually in the US.

Would never have had an abortion if I had seen that first said...

The link is to "the silent scream". Unfortunately on utube, the image is not as crystal clear as it is on video. I have seen the video. The video is of an ultra sound during an abortion of a 12 wk old fetus. You can see the fully formed baby sucking his thumb, getting disturbed by the tools, panicking, thrashing around, screaming, being sucked out a tube and then, when his head does not fit through the suction tube, as they don't, the head is poked and crushed to fragmented bone.

ericsmom said...

I am sure most women in their lifetime regret having an abortion. How could you not remember when that childs birthday is coming up. Or seeing the children you kept. Do they wonder what their aborted child would look like if they were still alive?
Watching their other child(ren) growing up.

cali mom said...

I guess the thing that really sickens and infuriates me about the refusal to prescribe or deliver RU-486 or BCP's is that it CONTRIBUTES, quite clearly, to an INCREASED NUMBER of actual abortions. It's not rocket science-if a woman or a girl cannot get birth control in the first place, doesn't know it's available, not allowed to have it, it simply is NOT available anywhere that she can get to, etc, there WILL obviously be more cases of unwanted pregnancies. This "abstinence only" bullshit (hello Ms. Palin!) does NOT work, and if we are to talk about choices, how about the choice of NOT getting pregnant in the first place?

I knew a young woman who'd had a baby at age 14. Why? Because at age 13, she ended up having sex with her boyfriend, (not necessarily the best choice, but a 13 year old is a 13 year old!) and was wise enough to realize that she needed birth control to try and avoid pregnancy. She talked to her mom, and asked her mom to help her get it. Her mom's answer? No, just stop having sex. The result? A pregnant 14 year old. She made the CHOICE of not only having her baby but keeping her, and raising her with help from her mom, and it's great she had enough options to HAVE that choice to make.

I do think it's sad that there are undoubtedly some cases where not much consideration is given to the realities of the process, though I doubt that it's ever easy-breezy for the mom. I would actually not be against some form of required counseling before an abortion could be performed, even including video like the link. If it causes even a tiny percentage of women or girls to make a different choice, then that's a positive, IMO, but I think choices ARE a necessity and a right. But an informed choice is the best choice.

And I'll just throw in a link here to some of Obama's statements made today in response to the anti RvW demonstrators:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/22/national/w132740S32.DTL&hw=Obama+Roe+vs+Wade&sn=002&sc=935

dummies. said...

The silent scream is complete and utter BULLSHIT. Here is a link to a pdf where MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS dispute it's claims. Once again: who will you believe doctors and nurses or religious fanatics?

I'll go with option 1.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact-anti-abortion-video.pdf

not my usual name said...

"dummies.", another humorous monkier, but I know you can do even better. I'll be waiting here for my next laugh . . .

Mom, and others: It's true that late term abortion is NOT legal in most states, only in a handful of states! Wake up! This is the whole point. Go ask your OB/GYN if you don't believe me. If you live in a state where late term abortion is not legal, your doctor will surely know.

It is TRUE that women whose fetus' abnormalities are discovered only LATE in the pregnancy would not be able to get a late term abortion unless they travel to one of those states (or live in one of them already).

This is the SHOCKING truth!

Frankly, I'm surprised that you, mom, who is usually rational about most other subjects (though maybe not religiously-tied ones) are not accepting of this bit of fact.

mom said...

Well, the people I have known whose babies needed removed late in pregnancy had no trouble getting that done by their doctors. I have lived in two states where I have seen this occur. Nobody had to travel and nobody had to go to one of those "handful" of doctors you mention. A woman's doctor will take care of her as his patient if the need arises for a termination at any stage of the pregnancy...in my real life experience anyway.

Do you have first hand knowldedge of somebody being forced to carry a doomed infant to term, or having to travel to another state to seek out the alleged two or three doctors who will help women in those tragic situations?

mom said...

