Several of you sent me this one posted on November 3 by the Daily Mail.

I love abortion stories emanating from the UK. They're void of liberal abortion offense or defense. Journalists there just tell the story.

At her 20-week ultrasound scan last year, Rebecca Jones was told one of her twin boys was half the size of his brother with a heart three times the normal size.

Doctors said the boy would likely have a heart attack or stroke en utero, which would threaten the life of the surviving twin. Doctors said his survival after birth was "impossible."

They said "[i]t would be kinder to let him die in the womb with his brother by his side than to die alone after being born," according to the story, a load of emotionally coercive hooey. It was the ludicrous inverse of saying, "Let his brother deal with the death, not you."

Nevertheless Jones absurdly responded, "That made my mind up for me. I wanted the best thing for him."

The world is mad....

Doctors first tried to sever little Gabriel's umbilical cord to asphyxiate him, but his cord was too strong.

They then cut the babies' shared placenta in half "so that when Gabriel died, it would not affect his twin brother." a modern-day twin version of the Bible story about King Solomon threatening to cut a baby in half.

Which reminds me, doctors are not God, no matter what they think.

But thank the one true God, there's a happy ending:

Gabriel hung on, and his enlarged heart started to reduce in size. He also gained weight.

Mrs Jones said: "They thought it may be because the placenta had been divided. Inadvertently, it had evened out the distribution of nutrition between them, allowing Gabriel to survive."

When Mrs Jones reached 31 weeks doctors carried out a caesarian to deliver the twins. Ieuan weighed 3lb 8oz and Gabriel 1lb 15oz. Both were kept in hospital, but since going home they have thrived. At seven months, Ieuan weighs 15lb and Gabriel 12lb 6oz.

Yet the psychobabble continued, with Jones apparently taking no responsibility for the near death of her son:

Mrs Jones said: "... Gabriel is always laughing, it's like he's just so happy to be here.

"There is such a strong bond between them.

"They are always holding hands and if one cries, the other reaches out to comfort him."

"Doctors tried to break their bond in the womb, but they just proved it couldn't be broken."

[HT: Laura L., Phil M., Dr. Frank, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Msusan, and moderators jasper, MK, and Valerie]

Yanno...

The doctors really did believe that the smaller, sicker twin was going to take his brother down with him.
I don't think this story was about abortion per se, as much as it was about a joyous and fortunate medical mistake that resulted in two sound fat-legged babies instead of two dead ones.

I think it's a cute story...I don't know why they didn't just cut the placenta in half to begin with. That makes more sense to me, because if they're just trying to keep one from killing the other, then I would just take away the route by which the other could die...I wouldn't just kill one "in case" it could cause the other's death. Are you trying to say, Jill, that you didn't agree with cutting the placenta in half (your reference to the Biblical passage)?
I mean, aren't you guys about saving as much life as possible? If one was going to die, and that death would kill the other, isn't it better to save one than lose both? I didn't agree with the doctors trying to cut the umbilical cord right off the bat, because that wasn't trying any methods that would seek to try and save both. As a future medical student (hopefully), I'm pretty sure I would have just divided the placenta to take away the risk of one causing the other's death, while allowing nature to take its course on the sickly one.

And I don't agree with making Mrs. Jones out to be a bad person in this situation- she was faced with a tough decision that might have killed both, but luckily didn't. The fact that her son NEARLY died as a result of doctor's recommendations for her condition doesn't mean she was at fault- the doctors were for not trying to use the method that would have safeguarded one twin without actively killing the other. I'm sure she was told by the doctors that her option was "this" or "that" and she chose based on the fact that she could lose one or both. If you had to save one of your kids at the expense of the other, or lose both, what would you do? Mrs. Jones wasn't looking at it in the way that one of her sons was expendable, she was going on the opinion of her medical professionals that the best thing to do was to operate to take out one twin. Obviously, I disagree with their sentiment as well. I see them as the ones at fault, whereas Mrs. Jones was probably going through the most heart-wrenching decision ever.

Jill...I'd like to know what you'd have done in this situation, what with your medical background. I'm very curious. :D

I assume that a lot of babies are saved by this type of tough decisions by mothers and their doctors.

What a beautiful happy ending.

It shows how little the "experts" really know.

Why is it that the doctors' decision is always to kill the weak/imperfect baby/ babies?

Is there a manual somewhere that says this?

Oh right...they took that part out of their Hippocratric oath.

What the enemy meant for evil, God meant for good.

Why is it that the doctors' decision is always to kill the weak/imperfect baby/ babies?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No one wanted to kill a weak, imperfect baby.

The intent was to keep a failing pregnancy from destroying a healthy one.

Hal: I assume that a lot of babies are saved by this type of tough decisions by mothers and their doctors.

Don't you mean "fetuses", Hal?

What the enemy meant for evil, God meant for good.

I like the way you put it, Laura, I just disagree with the way the doctors handled it. I think the first step was to divide the placenta, NOT cut the cord. That way, if it truly was a fetal anomaly, Gabriel would have died (or lived, in this case) naturally, without affecting the health of his brother. The doctors would not have directly killed him on a suspicion that his dying could have harmed his brother.

No one wanted to kill a weak, imperfect baby.
The intent was to keep a failing pregnancy from destroying a healthy one.

A healthy what, Laura?

since when do the "pro-choice" monsters care about unborn babies??

The point is that the doctor was quick to jump on the "abortion" bandwagon, as so many doctors are. My sister-in-law was counseled by her doctor to abort three different times after 20 weeks. He even offered to change her due date since she was past the legal term limit. Well, she doesn't believe in abortion, and her son is a healthy 2-year-old today. I know several people that this happened to. I believe abortion in wrong in any situation, but it is particularly troubling when it is doctor-counseled based on their (apparently) faulty diagnostic techniques.

EH

Those babies are just so darn cute!

Bethany, can you post a little cartoon of someone slipping on a banana peel?? SLIP!

Jasper: Again, you're displaying your jerk tendencies...for once, can't you just accept that sometimes, we AGREE on something? How about you read my post and rejoice in the fact that I disagree with the way the problem was handled in this case, and thought that the best way to try and safeguard both was to try and keep one from harming the other, WITHOUT directly causing his death? Please? Jasper? I mean this with utmost respect, just don't get all huffy when someone agrees with you because it breaks your ability to stereotype us.

Lyssie, I preface by saying I can only speculate based on facts presented in the story.

My goal would have been to save both babies. I would have tried to get both babies to make it at least to 23 weeks, the current line of viability.

According to the story, the healthy baby was showing no signs of stress and the sick baby was showing no signs of dying.

I would have watched both carefully for signs that either of those events were happening.

Were the sick baby to have died naturally en utero before 23 weeks, I still would have continued to watch carefully and tried to get Baby B to make it to 23 weeks and beyond if possible.

As it turned out, the babies made it to 31 weeks before being taken by c-section.

As to whether I would have cut the placenta in half in an attempt to save both babies, that is not why doctors did it. I have never heard of cutting a placenta in half for positive therapeutic reasons, meaning I'm no expert. So I don't know.

ROFLMAO!!!! Thank you Bethany!

No problem ;)

Lyssie,

I like the way you put it, Laura, I just disagree with the way the doctors handled it. I think the first step was to divide the placenta, NOT cut the cord. That way, if it truly was a fetal anomaly, Gabriel would have died (or lived, in this case) naturally, without affecting the health of his brother. The doctors would not have directly killed him on a suspicion that his dying could have harmed his brother.

Wow! You just summed up the whole Catholic churches viewpoint on "the life of the mother"...

You're sounding more and more like a prolifer everyday...lol. Not to mention a Catholic!

Hal, maybe you are starting to become a bit pro life yourself...??????

The doctors tried to get my mother to abort me because of a blood clot in her leg. She said no way, risked her life when we both could have died.

JM, you must have a wonderful, strong and beautiful mother.

Well Heather, according to jasper I should probably be angry with her for not aborting me. You know because pro-choice people want everyone to abort.

My mom is my best friend.

Heather, I'm big on life. I'm just not against abortion for those women who decide it's the right choice for them.

"decide it's the right choice for them."

