Log in

View Full Version : "I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me"



Sasha
9th August 2012, 01:39
read it in full before you reply...


Lynn Beisner explains the difference between the two phrases “The best choice for both my mother and I would have been abortion” and “I wish I had never been born.”

If there is one thing that anti-choice activists do that makes me see red (http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-08-i-wish-my-mother-had-aborted-me), it is when they parade out their poster children: men, women, and children who were “targeted for abortion.” They tell us “these people would not be alive today if abortion had been legal or if their mothers had made a different choice.”
In the past couple of months, I have read two of these abortion deliverance stories that have been particularly offensive. The first story is one propagated by Rebecca Kiessling, the poster child for the no exceptions in cases of rape or incest. On her website (http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html) Kiessling says that every time we say that abortion should be allowed at least in the case of rape or incest we are saying to her: “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” She goes onto say, “I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts [when people say that abortion should be legal.]”
The second story was on the Good Men Project this week. In an article entitled, “Delivered from Abortion: Healing a Forgotten Memory,” (http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-good-life-delivered-from-abortion-healing-a-forgotten-memory) Gordon Dalbey tells a highly unlikely story about his mother’s decision to abort him and her eventual change of heart. I say that the story is highly unlikely because the type of abortion he says his mother was about to have was not available until 50 years later. However, Dalbey claims to have recovered a memory of being “delivered” from the abortion because as a fetus he cried out to God. He claims that the near-abortion experience had caused him psychological suffering throughout his life. Since recovering the memory, he has experienced survivor’s guilt because he was saved when so many other fetuses have been aborted. In explaining how he overcame this guilt, he quotes a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust who says that the purpose of surviving is to testify to the experience.
What makes these stories so infuriating to me is that they are emotional blackmail. As readers or listeners, we are almost forced by these anti-choice versions of A Wonderful Life to say, “Oh, I am so glad you were born.” And then by extension, we are soon forced into saying, “Yes, of course, every blastula of cells should be allowed to develop into a human being.”
Stories like Mr. Dalbey’s are probably effective because they follow the same model. First there is a woman facing the unplanned pregnancy that poses severe problems. In Dalbey’s case, his family is suffering from extreme poverty, and in the case of Kiessling, her mother is dealing with the aftermath of rape. The story shifts so that the mother has a divine or moral enlightenment and knows that she must carry the baby to term. We are left with an adult praising the bravery of their mothers and testifying that their lives were saved for some higher purpose. But the story goes on to tell us how even the contemplation of abortion was horribly scarring for the person. The moral of these stories is clear: Considering abortion is like considering genocide.
Here is why it is so effective: People freak out when you tell an opposing story. I make even my most ardent pro-choice friends and colleagues very uncomfortable when I explain why my mother should have aborted me. Somehow they confuse the well-considered and rational: “The best choice for both my mother and I would have been abortion” with the infamous expression of depression and angst: “I wish I had never been born.” The two are really very different things, and we must draw that distinction clearly.
The narrative that anti-choice crusaders are telling is powerful, moving, and best of all, it has a happy ending. It makes the woman who carries to term a hero, and for narrative purposes, it hides her maternal failing. We cannot argue against heroic, redemptive happy-ending fairy tales using cold statistics. If we want to keep our reproductive rights, we must be willing to tell our stories, to be willing and able to say, “I love my life, but I wish my mother had aborted me.”
An abortion would have absolutely been better for my mother. An abortion made it more likely that she would finish high school and get a college education. At college in the late 1960s, it seems likely that she would have found feminism or psychology or something that would have helped her overcome her childhood trauma and pick better partners. She would have been better prepared when she had children. If nothing else, getting an abortion would have saved her from plunging into poverty. She likely would have stayed in the same socioeconomic strata as her parents and grandparents who were professors. I wish she had aborted me because I love her and want what is best for her.
Abortion would have been a better option for me. If you believe what reproductive scientists tell us, that I was nothing more than a conglomeration of cells, then there was nothing lost. I could have experienced no consciousness or pain. But even if you discount science and believe that I had consciousness and could experience pain at six gestational weeks, I would chose the brief pain or fear of an abortion over the decades of suffering I endured.