But again, since people seem to be entirely overlooking this point...
My objection is to killing healthy ViABLE infants that have been allowed to grow to where they can survive if they were simply delivered.
Is that really such a hard thing to understand? Do you oppose the idea of protecting HEALTHY VIABLE infants that much, or are you simply so hell bent on arguing that you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore?

It just seems such a tragic waste to me that somebody would be so afraid of letting that child slip out alive and be adopted that they have to deliver it up to its head, inflict a fatal injury and then, moments later, deliver a dead baby that would have otherwise been perfectly healthy.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?!

I don't want to use my regular name on here said...

Because adoption is too hard for these moms. They are lazy. Thats why they didn't use condoms or other means of birth control. They are irresponsible. And lets not blame the women only. Its the men that get them pregnant that should take on the responsibility as well.

Instead, of dealing with the headache of filling out forms for adoption. Its easier to just let a doctor dump their kid in the garbage.

so what said...

I guess its all about money. The more abortions the doctor does the nicer cars you start to see in the lots.

cali mom said...

Oh brother. No name, you DO realize, don't you, that there is NO form of contraception that is 100% effective ALL the time? My best friend has had an abortion and she was very diligent about using her birth control diligently AND properly, and still became pregnant.

cali mom said...

So what, that's one of the absolute dumbest comments ever posted here. But that's why you said it, right?

cali mom said...

Dummies, thanks very much for this info. Now that I've read it, I'll apply it as needed when I watch the movie. I do get the impression though, that the opposing view is presented as sensationally as the "pro-life" view.

NO Name said...

RRRROOWW..HIIISSSS ..someone need a platter of milk to go with that nasty hairball??

so what said...

No your stupid for not thinking its a Money Making business.

cali mom said...

So, you are saying you think that doctors should all work for free? Or only abortion doctors?

And, did you mean "you're"?

Yes you did.

so what said...

What are we the grammar police. Where did I say doctors should work for free? I said basically they do it for the money. They are paid well for doing what they do. Easy money.

Certainyly NOT too lazy. said...

I don't want to use my regular name:

That is offensive. I had an abortion. I was on birth control, but i messed it up. I missed a few days. Do you really think I didn't consider adoption because I was "too lazy to fill out papers for an adoption?" ARE YOU KIDDING????

How about, I didn't want to be pregnant for nine months. My schoolwork and job involved a lot of physical labor that would be made very difficult by a big belly and all of the other things that come with pregnancy. I thought about all of the children in the world who haven't been adopted. Children who have been sent from foster home to foster home or are stuck in orphanages. Why would I bring another unwanted child into this world when there are so many that still need homes?

I tried my best not to get pregnant and I never thought of abortion as a form of birth control.

And let me tell you, I don't regret my abortion for a second. Leaving the clinic afterward, all I felt was relief. Relief that I would not have to care for a child before I was ready and able. Relief that I would not be having a child who would not be provided with all of the things a child needs.

mpo said...

Certainly not too Lazy,
I cna understand not wanting or being able to be pregnant for nine monmth. I cannot understand not having a single regret. You sound absolutely cold and horrible.

And fyi, the list is long for those waiting for babies-babies of every color. No baby goes to an orphanage.

Certainly not lazy said...

MPO:

http://www.orphanage.org/

Look at that list of orphanages and tell me no child ends up in one...You need to open your eyes to the situation of women all over the world, not just in your own backyard.

not my usual name said...

To Certainly Not Too Lazy, don't listen to extremists like Mpo. Just remember that something like 48% of the female US population either have had or will have an abortion. Those that are derogatory toward you have their own issues, I'm quite sure. Pay no attention to Mpo as who knows what she has done. It's healthy that you did not have regrets.

certainly not lazy said...

Really? I'm cold and horrible? Let me tell you about myself:

This cold and horrible person is now a foster mom.

This cold and horrible person spent time working with habitat for humanity in Africa and Asia.