Clap clap clap!! I agree

MK:

Obviously, the whole point was to try and save both, I just didn't like the way the doctors handled it. They were actively trying to get rid of one to save the other, when a more natural way (dividing the placenta) would have been better. That way, one could live or die naturally. About the life of the mother, one could stress that because it COULD be the pregnancy (and the fetus/baby) CAUSING what could be a MAJOR health concern or death for the mother, that she should be able to remove that cause due to self-defense(ie early caesarean section or induction before or after viability, depending on how dire the woman's circumstance is). No woman should have to carry to viability, though, if her circumstances are dire, just so the baby can be saved. That's like saying we'll let someone stay in a burning building, even though we're able to save him/her, because we want to wait to save the person who started the fire on another floor. We're putting the first person on the other floor at a higher, unnecessary risk for the sake of the person that started the fire, just because we won't be able to save the fire-starter until a later time (after, say, more water is put on the burning building). That's how I look at it.

Jill:
I never thought that the dividing the placenta would have been "therapeutic", it just so happened to be in this case. I would have rather done it so that nature could take its course without hurting the other one.

I'm just not against abortion for those women who decide it's the right choice for them.

Is it the right choice for the baby?

Above was me.

MK: I wouldn't start calling me too "Catholic" yet...I'm still in agreement with using contraception because I'd have to say I'm not too thrilled about the prospect of being pregnant several times. Twice, or possibly three times, is enough for me.

"Is it the right choice for the baby?"

wow, I never thought about it that way.....

"Is it the right choice for the baby?"

How does anyone know what is right for the baby?

No one wanted to kill a weak, imperfect baby.
The intent was to keep a failing pregnancy from destroying a healthy one.

A healthy what, Laura?

Posted by: Bethany at November 6, 2007 9:20 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A healthy pregnancy.
The intent was to keep a failing pregnancy from destroying a healthy pregnancy.

Hal, maybe you should start thinking about it that way.

pregnancy

You just can't bear to say "baby" can you, Laura? What do you think those are in those pictures?

How does anyone know what is right for the baby?

I can confidently say that poisoning, dismemberment or lethal injection are WRONG for the baby.

There's always at least one baby involved, Hal. Otherwise, there'd be nothing to abort.

Clap clap clap!! I agree

Would you be agreeing if your mother hadn't made a selfless risk to give you at chance at life?

"Would you be agreeing if your mother hadn't made a selfless risk to give you at chance at life?"

Well thats pretty silly, if my mother had made the choice to abort me I wouldn't be here, therefore how can I agree or disagree? But i'll humor you, yes i'd feel the same way. Because my mother would have made the right choice for her and her family.

Yet the psychobabble continued, with Jones apparently taking no responsibility for the near death of her son:

What? If the doctors hadn't gone in and done what they'd done, both twins might be dead today. The intent of operating was to save at least one of them, but the happy result was life for both of them. It's a wonderful story. What on earth is there to "take responsibility" for?

Well thats pretty silly, if my mother had made the choice to abort me I wouldn't be here, therefore how can I agree or disagree?

Don't you think you should extend to people the grace you were given?

Beyond that, do you really think so little of yourself that you'd believe your death is somehow the right choice for your family? I know your family would disagree.

What on earth is there to "take responsibility" for?

She went in to kill/destroy baby Gabriel. A fluke, unintentional consequence was that Gabriel was saved.

Someone that intends to kill and accidentally saves the life of his victim is still an attempted murderer. That's what she should take responsibility for.

I tell you what, JM. Go ask your mom. Ask her if she thinks that aborting you and living without you would have been a good choice for her and her family. Tell us what she says.

What i am saying is that at the time it may have been the right choice for my family. My parents had two child under the age of 5, it would be pretty sad if they had to grow up without a mother. Are they happy they decided against it. yes of course. Am i happy to be alive, yes of course.

My mother made the best choice for HER. Someone else in a similar situation may have made another choice. Thats their choice to make.

Lyssie,

I understand your desire not to be pregnant so much. But religion is a search for and conformity to truth. I didn't choose my religion based on what suited my needs or desires, otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian- I'd be my own Lord and live only for myself. But I discovered the truth about Jesus Christ and realized that the truth was more important than my wants.

But then, something awesome happened: Surrendering myself to His will for me, I found that I was so much happier and more fulfilled that I could have ever been running my own life. I obeyed and switched majors (I didn't want to), I obeyed and went to grad school (I didn't want to do that either). It wasn't until I was 75% through with my masters when I realized what I wanted to do with my life---only to look up and see that I was perfectly trained to do just that! My obeying and switching majors and going to grad school meant that I could do what I dreamt of. I wouldn't be stuck in a career I hated or had to go back to school- I was ready to stride out into the world! This is just one example of how following Christ apart from what we think we want will ultimately satisfy us. I'm glad I obeyed, since He knows my wants better than I know them myself.

I think what you'll find if you trust that God's ways are for your good, is that His plans for your life are better than your own. Maybe He plans 3 kids, maybe 5, maybe 1, maybe adoption. Either way, submission to His will (which is always good) is what will bring you the fullness of joy. I speak as someone that fought His will in other areas of my life and looked back to lament lost time- His will is what you want, even if you don't yet recognize it.

My mother made the best choice for HER. What i am saying is that at the time it may have been the right choice for my family. .

Ask her.

Abortion is never the right choice. It always wrongs someone (the baby, at the very least).

JM,

I think you're being awful altruistic with your life now that you're out of harms' way. If the situation were different and your mom could choose to kill you now "because it's best for HER and her family," would you so selflessly submit to dismemberment? After all, it's her choice to make, right?

mk - question..

If what is inside a woman when she is pregnant not a baby, then why do any surgury at all?

I mean why care if a women has a healthy pregnancy compared to an unhealthy pregnancy. Afterall according to PCers we all know that we are talking about blobs, potential lives, invaders, parasites, clomp of cells. If we are not carring for unborn human beings then why go through all the money and trouble to save something that really doesn't deserve to be here in the first place, unless it happens to be the right time, under the right conditions, when the stars have all aligned just right.

Does anyone know someone who considered abortion, decided to parent, and figured afterward, "Well, that was the WRONG choice for me. Abortion would have been better for everyone"? I had an unplanned pregnancy--I found out on week after being placed with a newborn through adoption--so my kids are less than 9 months apart. It was far from ideal and I was panicked. But I can never look back on my son and wish he wasn't there. Abortion gives women an "out" to their panic response, but if they had the baby, would they really be wishing that they had aborted? I know plenty of people who have had unplanned and crisis pregnancies, and no one who has said, "Allowing the baby to live WRONG choice."

EH

pregnancy

You just can't bear to say "baby" can you, Laura? What do you think those are in those pictures?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 6, 2007 10:04 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In those pictures?
Those are babies.

She went in to kill/destroy baby Gabriel.

No, the doctors went in to save baby Ieuan. Fortunately, their intervention wound up saving both babies.

EH, how right you are, but I know plenty of post abortive women who regret their abortions. Two true stories: I know of two women, both in their 50's. One was an old neighbor, the other is a former co-worker. One woman had 2 abortions in her 20's. The other had 3 abortions. Both are childless today, and both have told me the same thing. What did they say?.."I regret my abortions." "I'm going to die a lonely person."

"Jasper: Again, you're displaying your jerk tendencies..."

LOL! ok, I'll tone it down....

hello, jasper!!!!

Laura,

What's the difference between a baby just about to be born and one that has just been born?

You can't kill someone just so someone else won't die.

Would a person be justified in killing someone on the organ donor list, because their child would die without the kidney? What if the organ donor to be was in a wheel chair, or lacked "quality of life"?

What makes me so sad is, this story has been in the paper and all over the internet. Someday that baby will grow up and realize that when his parents found out he wasn't perfectly healthy, they tried to kill him. That is just heartbreaking to me - when a child is sick and his parents turn on him, instead of protecting, loving, and fighting for him.

Hi heather,

hope you're doing well :)

Right, Milehi!

In those pictures? Those are babies.
---------------------------------

So, Laura, what's the difference between babies at 31 weeks of life(when the C-Section was done) and the babies in the picture at 7 months of life?

*reminds of a shirt I saw: "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant!"

Laura,

What's the difference between a baby just about to be born and one that has just been born?

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 10:56 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Autonomy.
At the moment of birth the fetus becomes a separate entity. An individual. A baby.

No, the doctors went in to save baby Ieuan. Fortunately, their intervention wound up saving both babies.

No. The doctors decided to kill the smaller/weaker to save the bigger/stronger, rather than attempting to save both.

The intended to kill. Bottom line.