An abortion would have been best for me because there is no way that my love-starved trauma-addled mother could have ever put me up for adoption. It was either abortion or raising me herself, and she was in no position to raise a child. She had suffered a traumatic brain injury, witnessed and experienced severe domestic violence, and while she was in grade school she was raped by a stranger and her mother committed suicide. She was severely depressed and suicidal, had an extremely poor support system, was experiencing an unplanned pregnancy that resulted from coercive sex, and she was so young that her brain was still undeveloped.
With that constellation of factors, there was a very high statistical probability that my mother would be an abusive parent, that we would spend the rest of our lives in crushing poverty, and that we would both be highly vulnerable to predatory organizations and men. And that is exactly what happened. She abused me, beating me viciously and often. We lived in bone-crushing poverty, and our little family became a magnet for predatory men and organizations. My mother found minimal support in a small church, and became involved with the pastor who was undeniably schizophrenic, narcissistic, and sadistic. The abuse I endured was compounded by deprivation. Before the age of 14, I had never been to a sleep-over, been allowed to talk to a friend on the phone, eaten in a restaurant, watched a television show, listened to the radio, read a non-Christian book, or even worn a pair of jeans.
If this were an anti-choice story, this is the part where I would tell you how I overcame great odds and my life now has special meaning. I would ask you to affirm that, of course, you are happy I was born, and that the world would be a darker, poorer place without me.
It is true that in the past 12 years, I have been able to rise above the circumstances of my birth and build a life that I truly love. But no one should have to make such a Herculean struggle for simple normalcy. Even given the happiness and success I now enjoy, if I could go back in time and make the choice for my mother, it would be abortion.
The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. Everything that I have done—including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner—could have been done as well if not better by other people. Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.
It is not easy to say, “I wish my mother would have aborted me.” The Right would have us see abortion as women acting out of cowardice, selfishness, or convenience. But for many women, like my mother, abortion would be an inconvenient act of courage and selflessness. I am sad for both of us that she could not find the courage and selflessness. But my attitude is that as long as I am already here, I might as well do all I can to make the world a better place, to ease the suffering of others, and to experience love and life to its fullest.

Lynn Beisner is the pseudonym for a mother, a writer, a feminist, and an academic living somewhere East of the Mississippi. You can find her on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/lynnbeisner) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/#%21/LynnBeisner). This piece is originally published on Role/Reboot (http://www.rolereboot.org/).

NGNM85
9th August 2012, 01:48
'Anti-choice' is a useless nonphrase.

The real problem with these people is that their arguments make no sense. They can only be glad that their mothers' didn't have an abortion because their mothers elected not to have an abortion, or were unable to have one. Even if one of these nimrods cured cancer; the only way we could come to the conclusion that anyone in the world could have benefitted from their existence is because they existed because there is no other way by which we could make such an evaluation, at least not without some sci-fi MacGuffin.

l'Enfermé
9th August 2012, 16:03
He claims that the near-abortion experience had caused him psychological suffering throughout his life.
Oh for fuck's sake. Survivor's guilt? What the fuck is wrong with so many Americans?!

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'
9th August 2012, 16:29
Oh for fuck's sake. Survivor's guilt? What the fuck is wrong with so many Americans?!

I sighed / laughed (saughed?) at that part...it's funny but equally disheartening that some people can espouse such nonsense and be taken seriously.

The article itself is refreshing, intelligent and thoughtful. But any fundie / Fox news anchor coming across it would have a field day taking it out of context and misinterpreting the careful and considered points she makes.

Women's rights; the saga continues.

Art Vandelay
9th August 2012, 16:47
I can find myself agreeing with pretty much everything stated there.

NGNM85
9th August 2012, 17:02
I'd like to clarify my earlier statement; specifically regarding the merit of the dubious phrase; 'anti-choice.' I do not choose these words lightly. It's a 'non-phrase' because it has no meaning to the public, at large. It has no meaning outside of Radical circles. To the general public, the anti-abortion movement and it's sympathizers are known, collectively, as; 'Pro-Life', and have been for decades, and will continue to be so. There's simply no need for a new designation, because one already exists. Therefore; the only possible purpose that this phrase serves, the only reason one would have for inventing new terminology is to devide the Pro-Choice movement, to insert a wedge between the majority of Pro-Choicers, and an extremist fringe minority, which is not only, as I've said, completely unnecessary, but also totally counterproductive.

