Posted on 03/30/2007 7:52:47 AM PDT by Sopater
A personal story about abortion
Friday, March 30, 2007
DEBORAH SCHNEIDER
GUEST COLUMNIST
The March 21 P-I editorial, "Abortion: Insulting women," insulted me.
As a local speaker for the group Silent No More Awareness, I regret my abortion in this state in 1971 when I was an 18-year-old university student. Most women ask for all relevant information before making any medical decision, with the exception of abortion and contraception.
We blindly accept taking pills, patches, emergency contraception and abortion without asking what the current or long-term affects might be to us. It is insulting to suggest that women don't need or want accurate medical information. I wish I had had some of this "insulting unnecessary information" provided by an ultrasound of my baby's beating heart at 18 days after conception.
Maybe I wouldn't have believed it was only a blob of cells at 12 weeks after conception. Maybe I would have been told about the risks and side effects of abortion, so when I suffered a miscarriage, anorexia and clinical depression and other problems, I would have recognized them as the after-effects of a past abortion and sought help. As for the pricey ultrasounds, there are crisis pregnancy centers that offer them by qualified, trained and licensed medical personnel.
Of course, I suspect the P-I's argument isn't so much about money, as it is about not wanting a woman to see the truth of a little human being in her womb and facing reality. Speaking from personal painful experience, keeping a secret of shame for a past abortion for decades is much more traumatic than being shown what your child looks like in the womb. Through speaking with SNMA, I and others tell the uncensored truth about abortion through our testimonies.
As for the lack of necessity for additional regulation, ("It's not like the state doesn't already have laws regulating abortions"), Washington state has no such restrictions because of a 1992 state law, which ensured a woman's right to abortion, regardless of Roe v. Wade. Washington has one of the most liberal laws in the country and constitutional language protecting a woman's right to end her pregnancy, throughout the entire pregnancy up to the moments before birth.
The editorial appeared to me as a veiled attempt at intimidation and deception to suggest to women that somehow what is being considered in other states would have an effect on the women of Washington. An informed woman is an empowered woman, so women should study up on what our state actually allows.
Let's give women access to necessary medically accurate information, including ultrasounds and what happens during an abortion procedure and the risks involved and then give them the time to absorb it, so that they can make an informed, unrushed decision. Most women make an abortion decision out of lack of information, lack of emotional and financial support from the man involved, parental pressure, abortion clinic prompting or lack of confidence in themselves and their ability to take care of a baby.
To limit any information and to keep women vulnerable to intimidation by others, including the P-I Editorial Board, under the guise of concern for women is well, just insulting.
Deborah Schneider lives in Shoreline.
© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
You're right. We don't need more children being mothered by uneducated women. It's better that they be killed than to live with modest means. In the spirit of Margaret Sanger, let's kill all the poor families' babies, pre-birth preferrably.
It's a good one. I'm sure that there will be some opposition to using 'reproductive health' tax-based dollars, when those opposing it would rather have it spent on abortions and such. But, if they're asking and since they already use my tax contribution for abortions, I wouldn't mind my tax dollars paying for an ultrasound, especially one that prevents an abortion. I know, the implications of some will be that then ultimately we pay for the baby when it's mom is on welfare. That may be true for some of the babies. But I would rather see my tax dollar pay for an ultrasound, and possibly a baby, then end a life. That's my 'short' version of my opinion.
Those born out of wedlock will still need to work and pay taxes.
Oh, give me a break. I was responding to the post that says America cannot AFFORD abortions...it was a perfectly legitimate argument. I won't even talk about the hundreds of thousands of children who will be born to women who don't want them and don't know, or are unable to raise them... and the horrible fates and conditions that will await them. It is a legitimate argument in a debate like this.
They can't even get enough Foster care as it is right now. And if the US policy is always going go be to try to reunite families, you're sending children into a hellish existence. But you're right, at least they'll be alive.
True :) And pay Social Security, too!
Especially the "darkies." It's the Sanger way.
There are a lot of uneducated women who are rich having babies. You probably meant the folks I met when I went to PP for a gyno exam, poor college students, women on welfare,etc.etc. the general poor set. Some poor people can have babies and not rely on welfare. I know you've looked at some women with their kids in public settings wondering why they had them in the first place. Personally I would feel truly uncomfortable having babies and having to buy the lowest rung of food for my child. My experiences with PP left a truly foul taste in mouth and I just went there for an exam because I thought that there poor people could get cheap exams. Actually they charged MORE than the local hospital. Anyway, I rather err on the side of life than abortion even though there are some women that should just never have kids.
This is true - but for another reason. The planned non-parenthood people will fight tooth and nail the idea that use tax dollars earmarked for them to routinely give an ultrasound with the idea of possibly changing the mother-to-be's mind. It goes against everything they espouse. Again, the powers that be have my blessing to divert my tax dollars from abortion to pre-abortion ultrasounds.
ADOPTION.
Come on -- there are thousands of couples eager to adopt -- so eager they have to go overseas to adopt. It is a great option for these impoverished, ignorant, single women who choose not to put their babies through a bloody meat grinder.
Legitimate where? Legitimate how? You're saying it's better they be killed than face what you predict will be a "horrible fate."
What is legitimate about preemptive murder of the poor?
Yes, let's have the government screen every pregnant woman to make sure she has the money and education to properly raise the child. If not, force her to have an abortion. After all, death is better than poverty.< / sarcasm >
Rich, well-educated women can also be "hellish" mothers, ala "Mommy Dearest".
I know about the darkie thing personally. Not only was I offered birth control in PP every time I turned around BUT there were administering depoprovera that has killed at least two young black women in the last five years with sudden stroke outs, severe bone loss and all the rest.
bookmark
Another thing I believe we have to do ,is show love and kindness towards women that made a horrible mistake. Screaming murderer will keep them quiet and defensive, when they are really the only one's that can stop this.
I went to bed in 21st century America and awoke in a Dickens novel.
OR...collect welfare.
Well for me my visit to Planned Parenthood made me look at the 'biophoton fetus' scene in Matrix with ALL NEW CLARITY. Boy that movie is so symbolic on so many levels.
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.