At the moment of birth the fetus becomes a separate entity. An individual. A baby

Before the umbilical cord is cut?

What about partial-birth abortion?

Fortunately, their intervention wound up saving both babies.

That was not the intent- but God worked it together for good.

At the moment of birth the fetus becomes a separate entity. An individual. A baby
-------------------------------
Before the umbilical cord is cut?

What about partial-birth abortion?

Posted by: Jacqueline
-------------------------------
Moment of birth? Are you going by the time the entire baby is out or just winging it?

My 3 month old son got his head stuck coming out, (that's why he had a nasty bump on the head)...so, you're telling he's not a baby just yet while he was stuck for a few seconds and then VOILA! became a baby after he was unstuck???

RSD -

I think that is exactly what Laura is saying. Laura and her elk have to say that bc to acknowledge at any point in-utero that a fetus -

I have to stop here for a minute.

FETUS means unborn baby or infant depending on use.

- is a baby, forces them to state the obvious - Unborn babies are human beings. Then they would have to admit that abortion is the killing of unborn children. And they cannot go there.

I think that is exactly what Laura is saying. Laura and her elk have to say that bc to acknowledge at any point in-utero that a fetus -
- is a baby

Posted by: Tara at November 6, 2007 11:59
```````````````````````````````````````````````

Elk?

The article presupposes that both of the boys were persons before birth. If he was not a person, than how could he have a bond with his brother?
And why would the doctors feel it would be better for him to die near his brother?

Has anyone every heard of Post Secret? People mail this man their deepest secrets and he posts them online. I once saw the following post card:
"A few weeks ago I met the son I gave up for adoption 20 years ago... I wish I would have had an abortion instead" So yes, sadly there are people that wish they had aborted.

Oh and Jacqueline your religious arguments are invalid to me. I did this for God I did that for God. He tells me what to do. Good for you for being religious, but guess what, its not for everyone. Some religious people, not all, are some of the most judgmental individuals that i have ever met. But some are also very nice. People that don't force the religion down others throats.

Jacqueline:

I am actually looking into the possibility of using NFP for the sheer fact that I don't want to be on the pill the rest of my life, especially if I can find a way to treat my unnatural, unhealthy anemia-inducing cycle without hormones. I will definitely try to keep down the pregnancy-o-meter that way if I can. :D

I just really have no desire to be pregnant so often during my childbearing years, especially with the types of careers I'm interested in and would be talented at. I look at it this way: you can't be selfish to a person who doesn't exist yet, so preventing children from being conceived is better than neglecting children born. A couple of kids, spaced apart in a manner conducive to my career, would be ideal, because I would not be able to give my all to them if I had more. I also don't think it's fair to me to sacrifice everything I've worked for. I would go insane staying home to raise baby after baby, forsaking everything for which I've worked so hard.

Lyssie,

Again, that is the Catholic view. If a woman will die by continuing a pregnancy (Like an ectopic one), then you might have to remove the child to save her life. Doing so will result in the death of the child, but the intent was NOT to kill the baby. It was to save the mother. Fine line, but an important one. One is the intent to kill, and one is the consequence of trying to save a life.

You see, you think like a Catholic and don't even know it!

Laura,

I looked up the word autonomy in the dictionary and it says that it means "independence" or "freedom." You used it to say that a baby is a separate entity or an individual from that of the mother...that is not what autonomy means. A baby being born does not make it anywhere near autonomous. Babies may be separate entities but they are not at all independent or free. They are in fact completely dependent on their mother/caregiver to survive..and then when they grow older are not considered completely autonomous from their parents to the age of 18. So if in fact autonomy is what you define "life" to be, then parents should also be allowed to kill/beat their children to the age of 18 because that is their "choice" and "life" doesn't begin to the age of 18.

Elizabeth

Wow, good for you, Lyssie.

Elizabeth, what an excellent point. Thank you.

Lyssie,
If you are using NFP make sure you consider the Creighton Fertility model.
Also, Red Raspberry Leaf tea really does help the anemia. (NOT raspberry flavored tea, Red Raspberry LEAF tea).

Think about this. When I found out that I was pregnant, I made an appointment with my Obgyn. They don't mince their words. He said "This baby's due date is 4-19-2007. This man didn't know if I was pro abortion or pro life. What do you think the poor man would have thought had I expressed offense over him saying "the baby?"...Moving on: When I announced my pregnancy to friends, I received the same responses. "Oh, congratulations!" "You're gonna have a baby." It's simple.

Elizabeth, excellent!

An unborn child should always be acknowledged as a living human being. What else could it be?

Pro choicers must drive their gynecologists nuts.

"Pro choicers must drive their gynecologists nuts."

why? our gynecologist is pro choice. I bet most are.

Oh and Jacqueline your religious arguments are invalid to me. I did this for God I did that for God. He tells me what to do.

I was speaking to Lyssie, not you.

Good for you for being religious, but guess what, its not for everyone.

Actually, salvation is for everyone!

Oh yeah Jacque! 1 Tim 2:4

Hal, Show me some proof that most gyn's are pro choice. When your wife went for 2 abortions, did the gyn call it a baby? What did he say? Something to appease you, perhaps? Hal, your gyn is a murderer. He's no better than an abortionist. Especially since you say that your wife's life wasnt in danger prior to the abortions. That would have made it a different story.

Hal, if most gyns are pro choice, then why do we have abortion clinics? Hal, haven't you been reading Mary's posts? She worked in a hospital where most of the doctors and nurses wanted no part abortion. Why do you think that was, Hal?

Elizabeth -

Love your post. Autonomy takes one down a very slippery slop.

Lyssie,

I am actually looking into the possibility of using NFP for the sheer fact that I don't want to be on the pill the rest of my life, especially if I can find a way to treat my unnatural, unhealthy anemia-inducing cycle without hormones.

Let's talk. There are ways to naturally regulate hormones that don't involve unnaturally regulating them. Not to freak you out, but having a baby is one of those ways! :)

I look at it this way: you can't be selfish to a person who doesn't exist yet, so preventing children from being conceived is better than neglecting children born.

I see, but you don't have to choose between two bad things. Indeed, you can be selfish with your fertility and you can neglect your born children. But those aren't your only choices.

A couple of kids, spaced apart in a manner conducive to my career, would be ideal, because I would not be able to give my all to them if I had more.

I think it's the "cake and eat it too" issue. In both college and grad school, I taught preschool. Those moms who had their perfectly spaced 2.5 kids and a career could have just as easily had a 10 kids, because, frankly, they didn't raise them anyway. Their career demanded most of their time and all of the booboo kissing, diaper changing and proud fussing over their artwork- those came from me. Kids were dropped out at 7 am, picked up at 6 pm, drive-thru dinner, quick bath and bedtime. Parents only parented on the weekends. So if you choose to have a 9 to 5 career in the career world, someone else will likely raise your kids.

also don't think it's fair to me to sacrifice everything I've worked for. I would go insane staying home to raise baby after baby, forsaking everything for which I've worked so hard.

Only if you see raising babies as less of a task than working in the career world. I see raising babies as more of a accomplishment than my job as a director, than my degrees, than my upcoming Ph.D. and I fully intend to use all of the above if/when I have kids, (partly because the level I have allows me to name my hours as a consultant). People that try to balance career and kids and don't clearly prioritize the kids do a huge injustice to them. I don't think it's about abandoning your hardwork, but priortizing your children above everything else.

Like my mother. My mother is a badass. She kept her nursing career but named her hours around her kids. In fact, she ran the after-school program at our private school so she could work with us. We were her most important job, nursing was second, but she didn't stop nursing. My role model (St. Gianna Beretta Molla) was a mother and physician that worked with and around her kids. So it's possible to be a working mother, but one role has take precedence- and that role should be motherhood.

P.S. I've been a badass myself. It's fun at times, but I'd say it loses its novelty and becomes work. I look forward to invest my work and time into something I can enjoy for eternity- my family.

Jacqueline-

I am going to be in nursing school soon (I hope!!) and when I become a nurse, I plan on scheduling myself around my daughter..maybe more kids by then..as well. Your mother sounds amazing..kinda like my mom!!

Remember the Ms. Magazine petition "We Had Abortions"?? I loved what actress, Patricia Heaton had to say about that. One woman quipped "I had an abortion, so I would have something meaningful to do with my time." Patricia Heaton replied, "Raising children IS giving women something meaningful to do with their time."

Tara-

Thank you for your response to my comment...I was also just explaining to Laura that she clearly misused the definition of the word autonomy. I am taking a lifespan psychology class now and it talks about how, as children grow older they become MORE autonomous..meaning they are in no way so when they are first born, so she was incorrect in her usage of that word completely.

