Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Woman's Choice
The Washington Post ^ | November 15, 2005 | Maria Eftimiades

Posted on 11/16/2005 3:59:31 AM PST by Eepsy

"So when do you go for the abortion?'' my friend asked, her voice sympathetic.

"Wednesday,'' I replied, and then hurriedly got off the phone. I called Mike, my boyfriend, in tears, complaining about how inconsiderate people are, how no one thinks before they speak. The truth was, until I heard the word "abortion,'' it hadn't occurred to me that I was actually having one.

...Story continued at link

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraception; downssyndrome; postabortivewomen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last
To: sauropod

Err, if use of contraceptives isn't a person trying to prevent procreation, what is? Now, if you're using a drug with contraceptive side effects to treat an illness, that's different. I do feel the person is morally obligated to abstain from relations while on said drug, however, because of the possible abortive effects contraceptives possess.

In other words, if a man or woman is recieving a treatment for, say, cancer that renders them sterile, there is no moral problem with them carrying on relations within marriage as there is no possiblity of conception or abortion, and the effect is the unintended consequence of a life or death decision. On the other hand, if a woman is taking the Pill as a remedy for unusually heavy menstruation (hopefully after being very sure it won't mask symptoms of a greater problem), she should abstain from relations as there is still the possibility of conceiving while on the drug, and the resultant fetus being aborted due to the unhospitable environment birth control creates in the womb.


81 posted on 11/16/2005 9:00:18 AM PST by Eepsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
The sin of Onan was that he disobeyed God's command to procreate if memory serves. He spilled his seed on the ground to prevent procreation. It was not the act itself that was wrong, it was the intention behind the act.

That's a stretch, and an example of the problem with Sola Scriptura. How could every Christian denomination have been wrong until 1929? What happened? Could rationalization have been involved?

More on Onanism/Birth Control

82 posted on 11/16/2005 9:01:11 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

I'm getting married this May. Both my fiance and I are 39. We are going to try to have kids once we get married.

We are at higher risk of having a DS baby, but I don't care. I figure there are two ways to view being a parent:

1. THE NARCISSISTIC WAY

Your child is another one of your achievements. The talents and achievements of your child are your achievements and should therefore be broadcast widely. Your child's failings are a shame to you and should be hidden. Your child's worth is dependent on how he or she enhances your life.

2. THE GODLY WAY

A child is a gift from God. There is a reason God gave you this child. Your job is to care for the child and teach him or her right from wrong. The child is your responsibility, not your possession. Your child was created by God and is therefore worthy.

I figure I'll go with option #2.


83 posted on 11/16/2005 9:06:54 AM PST by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington
Congratulations on you impending nuptials. I agree with you one hundred percent.

There is one thing I'd like to add, however. If God doesn't bless you with a biological child, please consider adoption. I am an adoptive parent and an adoptive grandparent. My daughter just called us yesterday to tell us that their adoption agency (she's got two from Guatemala) has male babies waiting for homes. They're going to go ahead and adopt again and hope to have their new son home before the summer. There are many ways that God finds exactly the right parents for children.

84 posted on 11/16/2005 9:18:56 AM PST by old and tired (Run Swanni, run!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Eepsy
There's more to this story than meets the eye. She decided to get an abortion after an amnio test for Down's Syndrome popped positive. But amnio tests, if I'm not mistaken, are notorious for popping false positives. I've heard from dozens of parents who learned of a positive amnio test only to discover later, through other procedures, that it was a false positive.

I don't know how painful a decision this was for this woman, and I'm not going to point any fingers. But she should've definitely done more to confirm the positive amnio pop. I certainly hope she did and simply didn't make that part of the story.

85 posted on 11/16/2005 9:20:54 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington

Congrats on the impending nuptials. Unlike you, the writer of this article knew of the high risk yet went ahead pretending that there were no consequences to her actions. Once pregnant, she then decides to abort. If she and her boyfriend didn't want a Down's Syndrome child, they should have used birth control knowing the high risks involved due to their ages. To create a life and then destroy it was not a noble choice on her part. It was murder.


