Posted on 01/22/2004 2:53:26 PM PST by redangus
Today, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I am reminded once again that those who accept abortion as a viable solution to a social problem do not have all the information they need to come to that misguided conclusion. That is why I am telling my story.
In 1969, before Roe v. Wade, and at the age of 37, I became pregnant with my fifth child. I was ill at the time and could barely manage to take care of the children I had. I knew I could not take care of a baby. I was not interested in exploring different options, believe me. Nor did I consult my conscience, my doctor or God on the matter. All I wanted was to get out of the situation the fastest, easiest way possible and I thought that way was abortion. How wrong I was.
I certainly was not thinking clearly at the time. In the years preceding this, some people were beginning to think more liberally about abortion, and I had listened to their reasons why it would be OK, instead of listening to my heart. I had been given permission by society to kill my own baby. That's all I needed to act.
I didn't make a real choice that day. A choice implies a clear mind, free of fear and with full knowledge of the price I would have to pay. The day before the abortion (two doctors signed), my husband took me and our two older children, who were teenagers, into the bedroom to have a private discussion. They all agreed that if I would not do this, they would help me with the baby.
As it turned out, I got very little help. But hey, I'm not complaining, because I raised my son anyway, and I thank my former husband every time I see him for not allowing me to kill my own child, but it was his child too.
I realize now that I was not only choosing for myself, I was choosing for my baby -- and it was his life. I was choosing for my husband. I was choosing for my other children. And I was choosing for their grandparents. The question, then, is not "Did I have a right to choose?" The real question is "Did I have a right to choose for everybody simply because I carried that baby in my body?"
This baby did not belong to me. These babies belong to the ages. He was not my possession to dispose of as I wished. Kahlil Gibran said it well in his famous poem, "Your children do not belong to you. They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself." Neither was he a blob of tissue. He was a unique, marvelous, individual human being who was merely in one stage of his life; just as infancy, adolescence or old age are stages.
This child, this particular "mistake," has become very precious to his mother. His name is Dirk. A law against abortion would keep many women from doing something they would regret for the rest of their lives (just as my husband's interference did), at a time when they are in no position to make such a life-altering decision.
But if not a law, at least tell the truth about abortion and its consequences, which affect the whole family and even the world. Apparently, women have the right to choose for everybody, and everybody gets to share in the consequences.
Feminists have told women that abortion is about reproductive freedom and will allow them to be empowered and fulfilled. But real power comes with love and responsibility. And there is neither love nor responsibility connected with abortion. There is no fulfillment or power in being soul-sick either.
Some day we will look back on this abortion era aghast at what we allowed to happen, as we now do with slavery and the Holocaust. The evil keeps popping up and it catches us every time, in spite of our "lest we forget" rhetoric.
What is the opposite of informed choice? Uninformed choice, which is really no choice at all.
This point is rarely examined or taken seriously by anti-abortion activists. While abortion can certainly be a "selfish" decision, it is not necessarily so, and plenty of women make the decision to have an abortion for the benefit of the children they already have, and are having trouble providing with a decent upbringing.
Sophie's Choice?
Your kids are hungry. Which one are you going to pop into the stew pot?
Considering that there are plenty of people ready willing and eager to adopt babies this argument has no basis in reality.
,,, ah, it's for the children! If it's a resource management issue, why not kill the child they like least and let the oncoming one have a chance to please them more? Either way, it's murder.
It would. I know that adoption seems very off-putting to many people, perhaps because it involves social workers and seems to open people's private lives to scrutiny. I would bet that more presentations from successful adoptive families in friendly venues (like churches) would help.
We see our daughter's birth-mom often. In fact, she called today to ask for copies of some of the pictures we took at the Christmas party we held with her family. Open adoption is really the way to go.
You bet ya!
One of the first steps would be to reform the foster care system so those kids can be adopted. The system in my state has the lovely habit of actually removing foster children from homes where they feel the kids are bonding. As for adopting you can forget about it, even if they kill one of their children parental rights will not be terminated and after they get out they are reunited with their non-murdered children. I get so frustrated some times I could spit.
Another thing that needs to be done is, "All adoptions are final 30 days after the papers go through." People are scared to adopt because the birth parent can come back up to two years later and take the child back.
This is one reason why overseas adoptions are popular.
Which is EXACTLY what the abortionists DO NOT want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.