Patricia Heaton of the hit comedy, Everybody Loves Raymond, fights abortion

Emmy winning actress, Patricia Heaton, strongly opposes abortion. She speaks publicly against abortion in media interviews and on college campuses as the Honorary Chairperson of Feminists for Life.

Heaton says, "Indeed the tragedy of abortion haunts women from all walks of life. Abortion advocates are spending millions to package their tired rhetoric and half-truths in cutting-edge advertising campaigns targeted to young women. Please join me in supporting FFL's efforts to provide complete information, practical resources, and true choices through the College Outreach program."

"The early feminists were pro-life. And really, abortion is a huge disservice to women, and it hasn't been presented that way. As Feminists for Life-what we're trying to do is support women, and so what we want to do is-reach women on campus-college campuses so that, when they get pregnant, they can find housing. They can find money they need to stay in school."

(Sources: www.feministsforlife.org and an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor - Sept. 2002)

Jacqueline:
That's what I mean by spacing my kids appropriately. I plan on having a child, devoting my time to said child, and then going back to work full time after they start school, working a few more years, having another kid, and starting the cycle all over again. I have always said I never wanted a nanny to raise my kids...I will do it myself, damnit. But I didn't go to college to get a degree in "Mommy"...my biggest goal has always been to get a career, not have children. Almost anyone can raise a child ( I mean, how hard is it to get pregnant?), only a few can pursue the careers I'm after (at least 8-10 years of schooling and hard freggin work...that's what I live for).

I plan to get established in my career (before or after marriage), then have kids. That's where NFP comes in. When a child does arrive, I plan to take off work for some time to make sure the kid has a good start, then go back to work full time when school rolls around (I will work, but only when hubby is around to take care of baby after he gets done with his work/shifts). I could never be a full-time mom...it would literally drive me insane. All day I dream about petri dishes, test tubes, and scientific jargon. :D

Good luck in nursing school, Elizabeth! Lauren (one of our moderators and my BFF) is a nursing student. She attends school around her 2 and a 1/2 year old son.

By the way, Lauren sends her love, y'all.

Elizabeth,

"I looked up the word autonomy in the dictionary and it says that it means "independence" or "freedom." You used it to say that a baby is a separate entity or an individual from that of the mother...that is not what autonomy means."

Nowhere have you addressed the issue of social dependency versus physical dependency. There is a significant difference between the two.

When one is socially dependent, anyone can care for him/her. That is why is illegal to kill your children.

A fetus is physically dependent. In a nutshell, that means that it needs to reside within a woman's womb to survive. But since the womb belongs to the mother, the fetus does not have rights to it unless she gives it those rights. That is why abortion is legal.

Lyssie,

...just a word of caution from a male point of view...

"I will work, but only when hubby is around to take care of baby after he gets done with his work/shifts"

..coming home from a full day of work and taking care of the bundle of joy is not as easy as you think...talk this plan over with your hubby first...this is where "commitment" and "responsibility" kicks in the hardest....

Elizabeth and RSD, welcome to the site! It's nice to have you both.

Enigma,

"A fetus is physically dependent. In a nutshell, that means that it needs to reside within a woman's womb to survive. But since the womb belongs to the mother, the fetus does not have rights to it unless she gives it those rights. That is why abortion is legal."

So since the fetus does not have the right to her womb, it is okay to directly kill the innocent fetus?

When one is socially dependent, anyone can care for him/her. That is why is illegal to kill your children.

I sincerely hope that is not the only reason it is illegal to kill our children.

Lyssie,

"Anyone can be a parent"..no I think you are wrong there...almost anyone can GET PREGNANT...but not anyone can be a parent..or a good one at that. That simplifies the job of "mommy" to something rather insulting if you ask me. It is one of the hardest jobs there is out there..just because you don't have to go to school for it doesn't mean it is any less hard or less "freggin work" than being a mom. But I suspect that is what people who aren't parents say..because really, they have no clue. Have somebody crap all over you at 3 in the morning after 2 hours of sleep..and then tell me how "anybody" can do it. OR having to take your kid to the hospital at 10 o'clock at night cause they rolled off the bed and cracked their head..orrr and this is my favorite, try to teach and lead someone into being a productive, successful member of this society who is intelligent and independent. THEN tell me how "anybody" can do it.

Brooke Shields, Actress and Supermodel: "Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control. And that's very wrong. I could never, ever have an abortion." (Source: Redbook Magazine, 8/91)

Kathy Ireland also spoke about abortion on the Hannity and Colmes FOX-TV show (September 2002). Ireland said:

"Is it all right for the government to allow the murder of an innocent human being? The evidence I see tells me the unborn is a human being. From the moment of conception, a new life comes into being with a complete genetic blueprint. The sex is determined. The blood type is determined? the moment that I learned that the unborn was a human being, not part of the woman's body but its own individual human being, I have no choice but to defend the most vulnerable among us."

Here are a few quotes from celebrities from Feminists for Life.

Enigma,

"A fetus is physically dependent. In a nutshell, that means that it needs to reside within a woman's womb to survive."

Viability is considered 20 weeks. So the fetus doesn't have to be dependent on the woman for the whole pregnancy. There are plenty of cases where 20 week old unborn babies are delivered and not only survive, but thrive. And as medicine advances it could be earlier.

I think I put it the wrong way, Elizabeth...let me clarify. I think parenthood is an extraordinarily tough job. I think I meant to say that almost anyone has the OPPORTUNITY to raise a child, whereas few people will ever have the opportunity to pursue the career that I want unless they go to school for 8-10 years. I want to pursue opportunities that AREN'T right at anyone's fingertips without years of toil (hence the "how hard is it to get pregnant?").

And RSD- I personally believe in egalitarian households. Whereas moms can be stay-at-home, so can dads. Actually, if my husband chose to be a stay at home dad, I'd be fine with being the one to go to work. I just expect, with child raising being a very difficult job (as many of you have said), that a husband might be able to come home from work and look after a child while I pursue the career I've worked hard for (after I stay with the child all day). That way, there is a parent with a child at all times. I have no intent of being a stay at home mom ALL the time. :D

Enigma..I was disputing Laura's context in using the word autonomy to define when a baby is considered a "life." Autonomy is independence and freedom..and babies do not have either. In fact, we as humans are not considered fully autonomous til the age of 18. So like I said, she used the complete wrong context to define a baby being a life.

On another note, abortion is legal because the mother has possession over the womb? Well I may have possession over my dog let's say, since I paid for him..but if I were to say dismember him and crush his skull, then I could not be charged with a crime? So why is it okay to do this to babies and no one is charged with a crime? OHH, I get it, it has to be a part of your body in order for you to be right in killing it. Interesting logic there. "It's mine, mine, mine, so I can kill it if I want to!" haha good stuff there.

Elizabeth,

Your welcome. It is nice that you are joining us. I just started posting here 2 months ago, and I have learned and been challenged by those who are here.

Do you life the class?

I think you have a great attitude, Lyssie! I wish I was a stay-at-home dad. I'll get to be for the first couple of years, but then I have to get a real job. It's so nice having a sinecure right now.

Bobby, you will be a great dad!

Tara-

Yes I do like that class...it's an online course so there isn't any teacher interaction but I have loads more time to spend with my daughter and I can coordinate doing my homework around my daughter's schedule so that makes it especiallly beneficial for us. I can also study at my own pace so I can actually retain what I am learning instead of studying to spit it out on a test. But Psychology is really an interesting subject to me..and I will probably take some more psych courses to fill in for when other classes I NEED to take are full or don't fit with my schedule! Thanks for asking!

Bobby, I'm so happy for you! Honestly, I wish there wasn't such a stigma against men wanting to stay home and raise children. They're always expected to be the breadwinners, when I know for a fact that my boyfriend (if I marry him, this would apply), would be much better equipped as a stay-at-home dad. I really think he would enjoy it. He likes being around kids (he volunteers at the YMCA, and is joining Big Brother/Big Sisters). I like hands-on science and all that, and I've never been a big "kids" person. I'm just being honest...I don't think raising children full-time is my calling. Working toward helping humanity in other ways is. My children will be important to me, and I'll sacrifice a lot for them, but eventually I'll go back to what I was meant to do when they're able to survive without me for the majority of the day. Plus, they'll have dad, with any luck. :D

Lyssie, that's really nice that he wants to be a "Big Brother." I think that's sweet. He sounds very giving:}

