Home / News / What One Woman Saw After Her Abortion
What One Woman Saw After Her Abortion

What One Woman Saw After Her Abortion

This woman, who calls herself Jane, took pictures of the aftermath of her abortion to demystify abortion and to show what a "baby" really looks like after an abortion at six weeks.  There are no feet or hands.  There is nothing but blood and cells, as one can see from the pictures on her site.  It is nothing like what you see on those fake pictures so many anti-abortion people propagate.

My intention in documenting and sharing my abortion is to demystify the sensationalist images propagated by the religious and political right on this matter. The images of lifeless fetuses are used as propaganda in the prolife/prochoice debate in which individual women and their bodies are used as pawns to push a cultural, political, and religious agenda in the United States.

At 6 weeks of pregnancy, my abortion looked very different than the images I saw when I entered the clinic that day.

No, the doctor did not chop or shred the baby in the process of removing it.  It was just cells and barely a blimp on an ultrasound before the abortion, nothing more.

Valerie Tarico confirmed she saw the same thing after her abortion, which she does not regret either.

They say that the walls of Dr. Tiller’s clinic are lined with letters from grateful families.  I can understand that gratitude.  Whenever tirades against abortion catch my attention, I look at our elder daughter with wonder and gratitude.  Without abortion she wouldn’t exist, and if I knew where to find the warm Canadian-trained Singaporean physician who gave us the gift of Brynn, I would send her one of those letters, too.

Who do you know who wouldn’t be here if a brave doctor hadn’t made a moral commitment like the one that cost George Tiller his life?  What do those fundamentalists think keeps someone like Dr. George Tiller working behind bullet proof glass after being shot in both arms?  The gifts of life given by an abortion provider are hard to measure, but I think that Dr. Tiller knew.   I hope they publish those letters in a book.

Anyway, the photos the woman took of her abortion are interesting to say the least and a lot safer than prior Roe v. Wade.

About Mriana

Mriana is a humanist and the author of "A Source of Misery", who grew up in the Church of God, Anderson Indiana. After she became an adult, she joined the Episcopal Church, but later left the Church and became a humanist. She has two grown sons and raises cats. Mriana raised her sons in the Episcopal Church, but in their teen years, they left the Church and she soon followed. One of her sons became a "Tao Buddhist" and the other a None, creating his own world view. She enjoys writing, reading, science, philosophy, psychology, and other subjects. Mriana is also an animal lover, who cares for their welfare as living beings, who are part of the earth. She is a huge Star Trek fan in a little body.
  • Deborah_B

    This is very timely, considering those "moving billboards" that will be visiting a number of cities. I think it's the pictures of hands, feet and so forth that get people upset about abortion.

    I personally had no idea what an abortion looks like. This was very educational.

    • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

      I thought it was timely, as well as educational, too and I'm glad she posted those pictures. I left her a message thanking her and a link to this article I wrote about her pictures. Hopefully she appreciates it.

    • http://wevehadenoughohio.com/ WHEOhio

      I knew exactly what it looked like, and for so long I've regretted not photographing my own abortion. I've volunteered in the same clinic that performed my procedure – but of course, it would be entirely unethical to ask a patient for permission to photograph anything to do with her procedure. (!)

      I've waited for the day when real abortion photographs hit the internet. I couldn't be happier to see the lies and propaganda blown out of the water.

      • Willow

        Yes, where do they get all those hands and feet and so forth from anyway? A abortion is nothing more than a nasty little jar of blood. If you can't see the baby then it doesn't exist. I just love science!

  • http://www.facebook.com/valeree.braz Valeree Braz

    "Whenever tirades against abortion catch my attention, I look at our
    elder daughter with wonder and gratitude. Without abortion she wouldn’t
    exist, and if I knew where to find the warm Canadian-trained
    Singaporean physician who gave us the gift of Brynn, I would send her one of those letters, too"

    Did I miss something here??? Without abortion, her daughter wouldn't be here? I'm pretty sure she would still be here if abortion didn't exist, babies are what happens when you don't terminate…

    Seriously?? Did I miss something?? Am I reading it wrong??