Sasha
9th August 2012, 18:31
I'd like to clarify my earlier statement; specifically regarding the merit of the dubious phrase; 'anti-choice.' I do not choose these words lightly. It's a 'non-phrase' because it has no meaning to the public, at large. It has no meaning outside of Radical circles. To the general public, the anti-abortion movement and it's sympathizers are known, collectively, as; 'Pro-Life', and have been for decades, and will continue to be so. There's simply no need for a new designation, because one already exists. Therefore; the only possible purpose that this phrase serves, the only reason one would have for inventing new terminology is to devide the Pro-Choice movement, to insert a wedge between the majority of Pro-Choicers, and an extremist fringe minority, which is not only, as I've said, completely unnecessary, but also totally counterproductive.

No, I completely disagree, it was an calculated move by the anti-choice movement to adopt a name that "frames" them in a way that is not reflective of neither scientific fact nor of their own goals and gives itself an unfair advantage over its critics, afterall the opposition of pro-life is per definition anti-life, who wants to be anti-life?
I believe on of the reasons the US anti-choice movement has been so succesfull is because of this, here, despite attempts to do the same (the anti-choice here is called "schreeuw ik leven", scream for life) everyone, also the media and mainstream politicians refers to them as "anti-abortion activists", as the right to abortion is broadly supported here they are a pathetic fringe group only having influence in the fundamentalist Christian parties.
So also in the US there is no problem with attempting to "framing" them back to what they truly are.
Sure its a slow road but considering how successful they where in their objective we are making good headway. 10 years ago people might think you an extemist fringe radical if you referred to the anti-choicers as that, now in progressive circles is completly normal and everyone else knows what you are talking about too.

Scientology can call itself a church as much as they want, I'm still going to call them an sect, strasserists and nazbols can walk with anti-fascist banners all they want, they are still fascists etc etc.
I'm under no obligation to adhere to their propaghandistic discour.

Agent Ducky
9th August 2012, 18:49
My best friend is actually of the same mindset. She was born to a drunken, substance-abusing teenage mother. Luckily she was adopted and is the wonderful individual she is today, but she has told me that the best choice for her biological mom would have been abortion. She has no delusions like the people in the article, and is staunchly pro-choice.

NGNM85
11th August 2012, 19:47
No, I completely disagree, it was an calculated move by the anti-choice movement to adopt a name that "frames" them in a way that is not reflective of neither scientific fact nor of their own goals and gives itself an unfair advantage over its critics, afterall the opposition of pro-life is per definition anti-life, who wants to be anti-life?

Who wants to be against choice?

Of course the Pro-Life movement is unscientific, it's a fundamentally religious movement. The equivalency between a zygote, and a physically mature human adult can only be accomplished by resorting to a magical essence which is, in their belief, what defines us, fundamentally, as human beings. Obviously; that's bullshit. Any rational person should dismiss it, immediately. However; unfortunately, many people are not rational.



I believe on of the reasons the US anti-choice movement has been so succesfull is because of this, here, despite attempts to do the same (the anti-choice here is called "schreeuw ik leven", scream for life) everyone, also the media and mainstream politicians refers to them as "anti-abortion activists", as the right to abortion is broadly supported here they are a pathetic fringe group only having influence in the fundamentalist Christian parties.
So also in the US there is no problem with attempting to "framing" them back to what they truly are.
Sure its a slow road but considering how successful they where in their objective we are making good headway. 10 years ago people might think you an extemist fringe radical if you referred to the anti-choicers as that, now in progressive circles is completly normal and everyone else knows what you are talking about too.

Scientology can call itself a church as much as they want, I'm still going to call them an sect, strasserists and nazbols can walk with anti-fascist banners all they want, they are still fascists etc etc.
I'm under no obligation to adhere to their propaghandistic discour.

No, the reason why the Pro-Life movement is so powerful in the United States is because it is a religious phenomenon, and the United States is a fanatically religious country. I think many Europeans tend to underestimate this, but in terms of religious fanaticism, the US is closer to Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

I've never heard this phrase anywhere, except Radical publications. This had occurred to me, but I think it's a waste of time. The anti-abortion movement has been, collectively, referred to as; 'Pro-Life' for almost half a century, it's deeply ingrained in the political vocabulary. To change that would take an enormous amount of time and energy, honestly; I don't think it's realistic. I also think it's a waste of time, for this reason, and because I think it focuses on the wrong thing. This is really a false dichotomy that you're making. For example; the Church of Scientology is absolutely a cult, I started a usergroup about it, if you haven't seen it, but it's still called the Church of Scientology. That doesn't mean it isn't a cult, that's just the proper name. So; the term; 'Pro-Life' may, on some level, to a minimal degree, subliminally reinforce the premise of the Pro-Life movement, I think this is exaggerated. Also, again; you could say the same thing about; 'Pro-Choice.' The primary issue is the belief that the fundamental sufficient condition of a human being is this magic essence.

