Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Loves daugher, bummed that she's alive

Abortion activist recounts her tale

An abortion advocate shares her story: In 1961, she wanted an abortion. She went to Mexico to get one, saw the nasty conditions and went home and had her baby. "I am thankful that my daughter is alive and well and happy," the woman said. "But each and every day I am reminded of the fact that she exists. My life would have been much different if I would have been able to [have the abortion]."

How can she love her child and be thankful that she's alive and well and happy, and simultaneously reflect every day how much she wishes she'd have been able to kill her?

Is this organic brain dysfunction? Did this woman do a lot of drugs?

She got her happy ending, and she's bitching about it.

23 comments:

Tlaloc said...

"How can she love her child and be thankful that she's alive and well and happy, and simultaneously reflect every day how much she wishes she'd have been able to kill her?"

Preventing "her" is not the same as killing her. It is only by ignoring this that you manage to pretend her statement is irrational.

It is no more irrational than a parent loving their kids but still wishing their birth control had worked. Or wondering about how their life would be different if it had.

I love my kids but when i think about my life and how I might have done it differently had i the chance there is very little chance I would have had them. The circumstances were simply not for the best.



"Is this organic brain dysfunction?"

The brain is nuanced, except for those who try to boil everything down to the simplest terms.

Lauren said...

I'm sure your kids are happy to know your sentiments, Tlaloc.

Nothing more loving than knowing that, given the chance, your parents would erase you.

Tlaloc said...

"Nothing more loving than knowing that, given the chance, your parents would erase you."

Think about how supremely egocentric that view is for a moment, okay? You are saying that in all the world you expect, demand even, that everyone arrange their lives and act in order to bring about your existence.

Sorry but I don't agree with that. If my parents had the chance to relive their life I don't expect them to get together just to have me, knowing that they'll then go through a terribly brutal divorce. And yes i know they love me.

What you are advocating is not love but ultimate selfishness.

SUZANNE said...

Preventing "her" is not the same as killing her. It is only by ignoring this that you manage to pretend her statement is irrational.

Don't live in denial.

She was that fetus that would have been aborted.

It's a fact.

It is no more irrational than a parent loving their kids but still wishing their birth control had worked.

Yes it is. I'm Catholic.

Think about how supremely egocentric that view is for a moment, okay? You are saying that in all the world you expect, demand even, that everyone arrange their lives and act in order to bring about your existence.

No, I demand that everyone respect my right to LIFE and children should, too. That's not selfish, it's a right.

Lauren said...

You're right Tlaloc, it is ultimately selfish of a child to desire to be born. I'll give you that.

But it is beyond selfish that,given the chance a parent would deny their children life with full knowledge the worth of said child.

Lauren said...

You can't hide behind "potential children" on this one. You wish that your "actual children" did not exist, and would not have "allowed" them to exit if you could see YOUR future.

GrannyGrump said...

Thinking about this suddenly brought to mind the Deathtonge (from Bloom County) song: "U Stink But I (heart) U"

Life imitates art.

Tlaloc said...

"She was that fetus that would have been aborted.
It's a fact."

No actually it isn't a fact. At best it might be subjectively true but even that is a stretch. Trying to define a person and a blastocyst as sharing an identity is pretty difficult contention. Other than the genetic code what do they share? Not the same cells. Not the same mind (an early fetus not having one). Not the same dreams, hopes, fears, perspectives. Nothing about what makes you you was there when you were a clump of 8 cells. Except the DNA. And that by itself just isn't enough.



"Yes it is. I'm Catholic."

Neat. But not really relevant.



"No, I demand that everyone respect my right to LIFE and children should, too. That's not selfish, it's a right."

Really? Care to point out to me where you get the right to be "respected" from? I promise you it isn't in the constitution nor in the UN declaration of human rights. Was it one of the reforms from Vatican II?

Tlaloc said...

"But it is beyond selfish that,given the chance a parent would deny their children life with full knowledge the worth of said child."

Why? Doesn't the parent have a right to their life too? Not to be the puppet of some future possible life? Are you guilty everytime you have a period without making every effort to get pregnant? Each time that happens you've "selfishly" chosen to live your life as you see fit regardless of the potential life that will never be because of it.

Your view here requires women to be forced breeders or to be "selfish." Doesn't that bother you? Doesn't that offend some inner sense of decency?

Tlaloc said...

"You can't hide behind "potential children" on this one. You wish that your "actual children" did not exist, and would not have "allowed" them to exit if you could see YOUR future."

But if we allow for going back in time then they ARE "potential children." They no longer exist except as one possibility among a spectrum of alternatives.

Anonymous said...

Why? Doesn't the parent have a right to their life too?

You are using "right to their life" in an entirely different sense -- a sense in which no one has a right to their life. You do not have the right to do as you please when your own chosen actions have caused someone else to be dependent on you.

