post written by: Marc Chernoff

Abortion: There are Two Sides to Every Story


Two Sides to AbortionAbortion is one of the touchiest subjects of our time primarily due to widely varying beliefs concerning the exact moment at which “life” actually begins.   The pro-choice community agrees with the point of view that abortion helps prevent young children from being born into unhappy homes.  The pro-life supporters, however, would strongly disagree with this statement, instead taking the stand that abortion can be compared to ripping someone’s life away without giving them a choice or a chance.  In reality there is a vast grey area in between these two extremes.  My best friend once told me, “There are two sides to every story.”

I disagree with the labels of pro-choice and pro-life.  Their strict affiliation with the subject of abortion is nonsensical.  I’ve never met someone who is not in favor of life.  Likewise, most levelheaded people realize the importance of liberty and free choice.  With the exception of certain stubborn radicals, most people have a fundamental value system that trickles over the lines which divide the pro-choice and pro-life ideologies.

It all depends on circumstance.  There are situations where abortion makes sense, just as there are situations where it does not.  Most rational minds are able to analyze a specific circumstance and easily make the distinction, thus supporting the decision that matches the circumstance at hand.  I believe that the people who argue against the concept of “individual circumstance” lack a comprehensive understanding of the inherent complexities and situational variation from one case to the next.

I used to fully support abortion in my teenage years and early twenties.  Now I stand firmly by the philosophy of “individual circumstance”, and tend to support abortion far less than your average pro-choice supporter.  I’m not an extremist when it comes to the topic of abortion because I have a fairly concrete understanding of both sides of the argument.  Pro-choice opinion by itself makes a great deal of sense to me, but when you stack the philosophy up against specific circumstances, even the most diehard pro-choicer would need a moment to reflect.

So why did I have a change of heart?  What circumstance interfered with my old way of thinking?  Well, I met someone who shattered my isolated perspective and directly connected me into a different reality.  This person I refer to is now my best friend.  Many moons before we met, she was conceived by a woman who was unfit and unprepared to be a mom.  Instead of abortion, her biological mother chose the route of adoption.

She was adopted into a happy home as an infant and grew up to be an intelligent, successful human being.  It’s now impossible for me to fully support abortion, because doing so would be accepting the fact that my best friend should have had her entire life flushed away for no reason at all.  I have a copious appreciation for every reason why her biological mother would have wanted an abortion.  Yet when my best friend stands before me today, I whole heartedly appreciate the fact that she didn’t.

It’s easy to have compassion for a pregnant teen who desperately wants an abortion.  At a glance you see a young girl who is just a child herself.  This girl is obviously incapable of being a mother.  Abortion in that split instant seems to make complete sense; at least it does to me.  But when you look into the eyes of someone you respect and realize their biological conception met the stereotypical conditions for a routine case of abortion, your attitude on the subject changes.  All of the sudden a different reality hits home.  You realize abortion can change someone’s life, your life, and can alter history, your history.

I believe that people should have the choice.  But I also believe that too many irresponsible people abuse their rights of having this choice.  There will always be circumstances, such as rape and illness, where abortion makes 100% sense.  Regrettably, there will also always be heartless fools who use abortion like the rest of us use a condom.  Thus, this controversial topic will always rest in a grey area lacking an absolute right or wrong judgment call. 

Abortion should never be muddled by the influences of religion or law.  It should be an unadulterated decision pertaining to the responsibility and capacity of an individual in their own unique circumstance.  Even then, I’m sure someone will have a difference in opinion.  Just like my best friend once told me, “There are two sides to every story.”

Download the ebook If you enjoyed this article, check out our new best-selling book.
Marc and Angel Subscription via Email And get inspiring life tips and quotes in your inbox (it's free)...

Enter your email address to get new articles delivered for free:



28 Comments

  • I think your article was well-written, but it misses the main point of the pro-choice movement - which is, uh, the woman. A woman in an awful situation shouldn’t be forced to abort any more than a wealthy, comfortable woman should be forced through pregnancy.

    And the “good thing I am/(s)he is here” argument is just… naive, I think. We could play the “what if” game indefinitely. What if a different sperm had made it to the egg first? What if mom had been on some serious doses of alcohol, drugs, or even just coffee? Hell, what if another baby whose mother wanted to abort grew up to become a rapist/murderer who eventually would attack you or your friends/family?