I'm aware that individuals have proposed this kind of re-branding, I don't take it very seriously, but I'm just kind of indifferent. However; I would maintain that in the Radical community, and absolutely, in this particular community, this distinction is employed for the aforementioned reason; as a ploy by a extremist fringe to coopt the Pro-Choice movement, and drive a wedge between themselves, and everyone else. I think that's totally misguided, and counterproductive.

Dean
12th August 2012, 00:48
Why not go further? Outlaw contraception and encourage free love and even rape. There are plenty of people that wouldn't be alive today if, for instance, contraception were more freely available, or a rape hadn't occurred. Why aren't they showing up to rape trials demanding that the suspects be freed?

The only difference is whether a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus are somehow uniquely deserving of individual liberty, apart from the mother, as opposed to your skin cells or haploid cells. The potential for life doesn't mean shit because a rape has the potential to create life, too. Unless you're willing to outlaw hunting and animal testing, which few of these anti-abortionists are, you have no place making the distinction between cells in a human being.

Beeth
12th August 2012, 03:26
Usually, pro-life folks are also pro-war. They care about fetus but not about actual people who die horrible deaths in war.

NGNM85
13th August 2012, 23:43
Why not go further? Outlaw contraception and encourage free love and even rape. There are plenty of people that wouldn't be alive today if, for instance, contraception were more freely available, or a rape hadn't occurred. Why aren't they showing up to rape trials demanding that the suspects be freed?

That's not totally inconsistent with the aforementioned arguments.


The only difference is whether a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus are somehow uniquely deserving of individual liberty, apart from the mother, as opposed to your skin cells or haploid cells.

That's a false equivalency. You can't equate a mature fetus with a haploid cell.


The potential for life doesn't mean shit because a rape has the potential to create life, too.

Rape is an activity, not an organism, or even a potential organism.


Unless you're willing to outlaw hunting and animal testing, which few of these anti-abortionists are,

I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting.


you have no place making the distinction between cells in a human being.

Physical location is completely irrelevent. As human beings are organisms, biological, material beings, what does, or does not constitute a human being is purely a biological question.

Radikal
18th August 2012, 06:33
All I got to say is that's fucked up.

Not anything wrong with her reasoning, just... damn.

Silvr
18th August 2012, 08:57
We cannot argue against heroic, redemptive happy-ending fairy tales using cold statistics. If we want to keep our reproductive rights, we must be willing to tell our stories, to be willing and able to say, “I love my life, but I wish my mother had aborted me.”


What the hell?

The author has obviously been through some awful times, and I certainly empathize with that, but this a ridiculous, ridiculous approach to the question of abortion. What a shit article, to be honest.

Sasha
18th August 2012, 13:06
What the hell?

The author has obviously been through some awful times, and I certainly empathize with that, but this a ridiculous, ridiculous approach to the question of abortion. What a shit article, to be honest.

why?

Jazzratt
18th August 2012, 13:07
What the hell?

The author has obviously been through some awful times, and I certainly empathize with that, but this a ridiculous, ridiculous approach to the question of abortion. What a shit article, to be honest.
I have to disagree. As long as their aren't people able to give this kind of disinterested opinion of their own life and whether or not it was right to abort them you'll always get a response from the anti-choice arseholes about how all lives are sacred and no matter how shit the position of the mother any abortion necessarily means the sacrifice of a happy life full of potential. The only problem with this article is it is that there is only one.

rednordman
18th August 2012, 14:26
I think that everyone one here would agree that we all have a right to live. So why then champion this poor persons wishes that she had never been alive in the first place? Facts are, she was born, that was that and there is nothing at all she could do about it. SHE SHOULD NOT FEEL ASHAMED ABOUT THAT. I mean even in a completely pro-choice world, there would still be alot of people who would choose to have the baby, who maybe are not in a setting that could provide them with a good upbringing.

what this article kind of says to me is: 'mother, please don't give birth to me, because you are poor and undesirable and I will have to live with that'.

