No regrets for choosing love over abortion

Indianapolis Star ^ | Jan 22, 2004 | J. Scofield

[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.

[sarasmom]

Ah!
A one worlder!
That explains a lot of your positions.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I am deeply concerned that my daughter may one day need medical or government "permission" to bear a child. I want everyone out of the business of controlling womens wombs.

Those are basically my main concerns as well. I'll defend the right of a lot of women to abort, even in circumstances where I don't believe it's appropriate, because the alternative is government control of reproduction. The forced child-bearing in Soviet-era Romania, and the forced contraception and abortion in China, are much more abhorrent and worrisome to me than some individual women having late abortions for frivolous reasons.

[ican'tbelieveit]

People like this make me shed tears. For them, I would not have had the joy of seeing my own, extremely loved children born (and we are not financially well off). I would not have the joy of praising God everyday for the smallest of miracles. I would not experience the pain of loss and disappointment, that makes me stronger every time it happens.

I watched a highschool friend forced to have an abortion by her parents because it not only would "ruin" her life, but it embarassed them (upstanding pillars of the community and all). I begged her to not consent, to give up the child to loving parents. Anything but abort. A few years later she nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy; a result of the abortion. Then it took her nearly 10 years to conceive and carry her second child into this world.

To this day she apologizes to me for the way they treated me all those years ago (I was the villian), and how she will never recover from the pain of this "needed" abortion. And everytime I talk to her in passing about it, or think about it, I break down in tears for her loss (as I am now).

[ican'tbelieveit]

It is not government control of reproduction. The control of reproduction is in the hands of the woman before she conceives. If you don't want an unwanted pregnancy, how about not getting pregnant. It is government protection of life. Get your arguments right.

[OldFriend]

My wedding vows were read from The Prophet.

[sarasmom]

You have missed the obvious.
By accepting abortion for any and all reasons as normal and an approved method of birth controll by society, the door has been taken off its hinges, and women today who are only encouraged to abort, will find themselves forced to abort tomorrow.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I disagree, but time will tell. I think that libertarian policies and social attitudes tend to ward off the drift towards socialist government. And without socialist government, nobody will have the government dictating their reproductive activities or lack thereof.

[doug from upland]

Thanks for sharing your story. We too are glad you are sharing this country and world with the rest of us.

[workerbee]

Some thoughts on your posts: #11, Make it more popular to adopt babies in this country would help.

#21 people need to get over having the perfect baby. I tried to help a friend get a baby adopted and it was very disillusioning to hear people's reasons for not adopting.

If I had a dime for every woman I've met who has said something along the lines of "I could NEVER give up my baby for adoption!" but who sees absolutely positively nothing wrong with KILLING same child through abortion. Thank the pro-abort industry for their propoganda that has convinced millions that it's wrong to make a mother part with a baby for adoption -- oh, how much more civilized and humane to do away with it before she becomes so attached.

And you wonder why the demand for "perfect" babies? Please. Thank them for that, too, for the notion that only "perfect" babies are worthy babies. No one should be saddled with a less than trophy child, after all. A neighbor of mine, 4 months along, was completely comfortable (in front of her 8 year old) discussing her choice to abort should the amnio come back "showing problems".

#42 GovernmentShrinker said: Until we can deal effectively with all the kids (of all races) who are already here and conscious, and being beaten/starved/tortured/raped, I'm not interested in expending resources trying to save early-stage fetuses who have no awareness of anything good or bad. To which you said: ***I agree with this sentiment.

How do you dare prejudge the potential and worthiness of any human being due to circumstances they "may" endure or actions they "may" undertake? With little effort, we could make a list of folks thru history who came from less-than-ideal circumstances, made it through, and contributed greatly to the world. You get dangerously close to outright eugenics with the theory that you can "perfect" the world if only by disposing of those who muck it up. Expound some more on how we might end crime if only all those .... um, you know.... urban unwanteds weren't here. Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

[cyborg]

A neighbor of mine, 4 months along, was completely comfortable (in front of her 8 year old) discussing her choice to abort should the amnio come back "showing problems".

*** I would not. Those tests can be unreliable. I've heard of too many people who got false positives then had healthy babies later.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

The "not free to be adopted" is a huge part of the problem, as is the "birth parent may resurface and grab the child".

And the pro-life crowd actively supports adoption.

Oddly it is the pro-abortion group who is most in favor of making and keeping adoption as difficult as possible.

Who do you think is coming up with these ever more ridiculous rules about what children have to be placed where? It isn't those on the pro-life side. It is the "Better off Dead" bunch.

[sarasmom]

What you advocate is chaos.
It is not anti-socialism, which is a repugnant form of society.
It is the destruction of society as a viable concept.
Perhaps one day you will understand the vast difference between physical human reality and theoretical societies.
Untill such time, you might want to entertain the thought that little actually seperates a Libertarian from a Socialist.
Both seek to ignore and pervert human nature for theoretical concepts totally divorced from physical reality.