    • Kim

      Protip: Read the article. If that doesn't work, yes, you are missing something. It's called reading comprehension.

      • http://www.facebook.com/valeree.braz Valeree Braz

        It's called sarcasm, hag.

    • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

      You missed the fact that she conceived again only a few months after she aborted the other. Said child would have been a totally different child, not the one she has now. Thus, she would not have been born.

      • anna powers

        Good to know that somehow she just KNEW the aborted child would have been not worth the beating heart it had when it was ripped out of her womb…. honestly, if she hadn't aborted the other child and had kept it, she would have learned to love him or her just as much as the child who does exist, and she wouldn't know the difference. She certainly wouldn't be sitting around trying to rationalize a miniature human life as a "clump of cells". I am a nursing major, and a textbook can verify that it is a biologically inaccurate load of BS used to salvage her conscience.

        • jakyl

          you're disgusting, anna. Even if you learn to love said child, maybe you cant afford it, maybe its a rape baby, maybe your life is in danger if you were to deliver. and as for adoption, it fucks people up. besides its not a child, its a loose grouping of cells you dumbass,

          • Mike

            Well, if she couldn't afford that one, why did she get pregnant again just a few months later? What makes Anna disgusting? Cause she disagrees with your opinion on the subject matter… I think that's pretty disgusting, and makes you the dumbass… Good day!

            • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

              Again, it wasn't that she could not afford the child. It has to do with quality of life and not quantity, as well as cell division. It wasn't even a child at that point.

              • Willow

                A "child" is a developmental stage for a human being. From the moment of conception it is a human being……scientifically speaking since you are so fond of science.

                And, hey, more great news for this mom. If the human being she actually allowed to survive becomes ill or injured and she and her husband want to get rid rid of it – due to quality of life issues for the child, of course – they are allowing child euthanasia in Belgium now!! Then she can write them a lovely thank you note and think fondly of those doctors as she starts over again.

                • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

                  This all a matter of choice, personal preference, and if one prefers quantity of life over quality of life, then that's their decision, but personally I don't think quantity is as good as quality. Would you force one who is brain dead to have quantity of life, keeping them hooked up to machines, unable to think for themselves, over having quality of life? Would you actually force a woman to carry a child to term when the doctors know it will be stillborn? There are many questions to consider before one forces their person preferences on others. The person faced with such decisions does not have an easy time of making the final decision and sarcastic remarks, which favour personal views, are one of many ways to force and impose one's own views on others. It's not your decision to make for someone else when the another person is faced with making such decisions.

                • Willow

                  No, I think we should comfortably slide back into barbarism. 55,000,000 babies have been aborted in the US alone in the last 30 years and the vast majority were merely inconvenient. Are you concerned about these mothers forcing their personal views on these 55,000,000 human beings – the vast majority conceived through consensual sex by people who are fully aware that sex makes babies?

                  And it is entirely possible with the direction we are heading that Valeree's Brynn may grow up and decide that Valeree is becoming too much trouble and her quality of life is more important than its quantity. And we will all agree that Brynn is the one that must make the final decision and sarcastic remarks, which favour personal views, are one of many ways to force and impose one's own views on others and must be ignored. It will just be too bad if Valaree does not agree.

                  So, just like the barbarians of old, you may continue to argue in favor of killing the inconvenient, the weak, the ill, and the most vulnerable, but you are foolish if you think it is going to stop with the unborn.

                • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

                  Barbarism is letting the woman die when termination of a pregnancy could have saved her life. Barbarism is allowing the woman to die, instead of attempting to save her life.

                  If you truly believe that a bunch cells is a human child, then you should take a look at dolphin, elephant, gorilla, chimpanzee, feline, and canine fetal development. Up to a point, feline and canines look just like humans in gestation. After that, dolphins look like humans in gestation far longer than feline and canines. The ones that look exactly like us up until birth are the other apes- chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangatangs.

                  I say those who kill other animals are the barbarians, not those who have abortions, without any sarcasm at all. Every time you eat a cow, pig, chicken, or fish, you are eating our relatives and unlike you, I have scientific proof in the fields of genetics, biology, medical sciences, and yes, of course, evolution. You have no actual scientific evidence to back up your claims and accusations of barbarism.