Also, if most of the broad-right-wing have read that exact article, they would most likely use it as strong propaganda against the poor and disabled stating that the should be limited in the amount of children they are allowed to have or something daft like that. We all know what most of them are like.

Would you ever get a rich person say the same things? Why should she blame herself or her mother when really its just the fault of the reality she has been given. That we cannot control at all. After all the fact that she is alive is completely out of her hands and the fact that she is resorting to using hindsight is both intriguing and pathetic at the same time.

Sasha
18th August 2012, 14:36
Also, if Hitler had have read that exact article, he would have used it as strong propaganda against the poor and disabled.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=godwins+law

rednordman
18th August 2012, 14:42
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=godwins+lawYou don't think that there is any bases on me using that example?...well it isn't my fault the nazi's really where that bad.

mew
18th August 2012, 15:52
i am pro abortion in the sense that i wish anti-choice assholes (especially ones who have the audacity to call themselves 'leftists' like ngnm85) had been aborted.

edit: good article.

l'Enfermé
18th August 2012, 19:40
NGNM85 is not anti-choice("pro-life"), jackass, and no matter how much people keep on repeating that he is, it doesn't change the truth. He's pro-abortion. And I don't think he calls himself a "leftist", he calls himself an Anarchist, which is pretty accurate, though on many points he's a bit more sensible than most anarchists.

Silvr
19th August 2012, 01:34
why?

I mean, for one, it tries to beat anti-abortionists at their own stupid game, on their own terms (and it does a shit job of it, at that; no one who is in favor of abortion restrictions is going to be swayed by this article). A lot of people have had very hard lives, but most still don't wish they had never been born, and the important point is that it doesn't fucking matter, because the fetus in an aborted pregnancy never reaches the stage of being a conscious person who can reflect on whether or not they approve of their mother's decision regarding her pregnancy.

Contrary to the claims of anti-abortionists, the real subject of the abortion debate is not the fetus, or what the fetus might think if it is born and becomes conscious and capable of considering its circumstances, and yet that is what this article primarily concerns itself with. But what the question of abortion is really about is the status of women in society (and those most effected by restrictions are poor and working class women) and their ability to make a decision about the most intimate aspects of their own bodies--a decision which has a direct, profound effect on their economic circumstances.


I have to disagree. As long as their aren't people able to give this kind of disinterested opinion of their own life and whether or not it was right to abort them you'll always get a response from the anti-choice arseholes about how all lives are sacred and no matter how shit the position of the mother any abortion necessarily means the sacrifice of a happy life full of potential. The only problem with this article is it is that there is only one.

Articles like this are not going to change that, even if there were trillions of them. Nevermind the fact that there is probably only one article like this because wishing you had been aborted is not a very common opinion...

In any case, the abortion debate is not something that is going to be won through articles and debate and propaganda.


NGNM85 is not anti-choice("pro-life"), jackass, and no matter how much people keep on repeating that he is, it doesn't change the truth. He's pro-abortion. And I don't think he calls himself a "leftist", he calls himself an Anarchist, which is pretty accurate, though on many points he's a bit more sensible than most anarchists.

pro-abortion and anti-choice and pro-life are all somewhat vague terms. But what is clear is that NGNM is in favor of state interference in the matter of abortion. Also, he is an 'anarchist' in the sense that Chomsky is an 'anarchist', i.e. he is a radical liberal. Although TBH calling him a radical of any sort seems like an overstatement to me.

NGNM85
19th August 2012, 19:03
i am pro abortion in the sense that i wish anti-choice assholes (especially ones who have the audacity to call themselves 'leftists' like ngnm85) had been aborted.

It's interesting, but not surprising, that such banal remarks would arouse such extreme hostility.

I won't bother with the baseless, and spurious attack on my credentials as a Leftist. Nor will I bother refuting the charge of 'anti-choicism' because, as I was saying, earlier, this is a useless nonphrase employed by extremists, like you, in a misguided attempt to hijack the Pro-Choice movement.

NGNM85
19th August 2012, 19:57
pro-abortion and anti-choice and pro-life are all somewhat vague terms.

Virtually no-one describes themselves as; 'pro-abortion.' The participants in the political, and philosophical battle over abortion (Which is, virtually, everyone.) are devided into two camps; 'Pro-Choice', and; 'Pro-Life', each representing a fairly narrow range of opinion, those in favor of legalized abortion fall under the heading of; 'Pro-Choice.' I am Pro-Choice, and I have always been Pro-Choice. 'Anti-Choice' is, as I was saying, a non-phrase employed by misguided individuals who want to hijack the Pro-Choice movement.


