Originally Posted by huckleberry

That sounds like an honest answer. How did you feel about it at the time? How do you feel about it now? Just trying to educate myself more.

Huck

Thanks. I guess I need you to clarify your question a bit - what does "it" in your question refer to? There are two things that I can think that the word might refer to (how I felt about the abortion, or how I felt about adoption are the two possibilities), so I'll need you to expand on that for me to give you a good answer.

Originally Posted by ShadowPikachu

I personally opted for abortion over adoption for two main reasons.

1. I had no intention to get pregnant. I faithfully took the pill, and by fiance always used a condom. Despite these precautions, we experienced that "percentage failure" of contraception. I found out I was pregnant several weeks in, and my fiance and I made our decision together.

So, it was a form of birth control?

2. We had no money. We are both in college (finishing up our Masters degrees in a few weeks now), and have enormous student loan fees as well as numerous other monetary problems. Right now the most we can do is finish up school and pay to keep our apartment.

This is an answer based on either BS or ignorance.
Those without money can use Medicare or Medicaid to virtually pay for the entire pregnancy. WIC also supplements your own feeding IIRC with proteins and calcium products. I've known several people (including hard core conservatives) who've had to go this route 'because they couldn't afford a pregnancy'. And if your morality/ ethics prevents you from taking gov't funding, think of it as stuff you already paid for with taxes (now and later), you're just getting some of what you put in back.
Furthermore, there are several agencies that would easily pay for all your needs provided you put the child up for adoption.

Pregnancy is a very expensive thing (which is why I find it ridiculous that pro-lifers offer adoption as if it was such a great option, because adoption itself can be free, but they don't take into consideration everything before adoption), and we couldn't afford to have a child to give up for adoption let alone actually raise one.

Pregnancy isn't expensive at all unless you're conned into thinking it has to be. If it were, poor people couldn't have the kids they do. Medical costs can be paid for by others. It's the luxuries many yuppy types seem to think they need that makes the after effects costly.
In most cases of putting a pregnancy up for adoption, there is NO cost incurred to the mother.

To add to the obvious costs of pregnancy, there is also the loss of pay as I would not be able to work (I'm a geologist - this involves quite a bit of strenuous outdoors work), which would even further affect us.

If putting the child up for adoption, this can be covered too. However, you havingto take time out per doctors instructions is something you might not desire as it could affect career opprotunities in certain lines of work.

Hope everything was clear to you, if you have any questions, just ask. Those were my reasons, and there are many many more that apply to different women in different ways.

As an adoptive parent of 3 with decent knowledge of how 'the system' works, it's these annoying BS answers that tick me off. Perpetuating ignorance if not outright deciet to justify a decision to abort.

As for caring for the kid once they're here, that can be costly. More so for time. If you're poor, EIC and earned child tax credits and deductions help alleviate the child's cost (the gov't wants another generation of consumers and tax payers). You can get your liability to near 0 and have the gov't kick back some money.
But, we're talking adoption.

On top of these decisions, you also have consider the health risks fo carring the child to term OR the risks involved in getting an abortion.

It's nice to think that you'll 'plan' a child later but, life seldom works that way. I'd hate to think that once you're finally ready to have a child, your uterus has been scarred to infertility or have sever complications in conception, carrying the child to term or delivery. I'd be ironic for another yuppy type who can't have children on their own due to an abortion to have to incure greater medical costs to have one or legal costs to adopt...and maybe even seeking a foreign child as there aren't any easily to be had here...since they were all aborted. Also, the older you get, the more health issues possible for the child.

As for the intellectuals who wait to have birth later in life, watch Idiocracy starring Luke Wilson. Then smile as it IS the XXXXXX who are inheriting the world. But, what would you care? You won't be here...and most likely, neither will your decendents.


If you want to kill it, then just kill it and say 'What's it too you?' or even 'Yeah, so I'm selfish and didn't want to take time out of my life to be bothered with details, bugger off ya wanker!'