                  It is also barbarism to force someone with a terminal illness or one who has medical directives to live past the point of quality life. We do better by our pets when they suffer organ failure and the quality of life is no longer available for them, just quantity and forcing them to live is selfish on our parts when they can no longer have quality of life, unless you are one who throws away a family pet just because you don't wish to care for one who has an over active thyroid or some illness that with treatment can allow them quality of life.

                  What Valerie did was not murder nor was it killing someone who was inconvenience. Your judgement of others and denial of choice is offensive, especially in the face of science and the quality of people's lives. Even Stephen Hawking supports euthanasia, esp if that is the person's choice. IF Stephen Hawking decided he no longer had quality of life and told his doctors he wanted euthanasia, would you stop him, deny him what he considers quality of life, and say he's mentally ill, no longer capable of rational decisions or would you grant him freedom of choice? There's an organization I think you should look up, called Compassionate Choices- http://www.compassionandchoices.org/ You might learn something concerning terminally ill and elderly, who call weak and vulnerable.

                  Think carefully, because when a pregnant woman makes informed rational decisions about her pregnancy, she's doing the same thing, for someone who is incapable of making any decisions, as well as for herself, and in some cases her own family. In all honesty, if I am talking to a Xian, your "holy" book is extremely barbaric, but it says nothing about abortion. In fact, in those stories, God kills many unborn babies and if you believe that God decides which babies get carried to term and survive birth, you need to know that God is attributed, by the religious, with carrying out more spontaneous abortions (AKA miscarriages) than humans do in real life and is often credited with causing one to suffer, even linger, sometimes painfully, for a long time before death, because he allegedly "has his reasons". My what a loving deity/"Heavenly Father" you have, who barbarically carries out abuse, even in the story of Job, where he allowed Satan to carry out heinous deeds, even did some heinous things to Job himself. I'm surprised Job, who attributed all his suffering to his deity, continued to praise God in the end. How many of Job's children did God slaughter or allowed to be slaughtered? How many of Job's animals did God slaughter? I'm surprised God didn't go for Job's wife too. Then, in the end, God replaces Job's children? PLEASE! Children cannot be replaced, BUT we can take care of the living, which, according to the Bible, doesn't begin until first breath, which is after the child is born. In your book, God even orders his followers to cut open pregnant women during various battles. If you like to know more, you can start here https://ffrf.org/shop/nontracts/what-does-the-bible-say-about-abortion It provides chapter and verse about everything I said and more, allowing you to read it for yourself in your own book.

                  So your BS is not only scientifically wrong, it's not even Biblical and yet your judging women who terminate a pregnancy? Honestly, I'm truly amazed at even religious people who don't read what is in their own book or even look at scientific evidence, and then judge people (instead of allowing who/what they call god to do it), calling them offensive.

                • Willow

                  LOL, Mriana, deep breath.

                  "Barbarism is letting the woman die when termination of a pregnancy could have saved her life." You pick something that hardly ever happens to justify the barbarism of killing over 55,000,000 babies. Saving the life of the mother is justifiable and was done even before abortion was legalized. It is also so rare it is mathematically insignificant.

                  "you truly believe that a bunch cells is a human child". No, Mriana, what I wrote is, "A "child" is a developmental stage for a human being. From the moment of conception it is a human being……scientifically speaking since you are so fond of science." If you are still confused you can compare the DNA's.

                  "I say those who kill other animals are the barbarians, not those who have abortions, without any sarcasm at all." I once heard someone say that he never met an animal rights activist that wasn't pro-abortion. Interesting.

                  "it's not even Biblical and yet your judging women who terminate a pregnancy?" Wrong again, Mriana. The left often misinterprets the Bible to justify their behavior without actually being interested in what the Bible actually says or means. Actually the Bible says you should not condemn as in judging whether or not someone is going to hell. It actually does call on its followers to rebuke evil behavior and walk away from those who refuse to change with the understanding that the person is welcome back if they are willing to repent and change.