[puroresu]

There's actually a school of thought that legal abortion INCREASES the illegitimacy rate, especially among poor women and teens. "Liberals" and libertarians rarely take into account the psychological consequences of their proposals.

One theory I've heard is that because legal abortion is available as a back-up in case of unwanted pregnancy, far more people engage in unprotected and/or irresponsible sex. The result is far more crisis pregnancies than would occur if abortion was illegal. And even though many of those babies are aborted, many more aren't, and the number of so-called "unwanted" babies actually goes up when abortion is legalized.

I don't think there's ever been a study done on this, but raw stats tend to support it. Back forty years ago, when abortion was illegal, unmarried teen mothers were uncommon. Also, areas with high abortion rates and easily available abortion tend to have more, not less, teen births. I've never heard of a place with lots of abortions and little illegitimacy. Instead, places like DC and California have lots of both, while places like Utah have little of both.

Or, one could look at the disturbing increase in babies left in toilets or dumpsters. Some cities have even had to set up drop off places for mothers to leave their unwanted baby, due to so many incidents of baby dumping. Something like that would have been unheard of before Roe.

[condolinda]

The drop in crime started to be noticeable suspiciously close to the time that the just-post-Roe generation of babies were/would have been reaching their teens, and thus their peak crime years.

However, there were far fewer violent gang killings and no (legal) abortions before Roe v. Wade... The solution is not to increase abortions so that we'd have less gang killings, it's that we should strengthen the family so that there'd be fewer kids on the street joining gangs in the first place.

Actually there's some pretty solid research correlating the drop in violent crime in recent years, with the date that abortion started being legal and widely available.

Even if research were "dead" accurate, it would be utterly useless for all practical purposes. If the purpoted goal is to significantly reduce violent killings, and the preventive is an abortion, do you then encourage abortions on the mothers of potential gang members? And what about the other violent killers? There's more than one demographic to look at. How do you screen for and prevent Columbine-type killers, the serial killers of the world, the killers of Laci Peterson and of Chandra Levi? You could end up with more and more abortions to prevent violent killings... just in case. And who gets to play God and determines which mothers might need an abortion, to prevent a killing? Talk about pro-active crime fighting!

[GovernmentShrinker]

Individual liberty to make one's own choices, good or bad, is "to ignore and pervert human nature for theoretical concepts totally divorced from physical reality"? I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Would you feel the same if I chose to take the life of my teenage son because it cost too much to provide for him?

[puroresu]

Of course, individual liberty to make one's own choices, good or bad, is predicated upon the assumption that the choice in question isn't an act of direct harm to someone else. Science settled the issue of when a new human life begins in 1824, and that point is fertilization.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I don't know about that. The "pro-life side" is pretty vocal about preventing gay people from adopting, and some of them even try to keep any single people from adopting. Seems to me that people on both sides of the abortion controversy contribute to the problem of complicating adoption.

[workerbee]

Until we can deal effectively with all the kids (of all races) who are already here and conscious, and being beaten/starved/tortured/raped, I'm not interested in expending resources trying to save early-stage fetuses who have no awareness of anything good or bad.

Somehow I don't think you prevent abuse by condoning and encouraging the killing of "inconvenient" children. I believe you would find a greater acceptance of abortion by those who abuse, than among those who don't. Have you never considered that one of the reasons for the horrendous abuse we see is that an entire generation-plus has been raised on the notion that children are nothing but expendable? Read this post. Excerpt:

Why were we so close-minded to the philosophical arguments against abortion? Those slippery slopes quickly became a freefall, leading to abortions of preborn babies for being the wrong gender or having a cleft palate. And the horror of a presidential candidate endorsing partial-birth abortion. And the conclusion of Princeton professor/ bioethicist Peter Singer that parents of disabled infants should be allowed 30 days to decide whether to allow their child to live or die. By characterizing children as burdens rather than blessings, abortion led to the devaluation of every one of them and – I believe – the murderous mom syndrome, with babies dumped in dumpsters, stuffed in airplane trashcans, toddlers drowned in lakes or bathtubs, kids strangled, smothered, stabbed, shot, beaten, burned to death by their own mothers. How could it happen that we women, the bearers and nurturers of life, could have even for a moment wanted to appropriate for ourselves the right to kill?

[puroresu]

Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that if abortion was outlawed, the number of "unwanted" babies being born would actually go down?

In other words, when pro-aborts ask pro-lifers if we plan to adopt all those "unwanted" babies that will be born if abortion is outlawed, they're asking a misplaced question. The number of "unwanted" babies being born seems to RISE when abortion is legal. There's good reason to believe the number would drop if abortion became illegal again.