Heather:

He is a sweetheart. The same big, tough, brawny former Marine is really just a teddy bear. I lurve him a lot. I really wish I had time to devote to volunteering, but now with science courses and my work in the lab...my time is severely restricted. I don't understand how he has time to do it. He's so involved in everything. I did, however, just join the AIDS prevention group here on campus and will be getting more involved with THON (a student-run organization dedicated to raising money for pediatric cancer research). I really feel like I'm not doing enough for others, when I have such a sweetheart for a guy involved in everything. (He's really a good influence on me...lol).

Hi Lyssie.

"I don't think raising children full-time is my calling."

And there is no reason it should be. You're absolutely right about helping humanity in other ways. If there weren't devoted scientists like you will be, so many wonderful advances wouldn't have been discovered yet. It also sounds like you're dating a great guy. I'm very happy for you too.

Hey, I've been meaning to ask you, have you ever had Phillip Jenkins for a class? Do you know who he is? I like him. God love you, Lyssie.

No, I haven't, Bobby. Should I look him up? What does he teach? :)

He's a history professor. He has some books on religion including "Anti-Catholicism: the last Acceptable Prejudice." Actually, he may be an Emeritus now, but who knows.

*sigh*

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm purposely trying to push buttons...but I've never dreamed of being a mommy. Ever. I never liked dolls, I hated house playsets and my easy-bake oven. I loved books, lab sets, microscopes, puzzles, legos and all sorts of building sets (erector sets and all that). Motherhood was never a dream of mine. I think I've always wanted to get married, but I never really thought of kids as "in the picture"...do you know what I mean? It was more of a subconscious thing...that I never included children in my dream life, with a great career and an awesome husband.

Bobby, I'd take history if not for the fact that I have all the history credit requirements filled (I had them covered with AP credits). If I need to take an extra elective, I shall look him up. :D

Lyssie,

To be honest with you...whenever my mom would say to me "I want at least 20 grandchildren" (I have 3 brothers..so 4 of us altogether..that means 5 kids a piece) I would say to her "Well you better have your sons get on that cause I am not having any." I said this my sophomore year of college which would be the same year I got pregnant. When I got pregnant and told my family about it..I don't know..something clicked inside of me. I read all the pregnancy books..took classes..and I only was happy going and shopping for baby clothes and other things. Just as my daughter was growing inside of me...being a mother became a part of my life. A part of my life that up until that moment, I was 1000% sure I never wanted to have anything to do with. And now that I have a made a commitment to it completely, I couldn't imagine anything else in my life ever mattering more than she does to me.

Lyssie,

When I was in my late teens early twenties, I told my mother I didn't want to ever have kids. I had bigger plans. I wanted to travel, explore, find my real self. I wanted to get married, but the idea of being strapped down with kids wasn't appealing. The I met my husband, and he has a son from a previous marraige. When I met him my step-son was 2 1/2. When we got married he was 5 1/2. Being with him changed my mind.

I now have 3 more children 9,6,4 and I cannot imagine my life without them. I loved being pregnant (even with severe morning sickness - I had all day sickness). We sang to them, talked to them, played with them while in-utero. While in-utero when they heard my husbands voice they would get all excited. When they were born, the first thing I said was I could do this again. When I saw their faces, heard them breathe, held them my heart melted immediately. It really is an amzaing time in a girl/woman's life.

It is hard being a full time Mom. I quit my job after our son turned 7 months. I just really missed being with him. My sister took care of him, so I knew he was really being taken care of. But I just missed him. I've never gone back to work. We have made sacrifices bc I don't work, but it has been well worth it. My kids are secure, well adjusted and are doing very well in school. It has been a priviledge to be their Mom. Even my step-son calls me Mom. Not that is an honor. I view every child as a gift not a burden.

Tara, do you post in FAPP.org too? I have posted in there and seen a Tara in there as well, just wondering if that was you.

Elizabeth,

Yes, that is me.

Tara-

I also agree with your comment to Lyssie. Everytime I leave my daughter to go to class or something I have to do for school, I leave her with my mother and I KNOW she is being excellently cared for, but I just miss her. When I am out without her, I see little girls and I wish she was with me. I am a single mom so I have to leave her so I can go to school and take advantage of the opportunity to do so, so that I can make a great life for us, but it still breaks my heart.

Tara and Elizabeth, how did you 2 find Jill's site?

Tara and Elizabeth, it's so true. That's why I feel bad for women who abort their children. They don't realize that another pregnancy can never take it's place. Each pregnancy is unique and special. Sadly, a woman I know aborted about a month and a half ago. I told her not to do it. Another woman piped in "You can always have more kids in the future." I just hate that.

I found it through FAPP's links to other pro-life blogs and such. I was really impressed so I stuck around.

Heather - I hate that too bc they may not be able to have children later. This is the biggest lie.

I found this website, when Jill was out at one of the rallies in Aurora. She took some pictures of my daughter. Then I was embarrased and didn't post for a while bc I had read about her, thought she was incredibably brave for taking on Christ Hospital, but didn't connect her name with her face when I met her. I hate when I do that.

What is harder to understand for me..is the women who have already had children..who know it is a life..who know that what is growing inside of them is a baby..and they do it anyway. They must go into a complete state of denial to get through it. Convince themselves it wasn't really a baby or something. But even then, I couldn't ever picture myself buying that lie I had to tell myself to get through it.

Tara and Elizabeth:

Thank you for your input. I'm really happy for you, and respect your thoughts and feelings on this issue. I realize that your children are of utmost importance to you, and it is heartwarming. But I know that my life would be torn apart without engaging in science, so I would rather raise my child for a while, then go back full-time. I just really have no interest in child rearing. I believe my talents lie elsewhere, and rightly so. Not every woman who eventually has kids needs to feel like her calling in life is that of a mom. I know my mother didn't, and she did a wonderful job with my brother and me. She loves being a mom, but has never defined herself as a "mom". Her first calling was to her other work (she waited ten years to have us so that she could build her career, the one she worked so hard for), just so that she could raise us comfortably (of course, with the help of my father). If someone were to ask me what my mom was, I'd describe her as a successful woman running a successful business, then as a mom secondly. I respect her accomplishments outside of motherhood too much, especially since few people get the opportunity to achieve all that she has, even though she is a great mom.

Elizabeth:

Don't jinx me. :P
I'm a sophomore in college, too. I have no interest in being pregnant, being pregnant, or being pregnant (yes, you read that right). I really find pregnancy to be...well...for lack of better terms...inopportune and/or less than ideal. As a biology major, I have no interest in going through some of the side effects associated with it anymore times than I really want to. I really think I am supposed to use my talents in pursuits other than full-time motherhood.

Haha Lyssie I am not trying to jinx you..it is just my story. Do you not believe that someone can be completely fulfilled being a mom? Or do you not just think of yourself as being that person? Because I tell ya, I feel completely fulfilled. I, like you, believe in doing good for others and helping to change the world. I just think our efforts in going about so are different. I can change the world by encouraging my daughter to be strong and independent and work hard for what it is that she wants (whether that be being a mom, a lawyer, a doctor, a biologist ;) It seems to me that you think being defined as "mom" and having that completely fulfill you are not possible. I'm sure that there are days that women who are lawyers, doctors, biologists, etc. don't want to go to work..just as there are moms who wake up and say "I want to stay in bed today." That does not mean that it wouldn't to be completely fulfilled being "just a mom."

Lyssie -

I do not define myself solely as a mother either. Since all my kids are in school Preschool-High School, I do alot of volunteer work, I am going back to school in January (getting a whole new degree), and do many other things as well. I do think if you have children that they need to come first, especially when they are young. I think women should be challenging themselves no matter how old their children are. But those first few years are very important. I realize that for single parents it is not an option to stay home.

I also don't see anything wrong with those who don't want to have children either. I know many who don't, and now that they are in there 50's and 60's they wish they had. I have friends who are in their 50's that are adopting a 2 1/2 year old girl from China. They are travelling in 2 weeks to pick up their daughter. They never thought in a million years that they would have kids. Yet a trip to China changed them. All I'm saying is don't totally close your mind off to the possiblity. That's all.

Elizabeth - you are an inspiration. I wish more girls would follow your lead. Your daughter is taking the journey with you, and you are teaching her how to be a strong person. Wow. You're awsome.