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

Did I say that her fiance wasn't acting selfishly, as well? No I didn't.
And I wasn't aware of any health concerns. Is this another strawman argument of yours?

I am not talking about anyone's specific circumstances - I just answered the initial question in general.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Those without money can use Medicare or Medicaid to virtually pay for the entire pregnancy.

For the record - the level of assistance available (pregnant or not) varies from state to state. I was living in New Mexico when I got pregnant and a clever woman working at the welfare office figured out a way to fib to the state to get me the medical care they would have otherwise denied.

Though I haven't faced any such tough choices myself, I can hazard a guess about some of the reasons why women choose to abort instead of adopt:

1. Many, if not most women, don't feel that abortion in the first trimester (where the great majority of abortions happen) is that very wrong in the first place. They may feel uncomfortable about it but that may be a small consideration compared to the other factors involved.

2. Many women have very critical reasons for wanting to abort - ex. there is a serious threat to their life or health, they are victims of rape or incest, the fetus may be deformed, etc. - reasons that even many pro-life proponents agree with. These are reasons that might make it very difficult to carry a pregnancy at all.

3. There are serious reasons why a woman does not want to be a mother of that new child. Yes, in those situations, she would also have the option to adopt, so those are the situations that this question most addresses. So, what are some of the reasons she would choose abortion over adoption?

a. Going through a pregnancy and birth can be a harsh ordeal. It certainly
is not something that is easy to go through.

b. Pregnancy can be expensive. If adopting parents cover those costs,
then this reason is null.

c. Most adoptions mean that the mother looses all track of her offspring.
For most women, this would be very hard to take. Open adoptions would
help in this situation.

d. There is still somewhat of a negative stigma attached to a mother who
adopts out her child. Yes, she may have the satisfaction of knowing
that she benefited the adopting couple and probably gave her offspring
a better life, but she will also probably often be asked and ask
herself "How could you have given up your own child? Your flesh and
blood?". From what I have heard, many adopting mothers feel a sense of
guilt. Perhaps some major changes in societal perceptions could help
this.

e. Carrying a pregnancy in public when she is not going to keep the child
shows to the world an embarrasing part of her life (i.e. getting pregnant
accidentally) that can leave the woman open to a lot of societal criticism
that she would prefer to avoid.

Originally Posted by jitobear

For the record - the level of assistance available (pregnant or not) varies from state to state. I was living in New Mexico when I got pregnant and a clever woman working at the welfare office figured out a way to fib to the state to get me the medical care they would have otherwise denied.

Thus, 'virtually'.
I am familiar with KY and IN legalistics. But, your point is taken.
The slack can also be covered for by the adoptor of the child on a case by case basis.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

So, it was a form of birth control?

If you wanted to be picky about it, I guess you could say that it was a form of last-ditch birth control, after the other forms failed.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

This is an answer based on either BS or ignorance.
Those without money can use Medicare or Medicaid to virtually pay for the entire pregnancy. WIC also supplements your own feeding IIRC with proteins and calcium products. I've known several people (including hard core conservatives) who've had to go this route 'because they couldn't afford a pregnancy'. And if your morality/ ethics prevents you from taking gov't funding, think of it as stuff you already paid for with taxes (now and later), you're just getting some of what you put in back.
Furthermore, there are several agencies that would easily pay for all your needs provided you put the child up for adoption.

Ah, now I am the ignorant one or I am lying?! There is no way in heck I would be eligible for Medicare - first off, I am well below 65 years old, and second off, I am not disabled, I do not have end-stage renal disease, nor do I have any sort of other thing that would apply. As to Medicaid, we have actually attempted to look into it, but as we are above the "poverty level" locally, along with several other factors (which are frankly none of your dang business), we are not eligible for Medicaid either. So you can insult me or call me a liar all you want - your views of a perfect little world where every woman will be taken care of are just not reality.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Pregnancy isn't expensive at all unless you're conned into thinking it has to be. If it were, poor people couldn't have the kids they do. Medical costs can be paid for by others. It's the luxuries many yuppy types seem to think they need that makes the after effects costly.
In most cases of putting a pregnancy up for adoption, there is NO cost incurred to the mother.

