Tale of a 19th-century abortion provider

[serious crayons]

I'm with you up until you get to the point of excluding the baby's father. No way. Not unless he is estranged from the wife, or impregnated her against her will. He has just as much right to decide what to do with that child as she does. And in many, many cases, couples (married or not) make that decision together.

I agree, up to a point. A father definitely does have a say in this. An equal say? Maybe not.

Thank you for your thoughts, milomorris.  As I said, this has turned into a very heated discussion.

Perhaps I phrased myself poorly.  When I had my abortion, my boyfriend and I discussed it at length.  He had previously borne two children -- one of them given to adoption, one of them born to a married girlfriend he no longer saw, and then this one which would have been borne out of wedlock and just a few days after we had broken up, for what we thought was for good.  I went on a rather wild rampage, drinking myself silly and taking migraine medication that would definitely not contribute to the health of a fetus.  But at the time, I had no clue I might have been pregnant.  I was on the pill and taking it just as the doctor prescribed.  I only found out later that if you vomit sometimes, for whatever reason, the birth control pills become completely ineffective.  I learned this when the nurse from my ultrasound said the word "viable" to me.  I'd never heard the word before and had to ask her to explain.  She said the life inside of me was "10 week's viable".  Despite the fact that we were broken up, I did get hold of him immediately, saw him in person, told him the state I was in and how far along I was, and what my choice was, considering my/our circumstances, and asked him his opinion.  He agreed with me, and took me to the abortionist a few days later.  We were both torn up to pieces, but looking back, considering I was making next-to-no money, he wasn't my boyfriend at the time, he was living with his mom, and the very strong recommendation from my doctor that I not bring this child into the world, that's what I did.  My girl lost her life, AT MY CHOICE, on Dec 27, 1988.  She'd be 20 now, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't think of what she could have been to me and to herself and to this world.

It's NOT a simple choice.  Terminating a life -- whether it's a fetus or a dying parent or anyone else -- is the hardest choice anyone ever makes.

But I chose, and I'll also never stop being thankful that I live in a state and a country where a woman can choose.  I'm fairly sure I'm a bit too old to get pregnant again, but if I did, I'd be sure I lived in a country that let me make my/our choice.

Again, no offense for your opinion, Shasta, and I hope I made myself clearer, milomorris.  I just have mine as well, hope you don't hold it against me.

Thank you for sharing this, Mandy. This really helps put things in a very personal perspective.

[delalluvia]

Thank you for sharing this, Mandy. This really helps put things in a very personal perspective.

Ditto.  Thank you so much for telling us your story, Mandy  It really does help to put a human face on the women who make such a difficult decision that some people are so quick to judge.

[Mandy21]

Thanks, folks.  It's no big deal to share my story.  As I said, I live through the tears every minute of every day, and I do have regrets, but I'm also happy that I made that choice.  It was the right choice at that time in my life, in my situation.  Whether or not she would have turned out perfect, or even alright, no one can say.  My heart aches for that little girl the doctor showed to me before he threw her into a trash bin, every day.  20 years' on, and I'm still thinking on the name I'd have given her.

BTW, that man -- our girl's father -- became my one and only husband, and we lasted almost 6 years as man and wife.  He proposed the day before the abortion.  Got down on his knees and everything.  The abortionist commented on how beautiful my engagement ring was, as I was gripping onto the table, right before the suction noise began...

[Monika]

I'm with you up until you get to the point of excluding the baby's father. No way. Not unless he is estranged from the wife, or impregnated her against her will. He has just as much right to decide what to do with that child as she does. And in many, many cases, couples (married or not) make that decision together.

Well, what if they can´t come to a decision they both agree on then? Let´s say the woman wants to have an abortion and the man doesn´t. Should the woman be forced to give birth? And how would this be enforced exactly?

It is a nice idea, but completely unrealistic.

[milomorris]

Well, what if they can´t come to a decision they both agree on then? Let´s say the woman wants to have an abortion and the man doesn´t. Should the woman be forced to give birth? And how would this be enforced exactly?

It is a nice idea, but completely unrealistic.

I would image there might be a legal solution to such a dispute if both parties were dug in so deep.

If we look at the flip side--where the man wants the abortion, but the woman doesn't: should the man be forced to support the child??

[Monika]

I would image there might be a legal solution to such a dispute if both parties were dug in so deep.

If we look at the flip side--where the man wants the abortion, but the woman doesn't: should the man be forced to support the child??

The idea of a society where courts could force women to give birth to children...I doubt that´s what anyone wants. And again; how should this be enforced?


And the answer to your other questions is yes. As soon as a baby is born, the welfare of the child is the most important thing. I don´t think a man should be forced to see the child (because this could harm the child) but financially he must be there

[Mikaela]

Thank you for sharing this, Mandy. This really helps put things in a very personal perspective.

I agree. Thank you.

[Mikaela]

The idea of a society where courts could force women to give birth to children...I doubt that´s what anyone wants.

I agree the idea is hard to wrap one's mind around. Nevertheless, that is in fact what the anti-abortion supporters advocate isn't it - forcing women to give birth. What else is it, when women are denied legal and medically safe abortions (and indeed, even contraception in many countries?)

If the choice is between the knitting needles on the sly or having an unplanned baby that you don't see your way to caring for at all.... and the woman even will be severely prosecuted for having that illegal and dangerous abortion if she so decides..... that for all practical purposes is a society which does it darndest to force women to give birth, at the risk of their own lives.

Rumenia was just one such country, under the Ceauchesku (?) regime. It's not that long ago - I very well remember the end of all that. There's a recent and very bleak movie portraying womens' lot under that abortion-denying regime. "Four months, three weeks, two days"  it's called - and it won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2007. But I have never dared watch it, - I fear it will be too emotionally devastating.

[Monika]

"Four months, three weeks, two days"  it's called - and it won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2007. But I have never dared watch it, - I fear it will be too emotionally devastating.

I had to review that movie for a newspaper. It´s really, really hard to watch.

[Mikaela]

You are a brave woman! (Not that I doubted that at all...  )