    Even if we could tell which fetuses would become which kind of people, it wouldn’t change the fact that no woman should ever be forced one way or the other.

  • @Joy: Your points are logical. My stand on this topic does leave room for subjective interpretation. I just feel that far too many people abuse the system. Sure, I know mistakes happen. But when the same women exercise their right for an abortion multiple times, we have a problem. I agree that we don’t want government regulations or laws forcing women into a corner. What we need is a world full of responsible, compassionate people. Oh well, maybe I dream too much…

  • Marc’s point was one of responsibility…my addition to his point is that a couple needs to be held responsible as much as the situation that the couple created.

    Don’t want to have a kid…use a condom…or other form of birth control…planned parenthood is passing it out like crazy….for free!

    Condom breaks and “can’t afford” a kid…there are many great families willing to adopt there is no reason to kill innocent life.

    Too poor to get condoms…BS every clinic and school in America passes out condoms

    Poor or uneducated don’t understand the consequences or the old ‘heat of the moment” excuse…In the heat of the moment if you decide to cross the street with out looking both ways that is a choice too…

    Modern Science allows for a “fetus”, or as like to call them, a child, to live outside the mother after just 22 weeks (earliest recorded child birth)…that is 5 1/2 months…if you make a immature and

    Abortion is not a form of birth control. It should be used only in extreme cases such as rape or serious illness…there…that line just made you all realize I am not a religious zealot who only believes in the pro-life side of the argument…

    However the choice as all choices needs to be made by the couple…not just the woman and not forced by the man or parents…the choice that got a woman to this point needs to be made by the parties involved.

    Affluence, greed, and selfishness should never be the reason for an abortion…that is being lazy! I am serious when I say this…you are lazy if you have a abortion due to not planning for sex…(once again rape and illness trump this statement…but that is never the woman’s fault!) if you go out to a bar and willingly “hook up” with out protection and then use this choice (abortion) as a form of birth control then you are killing innocent life!

    It is hard work being a parent…Being a parent is never a convenience…it is the greatest job we will ever have as humans…I can only speak from the male side of this argument…Men need to stand up and be fathers…not sperm donors or baby daddies…Men need to be held accountable for their decisions and support their children as fathers…there is no excuse why they can’t! I am sick of men not taking responsibility for their actions and be Dads…that is a true root cause of our societal woes…

    Final note is that we are all responsible for our actions…if you do not adhere to this you will continue to feed the problem…death of innocent children for nothing more then convenience is wrong!

  • Well, now we’ve heard from both ends of the spectrum… ;-)

    In either case, I think the practice of increased responsibility is the key.

  • Marc, I take exception to the assumption that women are having abortions because that’s what they want to do. If you asked the women sitting in the waiting room at a Planned Parenthood and asked, “Is this what you want to do?” you’d probably get some pretty incredulous looks. They’re there because they feel trapped, not because they particularly want to go through with the abortion.

    But with abortion readily available and celebrated as a right, as liberating, as some sort of wonderful, society can feel as if we’ve discharged all our obligations to the women by simply allowing Planned Parenthood to set up shop. We no longer feel any responsibility to provide any real help.

    When I got pregnant in 1983, I kept trying to screw up my courage to call PP and set up that appointment. We’d sold our wedding rings already to buy food for our daughter. How could we afford another baby? Thank God that my husband’s best friend was prolife. He was able to think much more clearly than we were. He saw that our problem wasn’t that I was pregnant. It was our apartment. He had to browbeat us into apartment hunting, since we were sure that there was nothing better to be had in the area. But Eddie was right, we quickly found a better place, and our financial difficulties quickly got sorted out. And my son is now in the Navy.

    I thank God every single day that I didn’t have a “prochoice” friend to “help” me by “supporting me through a difficult decision.” Eddie looked past the despair and sense of helplessness to what we really needed.

    I think every woman is entitled to that.

    But that takes actually caring. Which is work. It’s much easier for everybody around the woman to just pat themselves on the back for “keeping abortion safe and legal.” Once she gets scraped out, it’s over for them. But it’s never over for her.

    Women deserve better.

  • Even if we could tell which fetuses would become which kind of people, it wouldn’t change the fact that no woman should ever be forced one way or the other.

    Joy, do you extend that to the woman feeling forced by her circumstances? Don’t you think that we ought to be helping women who want to avoid abortions but feel trapped and are too stressed out to see other options?