Oh, really, pregnancy is not expensive? Have you gone through a pregnancy? I talked with numerous friends who went through pregnancies, and the costs were astonishing - from the doctor visits, to the actual delivery which can cost well into the thousands (tens of thousands if there are difficulties with the birth). Just the visit I made shortly before getting an abortion was expensive. As for adoption, there very well may be no cost in the actual procedure- but there certainly are numerous costs - both monetarily and physically- before it. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

If putting the child up for adoption, this can be covered too. However, you havingto take time out per doctors instructions is something you might not desire as it could affect career opprotunities in certain lines of work.

Yes, it certainly would affect my career opportunities, and that was one of the things I took into consideration (note that every thing I listed was something I considered).

Originally Posted by Zardoz

As an adoptive parent of 3 with decent knowledge of how 'the system' works, it's these annoying BS answers that tick me off. Perpetuating ignorance if not outright deciet to justify a decision to abort.

As I have pointed out, the only BS here is your accusations.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

As for caring for the kid once they're here, that can be costly. More so for time. If you're poor, EIC and earned child tax credits and deductions help alleviate the child's cost (the gov't wants another generation of consumers and tax payers). You can get your liability to near 0 and have the gov't kick back some money.
But, we're talking adoption.

Yep, it certainly cann be quite expensive.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

On top of these decisions, you also have consider the health risks fo carring the child to term OR the risks involved in getting an abortion.

Yes, I certainly did consider these risks, and the risks at the time were far higher for continuing pregnancy than getting an abortion.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

It's nice to think that you'll 'plan' a child later but, life seldom works that way. I'd hate to think that once you're finally ready to have a child, your uterus has been scarred to infertility or have sever complications in conception, carrying the child to term or delivery. I'd be ironic for another yuppy type who can't have children on their own due to an abortion to have to incure greater medical costs to have one or legal costs to adopt...and maybe even seeking a foreign child as there aren't any easily to be had here...since they were all aborted. Also, the older you get, the more health issues possible for the child.

I'll have you know that the abortion went without a hitch, and my uterus is perfectly healthy, thankyouverymuch (not that it is any of your business), and yes, I do plan to have a child in the future, and don't really care what you think about it.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

As for the intellectuals who wait to have birth later in life, watch Idiocracy starring Luke Wilson. Then smile as it IS the XXXXXX who are inheriting the world. But, what would you care? You won't be here...and most likely, neither will your decendents.


If you want to kill it, then just kill it and say 'What's it too you?' or even 'Yeah, so I'm selfish and didn't want to take time out of my life to be bothered with details, bugger off ya wanker!'

I'm not selfish, whether you or your buddy JP like to think so or not - I just look at actual reality rather than a fantasy world.


As Another_opinion hinted, another factor is the fact that until around the end of the second trimester, I do not believe that a foetus is a person - something that made the choice to abort much easier for me than it is for some women whose religions have brainwashed them to worship the holy fertilized egg.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Thus, 'virtually'.
I am familiar with KY and IN legalistics. But, your point is taken.
The slack can also be covered for by the adoptor of the child on a case by case basis.

But it does go to show that addressing the reasons will do more than condemnation or criminalization. Not sure where you stand on those issues - but I am a strong proponent of doing more of this as a way to address abortion. All kinds of energy goes into the legalities. I think there are so many ways that both sides could work together.

Originally Posted by ShadowPikachu

If you wanted to be picky about it, I guess you could say that it was a form of last-ditch birth control, after the other forms failed.

No biggy. I am happy though that you did take more than reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy in the 1st place.

Ah, now I am the ignorant one or I am lying?! There is no way in heck I would be eligible for Medicare - first off, I am well below 65 years old, and second off, I am not disabled, I do not have end-stage renal disease, nor do I have any sort of other thing that would apply.
As to Medicaid, we have actually attempted to look into it, but as we are above the "poverty level" locally, along with several other factors (which are frankly none of your dang business), we are not eligible for Medicaid either. So you can insult me or call me a liar all you want - your views of a perfect little world where every woman will be taken care of are just not reality.