This cold and horrible person volunteers her time and skills to help underprivileged children.

This cold and horrible was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina volunteering with the red cross.

What have you done?

cali mom said...

So what, I'm not sure now which is is tupider - your first comment or your 3rd one. If being a doctor of any kind is "easy money", why don't you quit your babysitting job and go to med school? Let us know how it's working out, in between bon bons and latte breaks, k?

Do you mean you think that only abortion doctors make "easy money", or does that also apply to oncologists, brain surgeons, OBGYNs, pediatric cardiologists, ER doctors...? Is there ANY type of doctor you think actually works for their wages?

cali mom said...

Good news, so what. Mpo's remark about "no baby goes to an orphanage" is even stupider than anything you've said so far. I guess people just build them because they are so decorative on the landscape and there are so many bored people standing around with too much time on their hands, and so much surplus money to be wasted that they are fully staffed just so people can have enjoyable hobbies?

shawna said...

Idiot from Cali,
Let me know if you know where I can get an American baby. I don't have 40,000 for attorneys fees and have been on the B list for 5 years now.

dummies. said...

So what,

People who are money-hungry do things like Bernie Madoff. They steal and cheat. They do not spend 10 years studying and go hundereds of thousands of dollars into debt (to pay for school) like doctors do.

An abortion is not a particularly profitable procedure. Doctors in it for the money often become plastic surgeons because, for the most part, they deal in cash instead of with insurance companies.

This isn't to say that all or most plastic surgeons are greedy--i'm just trying to point out that there are other specialties where the pay is way better and the work is less demanding.

dummies. said...

Shawna,

Maybe you haven't adopted yet because of your anger issues.

to the angry lady said...

I was just getting ready to say the same thing. It's kind of hard to hide that kind of aggression!

mom said...

Awww girls, be nice. I didn't get anger from her post, just frustration. I can't even imagine how very painful and frustrating it must be to be childless against one's wishes, can you? I hope you get your baby very soon Shawna!

When facing infertility myself, I found myself being irrationally at the idea of drug addicts lying around and getting pregnant repeatedly with babies they didn't even want when I seemed to be able to have no babies, despite my best efforts. It was my own personal "life is so unfair" pity party. I imagine that this whole thread is painful for Shawna. Cut her a little slack.

No Regrets said...

I would just like to agree that I, too, became pregnant on BCP and also had an abortion. And while leaving the clinic, I also felt nothing but relief. I was not "happy" about it, but relieved that I had a choice in regards to my future.

And 10 years later, while sitting with my loving husband and beautiful daughter, with a life that I chose, I do not regret that decision in the slightest.

I must confess, I could not have given my child up for adoption. 9 months of carrying the baby would have been too much for me and I would have decided to keep him/her. And there I would have been, with child, in an abusive relationship, all kinds of dysfunctional needing help because I had no family to speak of. And no doubt, people would be complaining that I needed help from the government.

But due to that difficult choice, I had time to mature, learn some very hard lessons, complete my education and make a happy AND healthy life for myself. I would most definitely NOT be here now, if but not for that choice.

I agree that a very small percentage of women abuse that choice (I also agree the percentage is smaller than what pro-lifers would have us believe) - but in the end it is their life and their choice. Why does it have anything to do with the rest of us? We are not forced to deal with their consequences, why should we force a decision upon them?

Regarding the pro-life issue... I would feel a lot better about pro-lifers if I knew that all of them were adopting and fostering children, as well as donating to causes that help single mothers, instead of wasting their time harassing women making difficult decisions and carrying hateful signs around in the name of God. Just saying...

like it is said...

Too bad your daughter will never know her brother or sister.

jada said...

Like it is -
That's messed up. 'No regrets' sounds like she has a good head on her shoulders and made the decision that was right for her.