  • I agree that we don’t want government regulations or laws forcing women into a corner.

    But what about being forced into a corner by a scumbag boyfriend, an unsympathetic employer, a university that doesn’t make accomodations for pregnant and parenting students, a doctor who doesn’t want to deal with a high risk patient or a baby with disabilities?

    The current system slants everything in favor of women who actively want abortions, and stacks the deck against women who don’t want to abort but lack resources. Where’s the justice in that?

  • I’m not for extramarital sex, but… if you’re going to do it, guys, at least ask or figure out or get her involved in discussing her fertility cycle. It’s not so hard to figure out, and it doesn’t take any outside interference from pharmaceuticals or third-party fertility blockers. NFP, baby!

  • @Christina: Thanks for sharing your story. I completely agree with you. Further progress needs to be made in order to give pregnant women more options and routes for support. Women should have the choice, but there should be easily accessible objective resources out there to help them with the decision.

  • […] and Angel presents Abortion: There are Two Sides to Every Story posted at Marc and Angel, saying, “Abortion is one of the touchiest subjects of our time […]

  • I agree with what you say. I’ve held a similar opinion on the issue of abortion. Our society emcompassing as varied strata of people as it does today, it is virtually impossible to have a blanket law that works for everyone. But then, does the right to abort or give birth be vested with the individual. In my world, yes. However, in a state, such a choice places colossal faith on people’s discretion, and therefore, is liable to be misused. To look for a solution is to try to figure out an optimal answer–one that is a bargain or an acceptable trade-off. There can never be a comprehensive solution.

    I saw this movie called “4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days,” which is set in Communist Romania in the late 80s. It revolves around a pregnant teen, her friend, and an abortionist. I understood the consequences of a draconian law in a society where free expression is stifled. When the state legislates without careful consideration, people devise ways to circumvent, and sometimes entire industries are borne out of such a status quo. The people can be punished for breaking the law or governments can be castigated for formulating laws that cannot be regulated. In the end, though, its human existence that suffers.

  • I discussed this issue on another person’s blog, and the comment I made there is relevant here as well. It’s a long comment, so hope you’ll bear with it and seek to understand it. :)

    1) To say that an entity has no rights is not to say that the entity should be slaughtered, killed, or disposed off recklessly or wantonly.

    2) Rights are moral principles that pertain *only* to action–specifically, to freedom of action. Life is a process of self-generated action; thus, right to life is the right to *act* towards self-preservation and self-sustenance.

    3) Rights are moral principles that are applicable to only human beings since only humans are moral beings; further, “individual right” is a redundancy (albeit a necessary redundancy) because only individuals can have rights; half-an-individual, parts of individuals, or groups of individuals can have no rights.

    3) One man’s rights imposes only a negative obligation on others to not violate his rights. No one’s rights can ever conflict with each other. Thus, one entity’s right to life cannot conflict with another entity’s right to life.

    4) Rights cannot exist where force exists. Thus, criminals have limited to no rights; for example, I can kill a criminal in self-defense if he threatens my life.

    5) Since rights pertain to actions, and some actions are beyond the abilities of young infants and children, the voluntary parent (who chose to have children) or voluntary legal guardians are entrusted with the responsibility of administering the rightful actions of their children.

    Given all of the above, a fetus has no rights because it is not an individual but a part of its host; it lives not as an individual entity but as a part of an entity; parts of entities have no rights (e.g., hands, livers, kidneys, etc.)

    If a fetus were granted the right to life, it would conflict with the existing and actual rights of an actual, individual, independent, moral, entity, i.e., mother. Remember that Rights among individuals do not conflict. In the face of a contradiction, one of the premises is wrong. Since it is false to deny that the mother has the right to life, the premise that the fetus has a right to life must be false.

    If a fetus had the right to life, then it would create an *active* obligation on the mother to sustain the life of the fetus inside her and administer legal obligations on behalf of the fetus *against* her own wishes, i.e., by force and not voluntarily. Rights cannot exist under force and do not create *active* or positive obligations or duties on people. This is another conflict arising due to faulty premises.

    Finally, to say that a fetus has no rights is not to permit wanton and reckless slaughter of fetuses–that would be immoral albeit not illegal. It should not be illegal to kill and eat animals or conduct animal fights as a sport, although it is immoral and pathologically depraved to find pleasure in wanton killing of animals or enjoying the bloody sport. All criminal acts must be legally punished; all immoral acts must be vociferously condemned and not tolerated. Aborting a fetus is not a criminal act (although, if done wantonly, recklessly, and repeatedly, it becomes grounds for moral condemnation).