I put the word (or) there because I couldn't think off the top of my head which was which.
As to medicaid, you now state 'we'. At the time, you state he was your fiancee, no? Thus, legally, it would have been 'you' until you married. You complain about making ends meet with rent, student loans and normal costs of living...but, you're still above 'impoverished level'. And you were a 'student' then too...
You know, the details are none of my business. Just pointing out that I smell BS. Details either clarify the BS as non-existant or as substantiated.
This is merely for the readers benefit.

Oh, really, pregnancy is not expensive? Have you gone through a pregnancy? I talked with numerous friends who went through pregnancies, and the costs were astonishing - from the doctor visits, to the actual delivery which can cost well into the thousands (tens of thousands if there are difficulties with the birth). Just the visit I made shortly before getting an abortion was expensive. As for adoption, there very well may be no cost in the actual procedure- but there certainly are numerous costs - both monetarily and physically- before it. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken.

Actually, one. After the adoptions years ago, we hit the financial slump and had a suprise... The costs will extremely low. I've also been in discussion with numerous friends who've delivered, same story. Somehow, no matter how there is no money and no help, babies get born.
And as I've said, there are plenty of organizations that will cover all costs finacially in cases of adoption.

Yes, it certainly would affect my career opportunities, and that was one of the things I took into consideration (note that every thing I listed was something I considered).

Actually, as Another Opinion pointed out, there are more considerations beyond that. Emotional ones. Some people would have a hard time giving up some part of themselves (or how ever they see it), thus there are the cases of changed minds. Others may constantly worry later on 'how is s/he doing, are they okay or not...' in regards to the child.

I was merely addressing certain aspects of this topic.

As I have pointed out, the only BS here is your accusations.

Not the way I see it from my experiences. I let the readers decide on their own.

Yep, it certainly cann be quite expensive.

IF you keep it.

Yes, I certainly did consider these risks, and the risks at the time were far higher for continuing pregnancy than getting an abortion.

Then for you, you made the right decision at the time. I'd personally have been leary of not getting to work or go to school easily from the doctors statements, especially in regards to keeping the child.

I'll have you know that the abortion went without a hitch, and my uterus is perfectly healthy, thankyouverymuch (not that it is any of your business), and yes, I do plan to have a child in the future, and don't really care what you think about it.

It's NOT any of my business, but when presenting information to the readers at large, such topics need to be ####ing addressed, something militant pro-abortionist seldom want to bring up.
I'm actually happy that you had a good operation and think more should go into ensuring ALL women have the same low risk proceedures when necessary.
We're dealing with health aspects, all, not just selective. And there may even be things I'm not aware about to consider.

I'm not selfish, whether you or your buddy JP like to think so or not - I just look at actual reality rather than a fantasy world.

Actually all decisions based on the self ARE selfish decisions.
I really don't care. I make them all the time too. Everyone does. While this is a philosophical issue I really see it as odd that people claim not to be selfish when doing something that benefits them or prevents harm to them with little regard to anyone else.

As Another_opinion hinted, another factor is the fact that until around the end of the second trimester, I do not believe that a foetus is a person - something that made the choice to abort much easier for me than it is for some women whose religions have brainwashed them to worship the holy fertilized egg.

Yes, I noticed and addressed his other observations too. He has some good ones, particularly the emotional ones. Although I may be over looking something, I just don't see a stigmatism placed on women who give their children up for adoption. Nor of the countless bastard children born out of wedlock, no one really cares anymore. Definatly no more than those who have had an abortion.
Good PR spin makes such a mother look noble, giving her child that she can't deal with to someone who wants it and will love it as their own.

This 'person' concept also amazes me. A foetus is a stage in human development, something that begins at conception. It possesses unique DNA. But, rather than address it as human, we call it "person" on not a person.
I too have little problems with 1st trimester and early 2nd abortions but don't like to get into quibbling over defining what a person is as I see slippery slope arguements in it.