Lyssie,

Yes, it may be better to pursue your career than becoming a Mom, I mean, just think when you get older you can look back at all the wonderful days you spent in the office or lab.

Awww Tara you're so sweet thanks! I think you're pretty awesome too...volunteer work...3 kids..and school... don't you just wish there were more hours in the day??

Lyssie,
Did MK ever give you my email re: NFP?

Milehi recommended Creighton. I'm parital to the Sympto-Thermal Method myself.

meant "partial"

Bobby,

"So since the fetus does not have the right to her womb, it is okay to directly kill the innocent fetus?"

Yes. Innocence had nothing to do with it; imposing on another's body in that manner is simply not acceptable without that individual's consent.

Tara,

"Viability is considered 20 weeks."

I've heard that twenty-four weeks is the cutoff. Sources please.

"So the fetus doesn't have to be dependent on the woman for the whole pregnancy. There are plenty of cases where 20 week old unborn babies are delivered and not only survive, but thrive."

Which is why I advacate excersizing the fetus from a woman's body in a way that enables it to survive if the fetus in question is beyond viability. Lacking legislation that permits this, abortion is the only alternative for a woman who does not consent to sharing her body.

Jasper, I never said I WOULDN'T be a mom. I just said that I will never be a full-time mom. Your jerk is showing through again. ;P

Do you honestly think it's better for a woman to let talents that she wants to use go to waste so that she can have more kids? Do you think that's fair to women? If you're saying that all women can get is boring desk jobs and lab rat jobs...well, then, I'm sorry for you. I look forward to a dynamic career filled with scientific discovery, ALONG with raising kids. I hope you're not trying to push the idea that a "woman's place is in the home", because I would lose a lot of respect for you.

Just because I'll be the one in my married relationship with a uterus doesn't mean I have to be the one staying home. Neither does it mean that either my husband or I will be full-time parents. Both of us can take shifts to be joint child-rearers. I would be insulted if you said that I couldn't use my mind to help humanity through science because you think my place is at home, bearing and raising kids solely. Where in my posts did I ever say that I WOULDN'T have kids?

Elizabeth,

"On another note, abortion is legal because the mother has possession over the womb?"

It isn't simple possession. The womb is part of her body. If a woman cannot control her body, she literally has nothing.

"OHH, I get it, it has to be a part of your body in order for you to be right in killing it."

No, it has to be impermissibly infringing on your bodily rights. Simply because one cannot surive without unfettered access to another's body does not mean that the individual in question has an obligation to provide such access.

Carder, yes, MK gave me your e-mail. I'm interested in learning more about it, so I'll send you a message sometime soon. What's the difference between the two methods mentioned? (I never even knew there were several methods!! :P)

*lyssie*

Lyssie,

Why are you minimizing what full-time Moms do? infering that motherhood is "talentless" and a "waste" of time. A bit of advice, being a Mother is the most important job one can have, raising your children.

Hi Enigma. But once you say that personal autonomy/ "right to do what you wish with your body" trumps the life of an innocent person, what else will you allow to trump the right to life of an innocent person? There are all sorts of examples that one could come with where the killing of an innocent person will add to the good of another. Does my right to happiness allow me to kill someone who has the job I want so that I can have it? The example isn't nearly as complex as pregnancy, but it's the principle that there is nothing that allows the taking of an innocent human life.

Like I said, Enigma,

"It's mine, mine, mine, so it's okay if I kill it."

That's a dangerous line you're teetering on there Enigma.

The baby is NOT impermissibly infringing on your body. YOU had sex...and what CAN sex lead to? A baby, duh. Geez, Enigma, for someone who uses such large words, you seem to have forgotten some basic biology.

Lyssie,

So neither you nor your husband will be the full-time parent? That's unfortunate, cause I personally believe that is what is wrong with our society. Too many parents out there interested only being in it "part-time." I'm sure your future kids will thank you someday for only wanting to be involved in their life as long as it didn't diminish anything you ever felt like doing. You really seem to think there is something wasteful about devoting your life to another person...even though you try to get involved in many activities to help other people. Your logic really is quite interesting. Although I can't say that I can comprehend it. I'm pretty sure if you ever got married that would be a challenge for you as well. Because, Lyssie, it is called compromise. Sometimes it involves giving up what YOU want to do for the bigger picture. When you have a marriage, you give up things, when you have kids, you give up things. Just save yourself the trouble of devoting yourself to other people and stay in the lab.

Hi Elizabeth. I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself. You're new here, ehh? You have some wonderful posts! God love you.

Hi Bobby, I am new here..I have been a lurker for a month or so..and I just decided to jump in..and today has not been as busy for me so I have time to post a lot! Nice to meet you! (so to speak of course!)

When you have a marriage, you give up things, when you have kids, you give up things. Just save yourself the trouble of devoting yourself to other people and stay in the lab.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 6:51
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, Nancy Pelosi has five children. They all grew up to be college-educated white-collar professionals.
Being a successful role model is also a good way to devote yourself to your children.

Amen, Laura!

Laura,

I never said it wasn't. So what you're saying is you NEED a career to be a good role-model to your children then? Being a full-time mom isn't sufficient enough of a role to be considered a "good" role-model?

I never said it wasn't. So what you're saying is you NEED a career to be a good role-model to your children then? Being a full-time mom isn't sufficient enough of a role to be considered a "good" role-model?

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 6, 2007 7:15 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No. Note the use of the word "also."

"Being a successful role model is also a good way to devote yourself to your children."

You seem touchy and defensive.

Jasper:
I in NO WAY minimized what mothers do. I just said that women who have OTHER TALENTS that don't involve motherhood should not have to waste them just to solely pursue the talent of motherhood (IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO). I can do both. I said that I will devote my time AND give up many, MANY things when I have kids, but will strive to have different hours from my husband so that when he comes home from work (after I've been with the kids), I can go pursue my interests. I already said that the ideal would be to have one parent at home to take care of the children at all times, whether it be me or my husband (I don't like the idea of nannies or daycare). I just said that I couldn't handle it if I was the primary caregiver ALL THE TIME. It's a talent I don't feel I have. And if you really felt like parenthood is the most fulfilling, important job that one can do...you'd be the full-time parent, Jasper, and not hand the job to women alone. Why is there something wrong with stay-at-home dads, or allowing men to be primary caregivers once in a while?!

Jasper, for the love of all that is Holy, REREAD my posts and find where I said that being a mom is talentless. I already said somewhere up above that it is extraordinarily difficult. I find it to be important and worthy. However, I also find other pursuits to be very important, to ME, and am not closed-minded enough to believe that every woman would enjoy giving up a fulfilling career to pursue full-time motherhood. I believe I can sacrifice optimum hours to stay home with my kids during the day, while the husband works, while I can work late afternoons when he comes home. That's being a part-time parent while also ensuring that the kids are with one parent at all times (LOOK, NO DAYCARE!). Oh, and by the way, Elizabeth, that's having a parent around FULL-TIME for the kids, it just doesn't have to be the same parent, dear. Is that what's wrong for society? That only one person should sacrifice so the other can pursue a career? Why can't both of them sacrifice hours for their careers and both pitch in to raise children? Oh wait...joint sacrifice IS compromise? Great, so you and I are both on the same page. Good job, you just reiterated what I've been saying all along. Why can't you understand that, yes, I DO want to be a mom, devote myself fully to my children the times I am home, and then allow my husband to do the same thing equally when I am not around? Is devoted fatherhood something that should be taken for granted? Just ask Bobby, he would love to stay home and take care of his soon-to-be-born little girl.

I LOVE scientific discovery, because I believe it helps humanity. I would be lost without it. I believe that I am helping the human race by involving myself in it, so you can hardly say I'm "wasting" my time "devoting" myself to others. It's the whole point, Elizabeth...isn't that why you're going back to school, to help others? Because the last time I looked, nursing helps other people, and you can't always have your little girl around while you're off pursuing your career.

Oh, and my ideal form of raising children IS that they be raised equally by mother and father, with at least one of them home at all times to nurture young children. I don't believe that moms OR dads should be sole breadwinners or sole child-rearers... they should both have BOTH opportunities. I'm sorry you don't believe that one should give up one or the other, because if we adhere to the strict male-breadwinner, female-homemaker ideal, then the man misses out on raising his children while the woman misses out on being independent and pursuing other interests.