  • @satyajit and Ergo:

    Thanks for the comments. I don’t even feel the need to comment further. Your points are well stated and well received at my end. They are some of the most well thought out opinions I have read on this controversial topic.

    The bottom line is that there is an inevitable catch-22 between the balance of rights and morals when it comes to abortion, thus leaving the topic endlessly muddled in a grey area of subjective confusion.

  • “Too poor to get condoms…BS every clinic and school in America passes out condoms”

    Not Jesuit Catholic ones.

  • As soon as I hear the same people speaking as much about capital punishment as they speak of abortion then I will believe and only will I believe that person is pro-life.

  • Well stated. I think that abortion is ok in some cases.

  • Hi,
    Really thought provoking article, thanks,
    I want to pick up on some points in the article and from the comments left.
    This is a very long comment, but in the interests of debate and balance I hope that its posting will offer a different perspective on the issue of abortion and promote contemplation. Thanks for reading, (in advance)!!
    I would like also to say that i fully support choice for women in these matters, but where choices and rights clash, serious deep meaningful debate is worth more than mud slinging over the gender divide.

    The issue of abortion is little understood by most and most banded about by most.
    The woman has the right to chose an abortion. Yes ok, good.
    The foetus has a right not to be killed. AHH don’t go there, you can’t say that.
    The reason for this reaction is the misunderstanding of choice. In most cases a woman can choose to take precautions. These precautions may be not having sex when pregnancy is likely or by using contraception(as stated in other comments. In the case of rape it becomes more complicated. Here there is no choice, the pregnancy is literally thrust upon the woman tragically. However I don’t believe that abortion is then to be the only choice, or even the prefered choice. Most woman feel terrible after an abortion. This is because they suffer the trauma of the problems underlying the unwanted/unplanned pregnancy but also crucially because they have allowed a living organism to be killed. Ok its not murder because murder is usually done ‘with the lead piping in the billiard room!!’ to quote a popular british board game-Yet it IS still killing. This is because contrary to ‘ERGOs’ point that a foetus has no right to life, ’since it is not an individual entity’, is incorrect. It is an individual entity that happens to belong to another individual entity. If a foetus is a collection of parts then so is child or an adult. The adult is more developed, but no amount of legal jargon can deny the simple truth that the human is not the product of the foetus, it IS the foetus, it just happens to be more developed and more aware. The adult is sustained by food and water. The foetus is sustained by these same nutrients fed through the umbilical cord. The foetus has all the same organs as a human because that is precisely what it is. We are all sustained by something and often this is through the killing other animals (an issue I wont go into here but which brings home our arrogance on issues of rights and life). A forest has a right to life. Sure, ok we may not recognise that right alot of the time, but it is still a right.
    Now, no human has a right to take another human life in civilised society. Should this not at least be soemething to consider when discussing the rights of the ‘yet to be born’ human. (I do not say the ‘Unborn Child’ as I think this leads our thinking astray from the blatent reality of the foetus being a living individual entity and of the seriousness of its destruction)
    When we think of retiring or are fired from a job our contract is ‘terminated’. We use this phrase because a job is an abstract entity, it does not exist in it self, it is not independent of the employee because without the employee it would not exist, it is in a word an ‘Idea’. I do not believe that life is an idea. I think it is obvious that it is a reality that can be verified by experience, by conversation and contemplation. We are alive, whatever that may be, we cannot deny that we are alive, unless we wish to be controversial and stubborn.(note the derivative of the word stubborn).
    Let me turn in detail to the practical problems of abortion.
    Rape is terrible but some good can be taken from it by 1-taking the morning after pill no matter how difficult emotionally, this is better as it prevents an abortion of a fully developing foetus later on which would be more tragic.
    2-Adoption is another way of bringing out positive benefits. Yes this is almost unbearably hard but in the long run a human being will have the chance to life. No life is perfect. When we realise this we can be more reasonable about what to expect for the newborn. Of course adoption is not ideal but I think an imperfect life is better than no life at all despite what we all say in our despair from time to time.
    3-Give birth and look after the child, and through this huge act of compassion bring about the appreciation of the power of love over the horrible lust of the rapist.
    Another practical issue brought up to be an excuse for abortion is disability.-
    Iam severly disabled and would have probably been terminated had the technology been available to see my medical problems in the womb before birth. My life is as precious to me as anyone elses. To say any different is eugenics. Even the most severly mentally disabled people I have met cherish life, though they may not be able to say this to me phyisically. Some of the happiest people I have met have had the hardest lifes, and I add, the most interesting ones. Life is not black and white and it sure as hell is not disabled and non disabled. One person may be disabled by choice- laziness. Another by an external force-physical or mental issues. To even call someone mentally ill is ill placed, since we don’t know what the mentally ill person is experiencing. A doctor may see someone in pain, whilst the patient sees themselves as coping very well and thriving in difficult circumstances. To call someone disabled is arrogant and foolish. To judge life or its quality upon physical ability or perceived mental ability is dangerous. Who are we to gauge the worth of another persons life?
    I would like briefly to pick up on some of ‘ERGOs’ comments.
    ‘Ergo’ says that the ‘right to life is the right to *act* towards self-preservation and self-sustenance.’