As to religion. Most are freeking annoying. If even 1% of them who mouth off would lift a finger to help women in distress, well, we'd have far less women having to make difficult decisions.
And IIRC, in ages past, there wasn't much of a problem with abortion so long as it was done before the quickening/ moved in the womb.

I'm with Jitobear, the causes need to be addressed rather than legislated and more than likely there is room for compromise.

I really don't care much for discussing abortion issues, it's too dogmatic like religion for both sides. But as to adoption, I think it's wonderful. I wouldn't mind doing it again but, I doubt the wife would want too.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

No biggy. I am happy though that you did take more than reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy in the 1st place.

Yep - that's someting that many "pro-lifers" also never take into account.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

I put the word (or) there because I couldn't think off the top of my head which was which.
As to medicaid, you now state 'we'. At the time, you state he was your fiancee, no? Thus, legally, it would have been 'you' until you married. You complain about making ends meet with rent, student loans and normal costs of living...but, you're still above 'impoverished level'. And you were a 'student' then too...
You know, the details are none of my business. Just pointing out that I smell BS. Details either clarify the BS as non-existant or as substantiated.
This is merely for the readers benefit.

Yes, it is very easy to worry about making ends meet while being above the "impoverished level". The "impoverished level" is just some choice made by some government officials - it really has no bearing on how someone actually lives. As to "we", that is just my natural way of talking about myself while also thinking of my fiance.

Maybe the BS you smell is coming from somewhere else (hint: anti-choice), because everything I have stated is fact and truly happened to me. If you want to call me a liar, go ahead - your view just has no basis in reality.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Actually, one. After the adoptions years ago, we hit the financial slump and had a suprise... The costs will extremely low. I've also been in discussion with numerous friends who've delivered, same story. Somehow, no matter how there is no money and no help, babies get born.
And as I've said, there are plenty of organizations that will cover all costs finacially in cases of adoption.

There may very well be such things near you, but at the time I knew of none near me - besides the fact that the actual cost was just one of the many factors.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Actually, as Another Opinion pointed out, there are more considerations beyond that. Emotional ones. Some people would have a hard time giving up some part of themselves (or how ever they see it), thus there are the cases of changed minds. Others may constantly worry later on 'how is s/he doing, are they okay or not...' in regards to the child.

I was merely addressing certain aspects of this topic.

Dude, I already said I considered numerous things, so I don't know why you keep complaining about this.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Not the way I see it from my experiences. I let the readers decide on their own.

Well, you didn't have my experiences, now did you? Each woman who has an abortion coul have innumerous circumstances and experiences.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

IF you keep it.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Then for you, you made the right decision at the time. I'd personally have been leary of not getting to work or go to school easily from the doctors statements, especially in regards to keeping the child.

Yes, I did. Which is why I am disgusted by JP's trivializing of everything, as well as calling me immoral (that post, by the way, was reported and the admin deleted it).

Originally Posted by Zardoz

It's NOT any of my business, but when presenting information to the readers at large, such topics need to be ####ing addressed, something militant pro-abortionist seldom want to bring up.
I'm actually happy that you had a good operation and think more should go into ensuring ALL women have the same low risk proceedures when necessary.
We're dealing with health aspects, all, not just selective. And there may even be things I'm not aware about to consider.

Yes, we should definitely make sure abortions are all that safe and have low-risk to the women.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Actually all decisions based on the self ARE selfish decisions.
I really don't care. I make them all the time too. Everyone does. While this is a philosophical issue I really see it as odd that people claim not to be selfish when doing something that benefits them or prevents harm to them with little regard to anyone else.

This decision was not solely based on self, but then, I really don't give a if you want to call me selfish - the facts speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

Yes, I noticed and addressed his other observations too. He has some good ones, particularly the emotional ones. Although I may be over looking something, I just don't see a stigmatism placed on women who give their children up for adoption. Nor of the countless bastard children born out of wedlock, no one really cares anymore. Definatly no more than those who have had an abortion.
Good PR spin makes such a mother look noble, giving her child that she can't deal with to someone who wants it and will love it as their own.