                  Since you are so fond of science maybe you should look into the scientific medical studies that link abortions to breast cancer. Even the abortion loving Russians acknowledge this fact with Pravda, the Russian newspaper, chiding the American press for not reporting on it. Hmmm, I wonder why the liberal elites in the press don't want American women to be more scientifically informed? My best friend in high school who died from breast cancer leaving behind 4 daughters ages 21 to 11 would have benefited. She had an abortion as a teen-ager, had no family history of breast cancer, was diagnosed with breast cancer in her 30's, and died from it in her 40's.

                  There is also the science of Psychology that reports that women who have abortions are more likely to be depressed and to commit suicide. Maybe that is because mammals, scientifically speaking, are designed to protect their young. Many will do this even to the death – the mother's death, not the child's. I know a young woman whose family is pro-abortion. Her sister committed suicide and mentioned in her suicide note that she had gone through 2 abortions. What on earth motivated this poor young woman to mention those abortions in her final communication? Her family was pro-abortion and would not have had a problem with it.

                  So you go ahead and continue to promote that culture of death you are so enamored with. Keep telling those young girls It's only a clump of cells; its only a bottle of blood. I just hope that you don't end up on the wrong end of this total disrespect for human life that you are promoting.

                  Actually your comments and demeanor appear to be those of a post abortive woman.

                • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

                  No, it does happen and it's not "hardly ever". It happens more often than you think.

                  Why not compare the DNAs of developing bonobol cells to developing human cells. Not much difference. If you are going to demand rights for human cells, then also demand them for other animals too.

                  "I once heard someone say that he never met an animal rights activist that wasn't pro-abortion. Interesting."

                  I'm more of an animal welfare activist than an animal rights activist. There's a fine line between the two groups though, but if that's all you have to say about it, then that's much of a logical or rational comeback to this debate, albeit rather heated.

                  "Wrong again, Mriana. The left often misinterprets the Bible to justify their behavior without actually being interested in what the Bible actually says or means. Actually the Bible says you should not condemn as in judging whether or not someone is going to hell. It actually does call on its followers to rebuke evil behavior and walk away from those who refuse to change with the understanding that the person is welcome back if they are willing to repent and change."

                  No, those are not misinterpretation nor are they wrong at all. It's those who are against terminating pregnancies that twist their Bible to make it say what they want it to say. Name one verse that is explicitly against abortion? "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to the living, which begins at first breath. That said, if you are suppose to walk away from "evil behaviour" then you better walk away from your own deity. It is written in your own book that your deity has done much evil, which includes killing unborn children, children, and adults, not to mention having his only begotten son killed, which in turn is allegedly himself (not much different from other myths, but I digress).

                  There are no actual studies, at least not honest and reliable ones, that link abortion to breast cancer. Those are fallacies and scare tactics of Anti-Choice people. I bet if you look into the family histories of those you listed, there is probably a family history of breast cancer (the BRAC gene) or some known pathogen, such as radioactive iodine used to kill Grave's disease for example, which was the actual cause.

                  Again, the psychological studies are by those who are Anti-Choice and used as fear tactics and not actual science. Like the above it is pseudo-science. Abortions do not cause depression in most women who have them. It's purely BS and meant to scare women, not actual honest truth. I might also mention that I do have a degree in psychology.

                  No, dear, I seriously doubt I will have an actual abortion, given I'm now in menopause, but I did have a spontaneous abortion once, which was nature's doing, not some deity's. I also have two healthy, very much living sons, one of which our lives were in danger, if labour had not been induced. The dr gave their father and me a choice as to which one of us we wanted him to save if push came to shove. Both their father and I chose me, because we already had one child. Of course, if possible, we wanted the dr to try and save us both, but since we had one child, we both felt he needed his mother. However, IF I have a daughter-in-law who had to make that difficult decision because her life were at risk or something wrong with baby that would cause it not to survive much past birth or whatever, I would support both my son and her decision… even if it meant to terminate the pregnancy. BTW, my sons are Pro-Choice also.

                • Willow

                  No, it does happen and it's not "hardly ever". It happens more often than you think. – Show me where you get your information from because you are wrong.