    Not so. The right to life is a right to be upheld collectively by society (a group of individuals) for the benefit of each other. Rights are not selfish they should be beneficial to all. A selfish right is a ‘want’ and leads to the rule of anarchy. Rights are collectively agreed freedoms which we wish to preserve for others as much as for ourselves. The right to life is not to act toward self preservation, it is to act toward our neighbours preservation. All life exists sybiotically in a healthy society.
    ERGO says ‘Rights are moral principles that are applicable to only human beings since only humans are moral beings’
    This is not true since rights can be applied to things that are not sentient in the human sense. A forest is not sentient, but it can be argued that it has an inherent right to exist. Only the judeo christian tradition believes the earth is there to be plundered for our own wants. Many animals show signs of there own moral systems. These may be disimilar to our own systems but they ARE moral systems. The chimpanzee and even the humble dog show moral abilities as do many other organisms.
    A new born baby may not have developed a moral system that it is aware of, but this does not mean it has no right to life. This is the same for the foetus or ‘yet to be born human’.
    ERGO says-’One man’s rights imposes only a negative obligation on others to not violate his rights. No one’s rights can ever conflict with each other. Thus, one entity’s right to life cannot conflict with another entity’s right to life.’
    This is simply wrong. Rights conflict all the time. the way we resolve those conflicts is the sign of ‘our intelligent life!!’. The right of a baby conflicts with the rights of the mother or the sibling. A sibling who gets 2 dollars a day pocket money may only get one dollar now that there is a new sibling to look after. Life is a constant juggling of responsibility. This makes us human, it is what makes us empathic and ‘Moral’. If we are truly moral then we will except that following individualitic desires all the time is unwise. If all humans have, for example, the right to live without poverty then we should take responsibility and take precautions so that this can become a reality. To confuse this right to live without poverty with the right to life itself creates a two tier system. It is ok to kill a developing human (foetus) but not acceptable for a developed human (child or adult) to live without poverty. Is this not very wrong. Does this not make you stop and really consider the reality of the act of abortion.
    When talking of rights we have to be very careful what we conclude at each premise we stand on. Faulty premises as ‘Ergo’ points out create conflicts of interest. It is this faulty reasoning that ‘ERGO’ is guilty of. If intelligent people took more time considering the premises of the their arguments and not just their conclusions(many being illogical) we may yet see meaningful and realistic, grounded debate about issues such as abortion. It is not enough to be objective, we need to be subjective and contemplate the harsh reality of killing off life at any stage of development. It is this blinkered humanism rather than grounded humanism which creates the selfish and individualistic, grab and go society we live in today. A reappraisal of how our core values relate to each other is needed urgently.
    Ok nearly there I promise,
    Ergo says-’Since rights pertain to actions, and some actions are beyond the abilities of young infants and children, the voluntary parent (who chose to have children) or voluntary legal guardians are entrusted with the responsibility of administering the rightful actions of their children.’
    Yes some actions are beyond the child or infant or I add the disabled. However rights do not pertain to actions, they pertain as Ergo says earlier to individual entities, ie living beings. A living being is more than the sum of its actions. If life is to have any ‘Right’ at all, then it must have an inherent being or existence to defend. It is not up to the parent ‘to administer the rightful actions of children’. No, it is the parents obligation to defend the childs right to life.
    Ergo says- As ‘rights do not conflict…..it is false to deny that the mother has the right to life, the premise that the fetus has a right to life must be false.’
    This is a case of dodgy inductive reasoning. It is more the case that the mother AND the foetus have a right to life. The two are not mutually exclusive. There is no conflict, only perceived conflict. Since the mother already lives and is living and has the power over the life of the foetus, the life of the foetus is all the more presient and in its fragility, all the more worth defending.
    thanks for reading,
    Peace to anyone I reach,
    jb