Personally, I am Pro-Choice. I don't think I'd ever have an abortion, and thankfully I've never had to make that choice - but I don't think we should take away the rights of someone else that has decided that it wasn't in their best interest to have that child. I won't even get on the subject of LT abortion, because then it get's really murky for me and I tend to think after a certain amount of time, you need to make that all-important decision, but the last thing YOU should be doing - 'like it is' - is running your damn mouth off and saying something like that. I would love to know what YOUR decision would have been if you were forced to make one in the same situation, or an even worse one.

No Regrets said...

Like it is: Is it too bad? Really? Too bad that my daughter won't know a sibling with an abusive father and resentful mother? Too bad she won't know a mother working 2 jobs just to keep her head above water? Too bad she won't know the welfare system?

I sure don't begrudge women who have children in horrible situations and do their best to rise above it, in fact I admire them for their strength, but let's not pretend that it's preferable to the alternatives.

Adoption not death said...

"yes, I am the result of rape,but I am so glad I did not get the death panalty for the crime of my father"_ Julie Makamaa(Conceived in rape and given up for adoption by her 18 yr old birth mother Lee Ezell

just curious said...

Mom, just curious. You say you are pro-life, but how do you feel about pregnancy terminations when the baby is seriously ill? That can cover a variety of conditions...

a said...

just curious:

Scroll up. This has all been covered.

b said...

pro life means anti-abortions.
You cannot claim both,you are either one or the other.

mom said...

Just curious. Maybe I made a mistake somewhere, but I believe I have said all along that I am pro choice. I just think that when a healthy infant has grown long enough that it can survive outside the womb it's time to let it live. If the woman must have it removed, fine. But why go to the extra measure of actually purposefully killing it? Why not let it slip out alive? I really don't see how anybody can object to that concept. Why shouldn't it be allowed to live?

just curious said...

Mom, I have been reading again. It is just that you said in one post that you were pro-life, but then in an earlier post you said that you were pro-choice. I really know very little about PBA, what you say sounds dreadful.

so what said...

Because some people have the hearts of the devil. That is the reason it doesn't bother them to do a PBA.

not my usual name said...

Mom, because it can't be gotten out alive. We went over this, remember?

so what said...

Oh please a baby at eight or nine months all of a sudden has to be killed? Come on. How come it can't come out? If she can't push it out for whatever reason, they can do a cesarean.

mom said...

not your usual name,
I'm afraid you're on your own. You'll have to fight with yourself from now on. I'm officially bored.

cali mom said...

So what, did you have to study to get that stupid, or are you just naturally talented that way? NO ONE aborts babies at "8 or 9 months". No wonder you're so angry, you just don't understand what everyone around you is talking about. Do some homework and then try to converse.

so what said...

Fucking bitch what do you think a PBA is? They can extract the baby at seven months, or eight months. So you don't consider a baby aborted at eight months of age a "real living child". What is it then?

Women that go into labor early at eight months their baby really isn't considered a baby? What is it then? An alien??

cali mom said...

I'd say that your 8 month "PBA" (if such a thing actually existed, which it doesn't) might be a YOU. Something caused some damage on you.

You tried first to claim that 9 month old babies were being "aborted". Nice backpedaling, but why not put your anger to some good use and show us some links to documented cases of 8 month old babies being aborted. Not just hysterical anti-choice lies and propaganda please. Facts. Got em? Show em. Thanks.

EFG said...

calimom,the fact that you support any abortion is sickening. yes,perhaps the person you are so enjoying calling names and attacking are pushing the stats a bit,reality is that D& X abortions are performed and they are performed on babies that are viable outside of the womb. So pls,backdown girl,stop foaming and why not just admit that you,like many others here,support a womens right to choose to end one life because it might inconvenience anothers. Stats have proven that more abortions are performed because women" just don't want a baby at this time" than for any other reason. Trying to justify it by debating weather it is morally wrong at 8 months but not 3 months is just ridiculous and done only to distract. Killing something live is killing something live and if you can live with that then so be it. Thats on your conceince..But call yourself what you really are: Pro-Abortion.