I see no stigmatism either.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

This 'person' concept also amazes me. A foetus is a stage in human development, something that begins at conception. It possesses unique DNA. But, rather than address it as human, we call it "person" on not a person.
I too have little problems with 1st trimester and early 2nd abortions but don't like to get into quibbling over defining what a person is as I see slippery slope arguements in it.

Yes, a foetus is human, made of human cells, and possessing of DNA. However, it is no more a person than my kidney. Personhood implies mental existance, something foetuses do not have before the end of the 2nd trimester.

Originally Posted by Zardoz

As to religion. Most are freeking annoying. If even 1% of them who mouth off would lift a finger to help women in distress, well, we'd have far less women having to make difficult decisions.
And IIRC, in ages past, there wasn't much of a problem with abortion so long as it was done before the quickening/ moved in the womb.

I'm with Jitobear, the causes need to be addressed rather than legislated and more than likely there is room for compromise.

I really don't care much for discussing abortion issues, it's too dogmatic like religion for both sides. But as to adoption, I think it's wonderful. I wouldn't mind doing it again but, I doubt the wife would want too.

Yes, most religions (at least today) care only about preaching, and not about actually doing.

Originally Posted by jitobear

I am not talking about anyone's specific circumstances - I just answered the initial question in general.

And I've posted the statistics and "in general" the majority of abortions are for selfish reasons.

On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Finer LB et al., Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118.

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

I hope that we never grow into such a callous society that we don't value our progeny except when it's "convenient" to do so.

Thank you for proving my point.

Your attempting to equate apples with oranges, or in your example, strawberries. Do you really think that eating ice cream is the moral equivalence of abortion?

Well, thats just a matter of opinion, and thats my point. It is ok to disagree with someone, but abusing a majority power to force your opinions on someone even though it does not concern you at all, and does not harm society. Ice cream fits both of those criteria, and so do embryos.

The principles that this country was founded on were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who speaks for the right to life of the fetus?

Last time I checked, doesn't an embryo not have a brain? Or even a mental existence? Why would you speak for an organic inanimate object.

And before you claim that a fetus has no rights, do your legal homework or I'll inundate you with examples to the contrary.

We are not playing a legal duel. I can show you precedents for denying blacks the right to vote, but we'd both disagree with that.

And, for the record, I'm not a rabid anti-abortion advocate, but I am moral enough to recognize that aborting a fetus because you're not exactly comfortable with your present situation isn't a moral choice.

I agree, however an extremely miniscule percentage are in this situation. Some 50% of abortions are because of contraception or protection failure. And countless others are because they would need to neglect the child they already have for another. To me, it is unfair to both the child that does exist and the mother to do something like that to them. And of course, many women aren't emotionally or financially stable to handle a pregnancy, so to have a baby would be out of the question. Sometimes the mother is 14 and cannot handle a child. Again, I'm for protecting our youth that already exist over a growing cell. And sometimes its all four. The point is, until you know every woman's circumstances, you are in no position to judge her or to shape the course of her life like that.

We aren't talking about a rape victim or a life-threatening episode, we're talking about "bad timing" ONLY.

Thats still a pretty broad definition.

Originally Posted by ShadowPikachu

Yes, I did. Which is why I am disgusted by JP's trivializing of everything, as well as calling me immoral (that post, by the way, was reported and the admin deleted it).

Too bad that the truth is now something to be
As for trivializing, I don't think that my comments about abortion trivialized anything. If anything, I would argue that you trivialized life.

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

Too bad that the truth is now something to be
As for trivializing, I don't think that my comments about abortion trivialized anything. If anything, I would argue that you trivialized life.

I don't really give a flying hippo's arse what you think - your posts here and on the other forums are repugnant, and as of now, you are being put on ignore (to take a page from Steeeeve).