  • @ergo, I whole-heartedly disagree with your stated premise. “Morality” begins with a stated notion that something is intrinsically right and something is intrinsically wrong. Thus, an action, like the willful taking of an innocent human life is always and everywhere intrinsically wrong. Such a concept assumes that “rights” are immutable, and one’s rights are never lost…even if they commit a crime.

    Because human society has always viewed the willful taking of an innocent human life as gravely evil, it is incredibly important to determine if a “fetus” is actually a unborn child. Biology answers that question with a resounding “Yes”. Each child in the womb of its mother is a separate organism, complete with its own uniquely human genetic code and its own blood-type. Every “fetus” is in fact, a distinct human person. Each “fetus” is innocent in the purest form, and thus to willfully kill it is to commit an act that society has always felt to be gravely evil (taking an innocent human life).

    If we remove the rights of the unborn, who are human beings like you and me, we open the door for someone to arbitrarily remove our rights.

  • @jb to expand your last point, because a “fetus” is a human being, the mere fact that the mother has a right to life means that the “fetus”, being a human being just like the mother, has a right to life as well.

    The rights of mother and child are intrinsic to the fact that they are human.

  • Murdering an innocent and defenseless baby is never justifiable.

    Those who try to justify murdering these children just expose how unreasonable and non-intellectual their arguments are.

    Every single Embryology textbook out there states that a unique human life BEGINS at conception since they can WATCH IT HAPPENING through a microscope. Its a matter of observable science, not a matter of philosophical or theological opinion.

    There is not one reasonable pro-abortion argument to be made. If there was it would have been made by now.

  • There is not one reasonable pro-abortion argument to be made. If there was it would have been made by now.

    Several pro-choice arguments have been made here that are quite reasonable. You just don’t want to see another side.

    Calling is “pro-abortion” is a gimmick to raise emotions, and does not take into account the real issue.

    I do not believe abortion is murder because the fetus cannot sustain life outside the womb (without medical intervention) at the time most abortions are performed (except for 3rd-trimester abortions, which are rare, despite what religious people want you to think).

    Speaking of the religious angle, most who oppose abortion do so on religious grounds. But the Abrahamic god is the biggest abortionist of them all, as millions of pregnancies end in miscarriages.

    How do you know your god disapproves of abortion? If he hates it so much, why is there not a specific prohibition against it in the Xtian bible anywhere?

    I have no intention of starting a theological argument, but I’ve never received answers to these questions that were reasonable to me.

  • I definitely think that Abortion can not be a black and white issue. While I myself would not get an abortion, I am pro-choice. No, pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion. I don’t think many people run around celebrating abortions. But, I do think they should be legal. Late term should be legal in veryyyy rare cases.
    If abortion is made illegal, women will still get them. But, instead of safe, professionally done ones, they will get dangerous back alley abortions. I recently read a study that found that unsafe abortions cause about 70,000 deaths a year. Most of these deaths are in places like Africa and Latin America where abortion is illegal. The study also found that abortion rates have dropped recently, due to wider use of contraceptives.
    So, I think instead of working to ban abortion, pro-life groups should work to increase use of contraceptives, and give support to pregnant women who need it, so they don’t feel so pressured to get an abortion.
    I liked this article. =]

  • Im a doing a paper about abortion for my school, i think im stuck in the middle…I see and understand why people think its ok any why others think its completely wrong.. It saddens me to even have to think about a poor inocent baby being sucked up in a little tube and its brains made into liquid..But i can also see that when you are trapped and have to make that decision abortion may seem like the only way out. So i guess the way i completely feel is when your the women and yotu have ot carry your child for 9 months it shoudl be up to you wheather or not you want to keep your baby. Your the one thatts giving up your body and going through all the pain. And in my oppinion it dosnt matter how the baby got there or how irresponsible the mother is for the baby getting there, the simple fact is.. is the babys in her stomach and she need to decide what her and the father(if he sticks around) are going to do…
    thanks..