                  "If you are going to demand rights for human cells". Scientifically speaking these cells are a developing human being. They are not random cells. My argument centers around respect for human life which you really don't seem to get. You disrespect human life at any level of development and it leads to disrespect at all levels.

                  "Name one verse that is explicitly against abortion? "Thou shalt not kill" only applies to the living, which begins at first breath." That is a ridiculous, arbitrary excuse to kill babies in the womb. The human being is a living, growing organism inside the womb. Show me your science that says it is not alive.

                  "That said, if you are suppose to walk away from "evil behaviour" then you better walk away from your own deity. It is written in your own book that your deity has done much evil, which includes killing unborn children, children, and adults, not to mention having his only begotten
                  son killed, which in turn is allegedly himself (not much different from other myths, but I digress)."

                  Not only do you digress you have no idea what you are talking about. We are not immortal and our world follows the laws of nature. When people die it is usually due to accidents, disease, old age, or murder not the hand of God striking them down. God did direct his people to destroy other nations such as the worshipers of Baal who gained favor from their god by sacrificing their children to him by burning them alive at his altar. Hmmm, maybe God was saying he would not tolerate the sacrifice of our own children to make our lives easier, but I digress. And God did not have his son killed. His son freely chose to sacrifice himself for us out of love and to teach us that we are called to sacrifice ourselves out of love for each other. Maybe your right, it is all a myth and there will be nothing to answer for in the end. Good luck with that.

                  "There are no actual studies, at least not honest and reliable ones, that link abortion to breast cancer." Oh great, I will tell my friend, Linda, that. Ooops, never mind, she's dead from breast cancer.

                  “Earlier this month, the academic journal Cancer Causes Control published a meta-study analyzing the link between abortion and breast cancer in China. “The meta-study provides very compelling evidence that abortion
                  increases the risk of breast cancer. By pooling the 36 studies, it concluded that induced abortion raises the risk of breast cancer by 44 percent.

                  Mary L. Davenport, M.D., who is on the board of directors of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute wrote
                  in the American Thinker, “The censorship of medical journals, prevention of conference presentations, denial of grant money and faculty promotions, and self-censorship of honest scholars in academic medicine who want to tell the truth but feel they cannot, impoverishes us.”

                  Davenport describes the work of Dr. Joel Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College. Brind published a meta-analysis in 1996, “on abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The
                  Brind meta-analysis, combining the results of 23 studies, gave a more complete view than any single study. But even though it was the most comprehensive study on the topic at the time, it was disregarded by establishment medical groups.” Brind’s study, published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal, showed a 30 percent risk increase due to abortion breast cancer ABC. Brind, in turn, points out that the new ABC study is just one of several that receive little or no media coverage.

                  "Again, the psychological studies are by those who are Anti-Choice and used as fear tactics and not actual science." Well that's great. I am sure it will be of great comfort to the young woman with the dead sister. You must get your scientific information from Planned Parenthood who proclaims on its web site that "Serious, long-term emotional problems after abortion are about as uncommon as they are after giving birth." They, of course, did not give a site for this claim.

                  Two studies from Finland show that women who had abortions were 6 to 7 times more likely to commit suicide than women who gave birth. (Gissler, Hemminki & Lonnqvist, “Suicides after pregnancy in Finland,1987-94: register linkage study,” British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4, 1996; and M. Gissler, “Injury deaths, suicides and homicidesassociated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” European J. Public Health 15(5):459 63,2005.)

                  Shortly after the Finnish studies, researchers in Great Britain conducted their own survey of abortion medical records. They found a similar correlation between abortion and suicide. They found an 8.1 rate of suicide per thousand women who had abortions, and a 1.9 rate of suicide among women who carry to term.

                  Dr. Carl L. Tishler found that post-abortion teenagers are more likely to commit suicide on or near the anniversary of their abortions than at any other time.(Carl L. Tishler, Ph.D., Adolescent Suicide Attempts Following Elective
                  Abortion: A Special Case of Anniversary Reaction Pediatrics 670-671 Nov 1981)

                  The studies I have listed are by no means the only ones. But who needs science when it is not politically correct.