Tlaloc said...

"You are using "right to their life" in an entirely different sense -- a sense in which no one has a right to their life. You do not have the right to do as you please when your own chosen actions have caused someone else to be dependent on you."

But that isn't the case here. Here they are saying "you have to choose actions that will cause someone else to be dependent upon you even if you'd rather not."

In this case the pregnancy doesn't even exist yet, much less the dependent.

Anonymous said...

Some women who are raped and become pregnant do decide to carry their pregnancies to term, this is their choice and their right and I'm sure many of the resulting children are well loved and that their parents don't regret giving birth to them, but I'm pretty sure that if there was any way they could somehow go back in time and prevent the attack from happening that they'd do it, even if it meant they would not have become pregnant, this doesn't mean they love their kids any less, and unless you want to argue that rape is a good thing as some pregnancies wouldn't occur otherwise then it's perfectly understandable that they'd feel this way and that their children would feel just the same and would have rather their mother had not had to go through her ordeal. , It's also perfectly reasonable that people can regret the situation or timing of a child's birth without despising the child, just like women trapped in abusive relationships might regret having children with their abusive spouse or like a 13 year old might regret having a child when she was a child herself, all these feelings are perfectly rational and to criticise those who are honest about the way they feel shows a lack of compassion and understanding, it's like you're demanding that women not only carry to term regardless of whether they want to or not but that they never express any regret at having to do so and that if a woman has ever even considered abortion for half a second she should feel guilty for the rest of her life.

Sarah

GrannyGrump said...

Okay, Sarah. I can see what you're getting at.

L. said...

Reading this post, and the comments.....I think (not sure, but I think) I understand where this woman is coming from.

When I was very young, I never wanted kids. I hated playing with dolls, or babysitting smaller children. If I had never met my husband, I might have remained childfree by choice....but at a young age I fell in love with and married a man who loves children, and we had our family, and our kids are the light of our lives and bring us much joy.

But I do wonder what my life would have been like if I had taken that other path -- in my case, it would have meant breaking up with my husband, not aborting a pregnancy already in progress.

I think it`s possible to have no regrets about the path one has taken, and yet still sometimes wonder, "what if..." about the other paths.

GrannyGrump said...

Thanks for a thoughtful comment, L.

SUZANNE said...

No actually it isn't a fact. At best it might be subjectively true but even that is a stretch. Trying to define a person and a blastocyst as sharing an identity is pretty difficult contention.

This is not about "personhood".

You were a fetus. That is a scientific, provable fact. I was a fetus. Everyone here was a fetus.

Although we can argue about blastocysts, blastocysts don't get surgically aborted, as they only stay at that stage a few days at most. The question at hand is about a fetus.

"Yes it is. I'm Catholic."

Neat. But not really relevant.


It is relevant. You say people wonder about what it would have been like if the contraception had worked. Contraception and abortion work the same: they both aim at preventing the birth of children.

"No, I demand that everyone respect my right to LIFE and children should, too. That's not selfish, it's a right."

Really? Care to point out to me where you get the right to be "respected" from? I promise you it isn't in the constitution nor in the UN declaration of human rights. Was it one of the reforms from Vatican II?


What is your point? My point is that demanding the right to exist is not selfish. Standing up for another's right to exist, either.

Tlaloc said...

"You were a fetus. That is a scientific, provable fact. I was a fetus. Everyone here was a fetus."

Not really. There was a fetus that one day developed enough to be "me" but when "I" was a fetus I wasn't really me. I was just a lump of tissue. You are projecting your identity back onto the thing that existed before "you" existed.



"My point is that demanding the right to exist is not selfish."

Indeed it is under these circumstances. Demanding the right to live ONCE YOU ALREADY DO is not selfish. Bt demanding that others bring about the circumstances for you to be born is very selfish. You are arguing that your life has far greater weight than all of theirs combined. They exist merely to bring you about.

It doesn't get much more selfish than that.

Zygote said...

"She got her happy ending, and she's bitching about it."

How do you know it's her happy ending? A person can be happy with a situation, but it not be the happy ending. Just because you don't mind the current situation doesn't mean it's the ideal situation.

GrannyGrump said...

I guess, Zygote, that I just have a prejudice that if you have a child you love, that's a happy ending to the pregnancy.

Zygote said...

It may be a happy ending, but it might not be HER happy ending. There's a difference.

GrannyGrump said...

Which is my point. "A baby I love! God, this blows chunks! How I wish I'd have been able to obtain a stockingette full of shredded fetal parts!"

Zygote said...

Yes, but your forgetting that I would consider my outcome a happy ending too. Even thought I did get a stockingette full of shredded fetal parts. That wasn't MY happy ending, but a happy ending none the less.