  • Hello all.
    I know this entry was posted a few years ago along with most of the responses, but I feel the need to bring another’s perspective. More precisely bring up one of the first in a new light.

    First off
    “And the “good thing I am/(s)he is here” argument is just… naive, I think. We could play the “what if” game indefinitely.”
    - Joy, first comment

    Yes we could play the “what if” game indefinitely. I would imagine these women do, even after the fact. Painfully so.
    But my existence is very much definite.
    How can that view be ‘naive’ to those who are adopted, like myself?
    Or how can I, other adoptees, & the people who are greatly affected by our existence… how can we think of our ‘birth mothers’ & deem her decision as ‘naive’?

    You may never read this Joy. And in no way is this an attack or holding any hostility.

    To whoever may read this…
    Please take a moment and contemplate how a statement affects those whom you are mentioning, or referring to. You may save alot of heartache & miss communications.

    Yes, I was adopted. I am very grateful for the family I ended up with & the chance she gave me.

    Growing up in a Roman Catholic environment (Catholic School for 13 years!) This Issue was never ending & always fervently debated.

    Countless times as a child I found myself in the midst of emotionally charged debate.
    Life! vs. Death!
    Ignorant Mistake! vs. Rape!

    Regardless if others knew my history, it usually didn’t matter how insensitive & harsh it all was.

    12 years old & younger I was faced with “being a mistake… a mistake shouldn’t exist. So should I exist?”, was I created from hate (rape)??

    When I would chime in with “Hey, What about adoption???” I would get looks of surprise, as if this ideas was new, typically both would continue justifying either extreme, even after I revealed my history. “Yea that’s true Katie, but….”
    Very rarely would anyone else mention adoption as an option.

    Please be careful with your words. In this debate & beyond.
    They have the ability to devastate, instantly or slowly over time. Please choose wisely.

    Its about potential new life,
    its about those of us who was given the chance,
    But it is also the Woman’s life in question.

    Let us not loose sight of the woman;
    she is a human, as am I.

  • I think the title of “heartless fools” for people who choose abortion without having been raped, or have no illness is harsh and unfair.

    Say a woman took precautions, used a condom and it split and is part of that rare percentage that still gets pregnant despite having taken the morning after pill.

    She knows if she has the child she can’t give it the unconditional love and support she could give it if she had it ten years later.

    She also doesn’t want a child of hers given away to somebody else, as that would be heartbreaking for both her and for the child knowing that it was “unwanted.”

    I don’t consider that as either heartless nor foolish as it considers her child’s possible future and what would be best, from a loving perspective, even if it assumes that to choose life would be a negative option. Everyone wants what’s best for their children and make choices according to their own beliefs.

    According to your point of view and your own personal experience you could call it a misguided choice, but your descriptive term is quite undeserved here.

  • Wally Hofmann
    May 8th, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Adoption is almost always a better choice than abortion.

  • I love your thoughts and articles but I have to totaly disagree with your last statement. Abortion is simply a matter of convenience. It is inconvenient to be responsible for irresponsible sex. A person chooses to have sex. An unborn child does not have the convenience to be born or not.

  • I know this article is old but I just had to speak up on it.

    I have adopted 2 beautiful wonderful children out of foster care but I am still pro-choice (possibly even pro-abortion as people on here have said)

    Many people make the argument that adoption is the answer for unwanted pregnancies. The truth is that the “ideal” adoption situation only occurs rarely in the adoption world. When I say ideal, I mean a mentally and physically healthy young woman who gets prenatal care and makes an adoption plan for her child to be adopted by a mentally, physically and financially secure couple. That situation is great, but rare.

    Most of the children that are adopted in this country are only placed by county agencies after years of abuse and neglect, being placed in foster home after foster home just to go back to the parent(s) who are unable, or unwilling to care for these children. The child likely has been exposed to drugs or alcohol in the womb and may very well have some learning disabilities and/or serious mental issues from abuse and neglect.

    These poor children literally have a very SMALL chance of ever becoming part of a forever family and will age out in foster care or be raised by the “grandma” who ironically did such a poor job of raising the parent.

    Adoption is really a beautiful thing, but I think it’s idealized in abortion discussions. There is absolutely a place for abortion in our society as long as children are sitting in foster care systems that NOBODY is willing to adopt.

    Just my 2 cents.

Leave a Reply