NELG

In general, I'm not opposed to abortion. I think there can be circumstances that it is neccessary.
I could never have done it myself though.

Having said that, it's not uncommon for some girls to have abortion after abortion. I've heard of cases of over 20 abortions for one girl. In those cases education is more what those women need. About how pregnancy starts and about how to avoid it.

chex wrote:
I'm not sure if I would have been able to have one.

Well, I guess I found the answer to that question. My doctor thought the chances of my recent pregnancy being in my uterus was pretty high. My hormone levels were rising, meaning that the pregnancy was still developing, but I still chose to have the D&C. Had the pregnancy been in my uterus, there would have been no threat to me. I chose to abort, because I couldn't take being pregnant and waiting to miscarry.

Now, the pregnancy ended up being in my fallopian tube, which does pose a big threat to me, but still. I chose to abort, based on the assumption the pregnancy was in my uterus. I was under the assumption that to let the pregnancy (and likely eventual miscarriage) run its course was perfectly safe, and I chose to abort for emotional/mental reasons. I chose to abort.

I have never been so grateful that I have that choice.

Yaz Pistachio wrote:If you were sixteen, had unprotected tickle fight because you got drunk, and got pregnant,

Deja Vu... I'm pretty sure you've said this before Yaz.

Yaz Pistachio wrote: If you are 16 and stupid and have unprotected s.e.x, then you should not be allowed..

I chose to when we thought the pregnancy was in my uterus and posed no threat.

i'm waiting for chex to answer yaz

There really isn't much to answer. *shrugs*

Is there something in specific you want me to address?

okay - you said you chose abbor'thing , then yaz said "But the pregnancy was probably not going to work out anyway"

then you didnt really chose to abort - you didnt take a baby's life coz it never meant to be.
he has a point .

Probably. Probably not going to work out. Had it not been eptopic, there would have always been a "what if." It was still developing when I had the D&C.

OH MYYY FORGET IT - sorry caps - but throw away the ''what if'' it sucks - no what if - what so ever from now'on .
You didnt ''choose'' to abort ' it was chosen for you . no 'what if' is mattar since it could have been risky for you and not only for the developing thing there..

I just want you to know you didnt chose - you would have never done it if it was healthy - i would have abort you if i could - but that's a different topic .

Eff wrote: i would have abort you if i could - but that's a different topic .

chex wrote:

SERIOUSLY!



Dont you ever carry the feeling that you aborted the thing or the feelings of 'what if' smurf if and smurf what.

you aborted only coz it wasnt good . yur too cool to abort .
just like Z - what if is also dead .
(not the nelg Z)

But 'what ifs' do exist, and cherry picking information to acknowledge is never good. But for the sake of debate, let's go with that. No 'what ifs.'

It's nice that no one here thinks less of me because of my circumstances, but that shouldn't be an issue to begin with. There are some who would condemn me for having the abortive procedure under the assumption that the pregnancy was in my uterus, while the pregnancy was still progressing. If I was going to miscarry anyway, I should have let nature run it's course while praying for a miracle from God. So who's morals should I be striving for? You and Yaz see nothing morally wrong with my situation, but that doesn't mean others won't. Which is why every woman needs to be able to decide for herself what to do. Legislating morality is a very dangerous thing, and while it's one thing to say "I think this is morally wrong," it's quite another to say "this should be illegal."

I'd say I think we're sharing a brain this morning, but I think it's more like I'm leaching off your brain.

Since its a question of morality it depends on where moral itself does come from. AS far as I see there ar these possibilities to categorize moral

1) Its humanmade, to secure a living together in a culture and therefore are different (slightly) for every culture on earth. The people who dont follow the moral rules in some way damage other peoples lkife, their own lifes or they damage structures that hold togeteher the culture itself.

2) Moral is somehow global, something every human being "knows" when being born, something that doesnt need explicit teaching but can still be tought to fasten the process of learning it and to minimize errors in the growing process of the human being.

3) Moral is based on a devine being, for example god. Its therefore rightfull to follow it and unrightfull to not follow it. If your break the moral, you are a "sinner".

--

I hope I didnt forgot anything important. So the second thing we should think about now if an abortation is against morals or is not.

In case of 1) technically affected is your own life, the life of the unborn child and the lifes of those who know of you being pregnant. Those who dont know it cant be affected in any way. Since the moral is humanmade it is made for a special geographical room and a special time. Abortion in ancient days wasnt possible or even more dangerous than to born a child. Even when there where complications it was safer to get the child. As well you where not able to know if a child was able to live or not, if it had an illness or not. That changed so to ASSUME to not know if the child would be well or not is not logical. You KNOW if its going to have a deseas and how bad it is. You even can get numers. How many % is it possible for the child to survive, how dangerous is it for the mother.
If moral is only humanmade than it isnt bound to devine rules. If it is too dangerous for the mother and too unlikely for the child to survive, its only logical to abort.
Since we are not at war, we dont have too less children to survice, since its not necessary for health supprot to have them in old age, you dont NEED to have children. Most likely its even a disadvantage (economicaly) to have children.
The western culture is as well defined on the choice of people on their own. One example is democracy. Since it already was shown, that it is mainly you and your family who is affected and there is seriously no rule that anybody but you can decide iver your body it is always about you to decide. You can take into concideration what people who know about think of it. In that way you do what "moral" in way 1) is defined. - If i didnt made a mistake

2) Is even more easy. If moral is in your genes (or something like that) than the answer should be clear to everbody on earth. Not to a majority but everybody. Since the topic is so controversial and there is no real majority but only different point of views that means either moral is NOT in the genes or it means that this case is not covered in that what is in the genes.

Case 3) is more difficult again. Religion is indeed very much connected to culture. Thats why it is not so easy to just read the bible or whichever document of religio is your primary one (if you have one at all). The bible and every other major religion didnt change much in the past thousand years. It is an offspring of te time and culture ans geographic room it was made in. That means: It is outdated. But thats only true if you belive religion is humanmade.
If religion is humanmade (the bible and so on) that its just again moral that is humanmade and moral that is in the genes combined. Just the offspring is different, since it was put in the genes by god. Since there wasnt a clear sign how to understand the bible today by a devine being and since its not clear into the genes it must be that the devine being doesnt want the problem to be clear.

I know i only slightly touched the third point but it would really be a lot of work to explain it all...


Dennis