                  "No, dear, I seriously doubt I will have an actual abortion, given I'm now in menopause." When I said "Hopefully you will not eventually end up being a victim of this grotesque disrespect for life you are so vigorously promoting." I was referring to you, my dear, becoming a disposable, useless eater .

                  NIH (an office of HSS) which is now offering grants worth up to $275,000, for research on palliative care (basically end of life comfort care where no effort is made to cure the patient) for geriatric populations who are not in “hospice and end-of-life settings,” but, rather, “in settings and at time points earlier in geriatric patients’ disease of disability trajectories.”

                  Just a few days ago, a Bloomberg article entitled "How 'Death Panels' Can Prolong Life" declared that we must "deny treatment to people who want it" in order to hold down costs. According to that Bloomberg article, we are supposed to kill off our sick grandparents because the "quality of life" they would be expected to have if they recover would not be enough to warrant spending so much
                  to save them….

                  How nice for you that your children are Pro-Choice. As I said before, I hope your encouraging them to look at life as disposable and in no way sacred does not backfire on you some day.

                • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

                  Have you missed the most recent articles in the news where women died because either there was no effort to save their lives or they rejected any efforts to save their lives? If you have, then I'd say you haven't been paying attention. We even reported at least two of these incidents on this site. Not only that, if the nine year old girl in S. Am. raped by her step-father and carrying his twins did not have the pregnancy terminated, she would have died, according to the drs involved in the case. Being 9 years old and pregnant, I don't doubt that she would have died, because she wasn't fully developed to have children. Also, the U.S. has one of the highest mortality rates of any developed country for pregnant women giving birth. Do a search and you will find these things.

                  "My argument centers around respect for human life which you really don't seem to get. You disrespect human life at any level of development and it leads to disrespect at all levels."

                  Actually, I have a lot of respect for all life living on earth, thus why I do not believe in killing any living being. IMHO, you are the one who does not have respect for life, because if you did, you'd care for those living on earth and not something that does not.

                  "That is a ridiculous, arbitrary excuse to kill babies in the womb. The human being is a living, growing organism inside the womb. Show me your science that says it is not alive."

                  Um… No. Read your Bible. It says life begins at first breath, not in the womb or at conception. Secondly, while I was pregnant a doctor told me that the cells are nothing but a parasite (to be precise, he called it a leech), which I find scientifically to be true nor is it yet sentient. It only survives by being parasitic. However, I could say that of actual living humans- they are parasitic to the earth. However, the dr was right in that the developing zygote is a parasite, much like a tic or leech.

                  "Not only do you digress you have no idea what you are talking about."

                  No, I was not digressing. If you actually read your book, you'd find there is more sex and violence than a Jackie Collins book. Not only that, God orders much of the violence. As for living by nature's law, no most Xians do not live by nature's law. Do you know why cats, esp wild cats, eat their dead offspring? To keep predictors from attacking the living ones. IF Xians lived by nature, then aborting a fetus that is already dead wouldn't be an issue. IF people lived by nature, then we wouldn't even have global warming (technically Climate Change), which has and will kill more humans than women getting abortions. IF Xians lived by the law of nature, then they would accept science, esp the natural sciences, more than they do. Hell, they'd even accept evolution more than they do and would recognize that we are 99% genetically similar to other apes and maybe have more respect for other animals and nature itself.

                  Your friend Linda more than likely got breast cancer either because of a genetic predisposition or cancer causing chemicals, but not from an abortion. That's nothing but a guilt trip to use on those who want or get an abortion and those who support those who did get abortion. To ban abortion is to throw us back to a time prior to Roe v. Wade when many women died from unclean and unsafe abortions (AKA Back Alley Abortions) and sentence many who don't to death. Which IMO, is not respecting life at all.

                  I can site many women who have not suffered emotionally from getting an abortion… starting with Valerie Tarico. Maybe the women you try to cite as suffering emotionally from abortion are actually suffering from those who want to ban abortion and not from the abortion itself.