PS I love you said...

I truly hope that all of pro baby killers are just as adamant when it comes to the death penalty and frying the son of a bitches that rape and molest women & children!
Please do tell?!

No Regrets said...

I think there is a VAST difference between "pro baby killers" and those that are "pro-choice". And it is truly exhausting trying to explain that difference. I am absolutely pro-choice, in that I don't feel the government should make decisions regarding my body. Period. Then end. Yet, I think the act of killing babies is pretty damn horrific. The debate starts, of course, with when a fetus becomes a baby (and I'll let you people argue that to your hearts content). This debate becomes so heated because people feel the need to live in the extremes of black and white, when anyone with a bit of common sense can see that with 300 million people living in this country, there is bound to be a lot of gray.

And seriously people, it doesn't help any argument when you start becoming hateful and calling names. It just negates everything you said before and after and makes your point-of-view moot. As well as annoying those who are trying to have an intelligent conversation...

jada said...

No regrets
I agree. I understand how this debate can become heated, and that is fine and expected, but some posters are really getting very emotional and letting it get away from them. Every time you post, I am really interested in what you have to say, no regrets, because you do it so calmly and maturely. Thank you for that.

Now, the argument on a 7-8-9 mo baby, as far as I know, even if the child is dead, they will induce labor and if possible, you will deliver vaginally. If for some reason there's complications for the mother, the Drs. will do a cesarean. Otherwise, I've never heard or read anywhere about a Dr. "aborting" a child that far along in pregnancy.

No Regrets said...

Nor have I heard of such a thing Jada. I once knew a girl who had a "late term" abortion and she was 5 months along. I admit that the idea of administering saline to kill otherwise healthy babies was disturbing, and something I doubt I could do (never say never). But while I am not comfortable with the idea of late-term abortions, once again I must admit that it is not my choice. Not my life. And not my conscious.

Thank you for the compliment, as well. I feel just as strongly as others on the matter, but I know I cannot change minds, just shed another light on the controversial subject.

cali mom said...

No Regrets, you illustrate exactly WHY the choices need to be available to ALL pregnant women and girls. I guess that so what hasn't yet been able to locate that documentation on "abortions" of 8 and 9 month old babies.

EFG said...

So Calimom what is your argument? That it is okay to abort at 4,5,6 months but not at 8 months?

not my usual name said...

To So what, go back and read. It can't come out by c-section because the head is too big.

This thread is so full of a lack of rigourous thinking. It is truly pathetic. Rationality is necessary when talking about late term abortion.

In fact, it's unbelievable that after clarifications have been pointed out to you all, that so many of you are still using the inaccurate term "PBA."

In fact, I'm not "fighting" with anyone but instead am trying to shed some light by providing fact to enlighten you out of your ignorance. The truth about late term abortion IS shocking, I know, but what is more shocking is that some on this thread are not accepting of the reality about it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
to not your usual name said...

not ususal name,
where are you getting this informaton about the giant heads? You do realize that the head can easily be brought down to a smaller size by simply extracting the excess fluid, right?
You do realize that people have giant tumors removed successfuly through surgery, right?
You do realize that medical necessity (which a giant head that could not be successfully reduced would qualify as)has never been affected by the current legislation, right?
You do realize that you're beginning to sound ridiculous, right?

Duh! said...

not my usual name -

"It can't come out by c-section because the head is too big."

The MAIN reason for C-sections being performed on women is BECAUSE they can't deliver vaginally from a too big of a head!

cali mom said...

EFG, it took you this long to understand? You're a real rocket scientist for sure!

In case you hadn't figured it out, there ARE some major biological differences between coral and giraffes. Just as there are between a fetus at 5 months and 8 months. You knew that, right?

prolife all the way! said...

Check out CNN online..disgusting article about abortion clinic staff ....one murder one too many..stop the abortions!!!