Bobby,

"But once you say that personal autonomy/ "right to do what you wish with your body" trumps the life of an innocent person, what else will you allow to trump the right to life of an innocent person?"

Absolutely nothing. There's a big difference between arguing that no one has the right to infringe upon another's bodily sovereignty without permission and arguing that people can kill each other for trivial reasons.

Elizabeth,

"That's a dangerous line you're teetering on there Enigma."

Since that wasn't my reasoning, there is no thin line involved.

"The baby is NOT impermissibly infringing on your body."

Sex is not a consent to pregnancy.

"Geez, Enigma, for someone who uses such large words, you seem to have forgotten some basic biology."

Don't patronize me.

For someone who seems to assume that everyone who disagrees with her is intellectually lacking, you seem to be entertaining some misconceptions of the manner of consent and of sex.

Consent is decided by the one who is giving it. Engaging in an action does not mean that one has consented to all of the possible consequences. Regardless, it's not up to you to decide what another person has consented to.

Sex can lead to pregnancy. That's an undeniable fact. But most of the time sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. Women are only fertile for about three to four days during their cycle and yet they can have sex at any point during said cycle. Furthermore, a good 60% of embryos fail to implant.

Enigma,

But does this idea of bodily autonomy really trump the right of the fetus' life? Why should the fetus have to die so that the women can have the life she planned? It is a conflict of interests, and raising and bearing a child is highly nontrivial, but the alternative is death for the fetus. I think you would agree that death is worse than changing your entire life plans. So it seems that you would have to view the fetus as being a significantly lower class of human than the mother.

"...arguing that people can kill each other for trivial reasons"

Also, who is to say what constitutes a "trivial reason"? Perhaps one doesn't view the path that their career takes as trivial, but does view childbirth as trivial. I certainly don't, but one could argue that way. Given the exception to kill an innocent person for the sake of personal autonomy, why can't someone who holds their career in just as much esteem (or more esteem) as personal autonomy likewise kill an innocent? Judging what is and what is not trivial can become very subjective and lead to problems it seems.

Bobby,

"But does this idea of bodily autonomy really trump the right of the fetus' life?"

It doesn't have to. The fetus (well, after it has a functioning brain and thus any rights) does have a right to life, but not a right to infringe bodily upon another. No human has that right. Ever. No exceptions.

"Why should the fetus have to die so that the women can have the life she planned?"

Because the fetus has no rights to the mother's body except for the ones that she gives it.

"Given the exception to kill an innocent person for the sake of personal autonomy, why can't someone who holds their career in just as much esteem (or more esteem) as personal autonomy likewise kill an innocent?"

You're attempting to confuse the issue. A career is not the same as a person's body. It's an established principle that a person has the right to kill another who is infringing upon that person's bodily autonomy without that person's rights. It's called self defense.

Lyssie,
There are several names to various methods of NFP. The 3 basic methods are temperature-only, mucus-only, and a combination of mucus and temperatures. It's up to the couple which method they wish to utilize.

Milehi's "Creighton Model" is based on mucus only. So is the Billings Ovulation Method. The method I teach is Sympto-Thermal, the mucus-temp combo.

Seems a little confusing at first, but it does clarify itself after enough exposure to the NFP world!

Lyssie, if you read what I have written about myself..you will see that I am a single mother..meaning I NEED a career to financially support me and my child. By the time I am getting a job as a nurse, my daughter will be in school all day and I will work only when she is at school. If I had the choice...I would be at home with her...I might still go to school though cause I love to learn.

Enigma,

"...but not a right to infringe bodily upon another. No human has that right. Ever. No exceptions."

Actually, what about the case of conjoined twins? If there are two twins that are conjoined and one will die (for whatever reason) if they are separated, can the one who will survive impose her will on the other and demand that they be separated? The twin who would die is dependent on the other for survival; she is using her sister's body without her sister's consent. And this could be for the rest of their lives, not just nine months. This is the closest example in real life that we have of pregnancy, and I don't know if anyone would say that the healthy sister has the right to "remove" her sister. And even in that case, it still isn't direct murder like abortion is. In the twin example, the healthy sister wills to be independent and not the death of her sister. In abortion, the women may too intend to be free from the burden of carrying a fetus, but the only way that this is accomplished is through the direct killing of that fetus. If the fetus is not dead, the job has not been done.

"A career is not the same as a person's body. It's an established principle that a person has the right to kill another who is infringing upon that person's bodily autonomy without that person's rights. It's called self defense."

But Enigma that's only when the offender is not innocent. The fetus is innocent. Growing in a women's womb is a natural part of human development. Plus I think you missed my point about allowing the killing of an innocent for the sake of "self-defense" being a slippery slope. Certainly a career is not on the same level as one's body. But I'm saying that this opens the door to killing innocents for other reasons. In fact, look at Peter Singer. He is the logical extension of this way of thinking, my slippery-slope to a t. As we saw earlier this week, he advocates the killing of a newborn child if it is in the best interests of the parents. At this point, no one is "infringing" on anyone's body. It is now that the personal lives and happiness of the parents that trumps the right to life of the baby, according to Singer. The only solution to all of this is to protect all innocent human life from conception to natural death.

Elizabeth,

I think what you're doing is wonderful, don't get me wrong. I would never condemn you for doing your best. I realize that you have no choice in the matter. My point is that IF someone has the chance to do both, at the same time, with a willing partner to help as well, why not? My plan is basically the same, where I will raise my very young children during the day (if that's the plan between me and my hubby), and pursue a few hours of work in the late afternoon/night if feasible. Once they enter school age I will work full-time. That's what I've been saying all along. However, the child-rearing responsibilities will be split evenly between myself and my husband, so that each of us can experience both the opportunities of parenthood (very rewarding, I never said it wasn't), while also pursuing careers. That way, the children will always have at least one parent around, and neither parent will get burnt out by focusing on one aspect of their lives. I just think it's better for the kids and for the parents.

And it's wonderful that you'd still go to school because of your love of learning. You should never have to give that up completely. Curtailing your desires, ie, the compromise you speak of, is necessary with children in the picture. I just don't think your desires should be done away with altogether. That's why I'd split parenting and career, what with my love of science and my desire to give my spouse the same time with our children as I would have. Do you understand my position now?

I was at work for 12 straight hours today. *dies*

Anyhow, as a small side note, I very much agree with Lyssie's stance- though I'll add that the very concept of childbirth tends to freak me out hugely. I know some people always go on about how miraculous and beautiful childbirth can be, but jeez. The whole idea of pushing a screaming infant through my lady parts just...eesh. *shudder*

Also, some people don't like kids. They're not just kid people. Like me. I cannot stand children. I have never been a fan of them. Ever. Sure, I'll say cute baby and all, but after a couple hours, sometimes less, I better be able to give the little bugger back to someone else. I'm just not a kid person. Some people aren't.

Bobby,

"Actually, what about the case of conjoined twins?"

I think you may have missed it, but MK offered the example of conjoined twins and I refuted it.

Basically, the two situations are not analogous because of the element of bodily autonomy. In the case of the conjoined twins, neither twin has bodily autonomy and thus neither twin can be said to be infringing upon the other because they infringe upon one another equally.

Pregnancy is quite a different matter. The woman has bodily autonomy until the fetus infringes upon it. Thus she has every right to restore her previous state and remove the intruder.

"But Enigma that's only when the offender is not innocent. The fetus is innocent."

Innocence has no bearing upon whether or not one is infringing upon another's rights and one's bodies; thus, innocence, or lack thereof, has no bearing upon the ability of one to remove that which is infringing upon her.

"Plus I think you missed my point about allowing the killing of an innocent for the sake of "self-defense" being a slippery slope. Certainly a career is not on the same level as one's body. But I'm saying that this opens the door to killing innocents for other reasons."

I disagree. How is consistently upholding the principle that one has a right to defend one's own bodily integrity a slippery slope?