                  "When I said "Hopefully you will not eventually end up being a victim of this grotesque disrespect for life you are so vigorously promoting.", I was referring to you, my dear, becoming a disposable, useless eater ."

                  Excuse me… Have we succumb to name-calling? Now why might that be? I don't recall lowering myself to name-calling, except to say that Pro-Life is neither Pro-Choice or pro-life and to say it is anti-choice. Why not be anti-war, which also kills more children than women getting abortions. If you doubt that, then you haven't been paying attention to the wars happening in the Middle East. What about the attempted assassination of Malala? Why not try to protect her and other children like her? Why not try to find a cure for juvenile diabetes, sickle cell anemia, encourage vaccinations, and other things that affect children? Why not encourage pregnant women and women planning on getting pregnant to eat properly, avoid alcohol and drugs, get regular check ups while pregnant (and even before), not smoke while before and during pregnancy, etc etc. Focus on what contributes to good health instead fighting something that is a part of women's health and in some cases, is lifesaving, keeping women safe and healthy, instead of promoting back alley abortions. Feed the poor, disabled, low income pregnant women, even if it includes getting food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare, AFDC and anything else that contributes to helping the living stay healthy, fed, have clean water, clean air, shelter, and even a good education, even if it means paying more taxes.

                  Bloomberg is a reliable source? Since when? Have you even read studies from an actual medical source such as the American Psychological Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and alike sources?

                  "I hope your encouraging them to look at life as disposable and in no way sacred does not backfire on you some day."

                  Life already living and breathing on earth is sacred and not disposable, because it cannot be replaced. However, quality of life is very important. One can have quantity, but suffer more for it because they don't have quality. What's not sacred is not giving a woman a choice concerning her own life and her own body, as well as her own welfare and her family's welfare. A woman's health is not between you and your dogma, but between her and her doctor and only between her and her doctor. I happen to believe every human being has the human right to shelter, food, clean water, clean air, medicine (which includes birth control and sometimes abortion), shelter, and a quality education, not just those who can afford it. Like it or not, good medical care sometimes includes terminating a pregnancy.

                  BTW, you never did answer my questions about Stephen Hawking and his support of end of life issues and all. You conveniently avoided it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/valeree.braz Valeree Braz

            Those cases are few & far between, most women get abortions because they don't want to have a kid right then. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

        • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

          I agree that statement is disgusting, because IF she had that child, neither she nor her husband would have careers to support their family and she never would have had healthy children. Besides, that child, if it managed to be born, had a high chance of dying too. Rationalizing? Really? Is that what you think? She's not rationalizing. She's telling her story so that people will understand the need to keep abortions legal. Biologically inaccurate? Go back and reread you textbook, dear. It was a clump of cells.

          • Mike

            She got pregnant a few months after her abortion….
            That doesn't make any sense!
            Anna is right… How can she abort one CHILD, then get pregnant a few months later, keep that one and be happy? Chances are too much isn't changing in a few months…

            • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

              Yes, it does make sense when her and her husband are trying for a healthy child. The first pregnancy, the cells did not form right in which to create a child that is capable of having a quality life. The second pregnancy the cells development worked as it is suppose to in which to create a child with a quality life.

              Maybe those who do not understand need to research and study cell development. Your baby, when it was first conceived never did look like a human. It literally was a clump of cells that was separating and dividing. This cell division eventually leads to something that looks human, but could also be a chimp or a gorilla. It is the DNA sequencing, if their is no error in the coding, that decides what the ultimate outcome of all the cell division becomes.

              Of course, to those who do not understand cell division and DNA sequencing, I am probably speaking Greek and therefore you don't understand enough to know that the first baby would have been so deformed that it would have no quality life, but the second one was not and would have a quality life. Quantity of life is not always as good as quality. One can have all the quantity of life, but if the quality of it is not so good, then living that life is not so great for the person who has to live it. Just because you give a child with severe MR life, doesn't mean you actually giving them a wonderful gift.

        • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

          What beating heart? I don't think you understand cell development or what happens when cell development goes wrong at all.

  • Pingback: Pro-Choice: Pro-Choice vs Anti-Choice | Timid Atheist Rambles

Scroll To Top