But what is clear is that NGNM is in favor of state interference in the matter of abortion.

That's misleading, at best. First; it should be clear that as an Anarchist, I'm philosophically opposed to Nation-States. However; that does not mean that every function the state serves is fundamentally bad. I also don't have any institutional power to enforce my opinions, nor do I really seek to have such power. Again; my ideal society would be some kind of decentralized Socialist federation, something like Shalom's Parpolity, or Marx's description of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which was based on the Paris Commune. However; I certainly have an opinion on the subject.

First, it should be asked; by what criteria would one make such a judgment? As an Anarchist, I would submit that any infringement on the individual should require a heavy burden of proof. Whatever conclusion we reach should be ethical, and humane. Last, but not least; it should be logical, and scientific. I would argue there's really only one answer that satisfies all of these criteria.

My position is essentially identical to the conclusion in majority opinion in Roe v. Wade; that abortion should, or, rather, must be availible to anyone who wants one, up until around 28 weeks. (Which is consistent with similar laws, that have been passed, as far as I know, in every single country that has legalized abortion.) Although; while I agree with the conclusion, I disagree with the courts' reasoning. The jurists' based their conclusion on viability, which is a red herring, what really matters is neurological development. I would also go one step further than the Supreme Court, and say that not only should abortion be legal, and availible, but that it should be offered free of change, at any local hospital, as, I would argue, this procedure qualifies under the heading of healthcare, and healthcare is a basic human right, and should, thus, be availible to everyone. So; by my lights; abortion should be much more accessible than it is, in the United States, today.


Also, he is an 'anarchist' in the sense that Chomsky is an 'anarchist',

Have we met? Regardless; you have no idea what my political views are, (Although; you're free to ask.) and, thus; are totally unqualified to judge.

There's no reason for the quotation marks. Noam Chomsky is an Anarchist. So am I. Furthermore; while I admire Chomsky, and I've read much of his work, my philosophical development did not start, and does not end, there. You might've noticed my user title is a quote from Proudhon, or that my handle is an initialism of the slogan; 'No Gods, No Masters.' That was actually coined by Blanqui, who I'm not especially enamored of, however; it's been employed by Anarchists for years. My politicization actually began with Emma Goldman, which blew my teenage mind, then Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker, etc., etc. I've been reading a bit about Marx lately, before that I was reading Michael Harrington's Socialism, Socialism: Past & Future, and Twilight of Capitalism. However; I really haven't changed much, philosophically, from my teens, at least, in terms of core principles.


i.e. he is a radical liberal.

If you had the slightest clue you'd know that this phrase is an oxymoron. 'Radical', and; 'Liberal' are mutually exclusive terms.


Although TBH calling him a radical of any sort seems like an overstatement to me.

Again; you simply aren't qualified to make that asessment, for a number of reasons.

More importantly; none of this is at all relevent to the topic at hand. The Topic of this thread is the dubious article cited by the OP.

NGNM85
19th August 2012, 20:08
I have to disagree. As long as their aren't people able to give this kind of disinterested opinion of their own life and whether or not it was right to abort them you'll always get a response from the anti-choice arseholes about how all lives are sacred and no matter how shit the position of the mother any abortion necessarily means the sacrifice of a happy life full of potential. The only problem with this article is it is that there is only one.

There's a lot bigger problems with it than that. The biggest one being that she's missing the forest for the trees. She never even acknowledges the gaping wide holes in the arguments she's (badly) attempting to confront. I mean; it's not exactly irrelevent to point out that it doesn't even make sense. I don't see how anything could be any more prescient. I mean, the argument predicated on magic essences, etc., which is, again, the driving force behind the Pro-Life movement, is, at least, sound in it's internal logic, even if the premises are completely ridiculous. This whole; 'I'm so glad I wasn't aborted.' argument even falls short of that. To not acknowledge this fact is both; negligent, if she's honestly trying to refute it, and, frankly; baffling.

zoot_allures
26th October 2012, 21:09
I almost killed my mother. She was in hospital for six months after having a bunch of hemorrhages. She was absolutely crazy not to have aborted me.

(Obviously, I'm very glad she didn't.)