"In fact, look at Peter Singer. He is the logical extension of this way of thinking, my slippery-slope to a t."

I despise that man's theories. Simply because he advocates an extreme position does not mean that it is the logical outcome of anything. You see what you wish to see.

"As we saw earlier this week, he advocates the killing of a newborn child if it is in the best interests of the parents. At this point, no one is "infringing" on anyone's body. It is now that the personal lives and happiness of the parents that trumps the right to life of the baby, according to Singer. The only solution to all of this is to protect all innocent human life from conception to natural death."

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Erin,

Wow, you sound just like I did. I used to think the exact same thing. I was so not into kids, childbirth, etc. The truth is it is nothing like you imagine. I figured they would just be demanding little suckers, but they are not. They so totally love you like you can't imagine. When anyone told me stuff like this I just figured yeah, right, what a bunch of sappy crap. But it isn't.

All I can say is you just can't know what you don't know and I just didn't know till it happened to me. I know this is not very profound, but it is real.

Hope tomorrow you won't have to work so long. Take care.

"Also, some people don't like kids. They're not just kid people. Like me. I cannot stand children. I have never been a fan of them. Ever."

yes Erin, you proved that already...

Yes, Lyssie I do understand your opinion. Very well put I might add. :)

oh and Lyssie...p.s. If you ever find a man THAT great and willing to split time equally in parenting responsibilities...make sure he has a brother or cousin and swing him over my way k thanks!haha

Enigma,

"Basically, the two situations are not analogous because of the element of bodily autonomy. In the case of the conjoined twins, neither twin has bodily autonomy and thus neither twin can be said to be infringing upon the other because they infringe upon one another equally."

I don't see any reason why the concept of bodily autonomy automatically makes the two situations nonanalogues. This may be the heart of where we disagree, Enigma. (and yes, I did miss your conversation with MK) Because I think if it can be show that the situation of conjoined twins is similar to that of a pregnant women, then there is a very strong anti-abortion case. All this talk of "rights" and "invasion of privacy" is very legalistic, and to me charity comes before rights. In fact, I don't believe that a society built solely on rights and the individual is ideal nor should it be the framework for debate.

But alas, I must get home. It's been my pleasure to discuss this with you, Enigma. You are very cordial and have your position very well thought out. You are obviously much more skilled than I. I must study a lot more if I am ever to be on the same level with you :) I'll talk to you later, friend.

NO problem, Elizabeth...only thing is, my boyfriend's brother is already taken...I'll try to see if he's got a cousin our age....

:D

Hmm...MK is auctioning off a son who seems to be UBER CUTE and if he's anything like MK, a pretty awesome person. I'm sure he'd be the type to want to help raise a whole slew of chitlins. :D

P.S. You might have to fight Jacqueline for him. Let the battle begin!! :P

Enigma 8:01pm,

I must say, your arguments are never dull! "Bodily sovereignty"?

Enigma,

Are you a lawyer?

Mother Teresa said, "We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love."

Were is His Man? I miss him!

I also wonder about Samantha T. I wonder if her "conversion" was sincere. I remain skeptical.

To think that just a few short months ago, I couldn't give my son away (even when I offered to pay and throw in the dog)...and now two women are fighting over him.

He's matured a lot since that first conversation, and foregoing the fact that he sported a mohawk for a couple of weeks (he still loves his shock treatment, and the mohawk was tongue in cheek) he is now becoming quite a catch. He's coming back to Chicago, getting his teaching certificate, and wants to teach and/or be a fireman. Did I mention he's plays rugby? Loves animals? Has a very twisted, bizarre sense of humor?

Ooooooo, I think this could get interesting.
Jacquie, Elizabeth...start your engines...

*giggle*

You already know my stance on your son, MK. He's quite the attractive specimen. In all honesty, I'd have to say they're all lookers... (verbal nudge in the ribs to Jacquie and Elizabeth).

By the way... a lot of women are into mohawks. I think they're hot. :D (I like putting my boyfriend's hair into a fauxhawk for gits and shiggles).

Heather: Samantha T is sincere. I don't talk to her much anymore, but she's much like Mary here in her common sense approach to pro-life issues. She's not anti-contraception or anything of the like. Just anti-abortion. Questioning people's conversions on one topic or another is a way to drive away life-long allies, however, in my opinion. Just because she approaches the issue differently than you doesn't mean she doesn't have the same convictions...you know what I mean?

Either way, I'm off, darlings...need to get ready for class. :D

Pssst, MK:

Can you post the picture of your kids here again so that Elizabeth can give her eyes a whirl? She ought to know what your son looks like...I mean, who buys anything without first checking the packaging? :D

Haha, lyssie you crack me up..I don't know many people who don't buy anything without looking at the packaging first.;)

Elizabeth,

Funny I just thought to check in to see if MK responded right before I zip off to class. :D

You're in for a treat when she DOES post those pics. It's a shame her oldest one is taken, too...he's a handsome fellow as well. I believe her third son is also spoken for...so that leaves her youngest two boys and the second one in line....the younger two being younger than I, and I'm 19. So unless MK can clone her second child, you and Jacquie might have to have a pro-life punchfest for MK's pretty progeny. :D

Bobby,

"I don't see any reason why the concept of bodily autonomy automatically makes the two situations nonanalogues."

Why not? If all of the conditions between the two situations are not the same, then how can they be analogous?

Conjoined twins are born that way. Neither of them has bodily autonomy to begin with. Neither is imposing upon the other by virtue of the fact that they impose equally upon one another. Additionally, there is no difference in development between the two and one twin cannot be said to be completely Dependant upon the other.

A pregnant woman was not born that way. She has bodily sovereignty until another takes it away. The fetus is physically dependent upon her body. It is imposing upon her. How is that similar?

You're arguing that two situations are analagous because on the surface they appear to be similar while in reality they both have distinctly unique underpinnings that are not related in any way.

"All this talk of "rights" and "invasion of privacy" is very legalistic, and to me charity comes before rights."

Charity is a very laudable concept. The problem is that charity ceases to be charity and becomes a violation of rights once it is legislated.

"In fact, I don't believe that a society built solely on rights and the individual is ideal nor should it be the framework for debate."

This would be the heart of our disagreement. I'm not quite a radical individualist, but I come close.

"It's been my pleasure to discuss this with you, Enigma. You are very cordial and have your position very well thought out."

Right back at you.

"You are obviously much more skilled than I. I must study a lot more if I am ever to be on the same level with you :)"

Thanks for the compliment. I must say, though, I think you give me too much credit. You're an excellent debater yourself.

"I'll talk to you later, friend."

Have a good night. (or is it now good day?)

Gabby,

"I must say, your arguments are never dull! "Bodily sovereignty"?"

I'm glad that they amuse you.

"Are you a lawyer?"

Nope, sorry. Good try though.

Hey Enigma, if you don't mind me asking, about what age are you and what kind of work/school do you do? This isn't part of some agenda, I'm just curious to know a bit more about you, if you don't mind. And indeed, it is morning, neither night nor day! Hmmm, do you live outside the US? Geeze, I'm nosy...

Bobby,

I'm a twenty-one year old ungrad.

I live in the U.S. and have for my entire life.

So are we mud wrestling for Danny now???

Are you on facebook? Do you want to be friends?

Er, sorry, don't mean to be pushy. If not, I totally understand and won't take offense.

Heather,

..a little late but still worth it...

Thanks for the welcome...I never bothered about blogging until PP came into the neighborhood and
found this great site thru the FAPP site.

Great job you guys and gals are doing here...informing the mis-informed.

Good morning all!

Enigma,

I'm sorry if my posts late last night seemed condescending, I didn't mean it that way. I think my choice of words wasn't the best. You're only 21? I'm suddenly feeling very OLD. Anyone know of any good AARP blogs?

Bobby,

God bless you and your family! Babies are great!

Lyssie, Jacquie, and Elizabeth...

My son is gonna kill me...

Here he is again...

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/TandS133.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/012_9A.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/000_0977.jpg

Hey, MK!

We have 3 bachelorettes! We could play the dating game! Based on our responses, he can pick your new daughter-in-law.

P.S. This is twisted. I LOVE it.

He's gonna kill me...

Mu-ha.

And if both had died in utero as a result of trying to save both, would Jill have shared THAT story?

You parade this story around. Would you be so quick to post it if she had decided not to abort the second baby and it had died? And that death had caused the other baby to die? And it wasn't caught in time, causing an infection that then killed the mum? Would you be so joyful, posting an article about how she had "given her life" to give her baby a chance?

That baby could have died. The doctors may have been wrong this time, but what if they had been right? And I guarantee you that they are often right and a lot of deaths and serious injuries are avoided because women have chosen to abort in time.