86 posted on 11/16/2005 9:33:24 AM PST by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
How could every Christian denomination have been wrong until 1929?

How could every Christian denomincation have been wrong about slavery until two hundred years ago?

87 posted on 11/16/2005 9:33:44 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

Thanks for the tip! If we aren't able to conceive, we probably will go with adoption.


88 posted on 11/16/2005 9:52:51 AM PST by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Eepsy
Err, if use of contraceptives isn't a person trying to prevent procreation, what is?

Err, if it's not a specific response to a specific command of God.

89 posted on 11/16/2005 10:04:35 AM PST by sauropod ("The love that dare not speak its' name has now become the love that won't shut the hell up.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

You are making this much more complicated than it needs to be.

God gave us freedom. When Man formulate straditions or strictures that are justified through a derivative argument, Man is taking away the freedom that God has given.

AFA your sarcastic point about every Christian denomination being wrong until 1929, I would argue that many Church practices (indulgences, others) may have been believed for hundreds or thousands of years. But if they are not specifically addressed in the Bible, then they are inventions of Man.


90 posted on 11/16/2005 10:09:24 AM PST by sauropod ("The love that dare not speak its' name has now become the love that won't shut the hell up.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

"formulate straditions" = formulates traditions


91 posted on 11/16/2005 10:10:53 AM PST by sauropod ("The love that dare not speak its' name has now become the love that won't shut the hell up.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
But if they are not specifically addressed in the Bible, then they are inventions of Man.

The Bible itself doesn't claim that, so your test flunks itself.

92 posted on 11/16/2005 10:13:13 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Eepsy

This was the most disgusting display of selfishness I've ever read.


93 posted on 11/16/2005 10:16:46 AM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eepsy
I'm sure pro-lifers don't give you the right to grieve for the baby you chose not to bring into the world (another euphemism, although avoiding the word "abortion'' doesn't take any sting out of the decision to have one).

*************

Yeah. Those nasty pro-lifers.

94 posted on 11/16/2005 10:21:19 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
In the perfect world you speak of, no one would have sex outside of marriage. However, we know, humans are not perfect.

What an ignorant thing to say.

I'm certianly not perfect but I haven't had sex outside of marriage and I'm 45.

So, what are you saying, people can just not control themselves?

95 posted on 11/16/2005 10:33:04 AM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
And yes, adultery is any sex outside the bonds of marriage.

No, it most certainly is not.

You are talking about fornication, also bad, but not one of the Big Ten.

Nice way to rationalize sex outside of marriage.

96 posted on 11/16/2005 10:34:13 AM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Eepsy
The truth was, until I heard the word "abortion,'' it hadn't occurred to me that I was actually having one.

Why do you think they keep calling it 'choice', sweetie?

97 posted on 11/16/2005 10:36:16 AM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
AFA your sarcastic point about every Christian denomination being wrong until 1929

It's not a sarcastic point at all. It's a logical argument. These denominations, all of them, claimed to be guided by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. So do today's Protestants. Yet both groups arrived at contradictory doctrines. So how can this contradiction be reconciled if "the Bible alone" is to be the final arbiter of truth?

98 posted on 11/16/2005 10:54:01 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
How could every Christian denomincation have been wrong about slavery until two hundred years ago?

Not every denomination supported slavery. Christians brought an end to slavery, not atheists.

99 posted on 11/16/2005 10:59:07 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Eepsy
At 24, 30 and 36 my husband and I went through high risk pregnancies. With the last, we were asked if we wanted an amniocentesis "just in case". We emphatically denied it. The results would not have changed a thing. We are truly grateful for all three of our wonderful children.

My heart breaks for the loss of that innocent life.
100 posted on 11/16/2005 11:00:54 AM PST by leda (patton's brown eyed girl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson