The Good Men Project’s Aaron Gouveia caused quite a media flurry a couple days ago when we published his video and essay, showing his confrontation with two protesters outside the abortion clinic where his wife was going through the procedure. Picked up by Rachel Maddow, Slate Magazine, and Salon (among others), his story is our most read article to date.
And rightly so. The debate surrounding abortion rights may be vitriolic at times, but it’s a subject that needs to be discussed. While we took the side of Gouveia and his wife, many disagree. For instance, here’s an excerpt from an article by Jill Stanek:
I cannot imagine the grief parents experience after receiving an adverse diagnosis like that, but the solution is never to kill their baby. While I have met many women who regretted killing their fatally ill babies, I have never met a mother who regretted carrying her dying child until natural delivery, even if her baby was born dead.
Of course there are the adverse psychological consequences of abortion. Gouveia and his wife may receive an emotional bump from all the pro-abort support now, but after the publicity has died away, they will be left with the cold hard fact that they killed their handicapped baby.
You can read the rest of the article on Opposingview’s website. So, readers: what do you think? Does Stanek have a point? Comments are welcome below.
About Lu Fong
What? Their baby was going to die anyway. The quote from the original article is “Our doctors told us there was zero chance for survival.” I don’t see why giving birth to a dead baby would make a difference.
As for regret about abortion, I don’t see how most people could have an abortion and not feel negative about it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right choice for them.
Chris, your argument is ridiculous. We are ALL going to die anyway. Where do you draw the line to play God and decide when?
Nice way to be dismissive of someone’s opinion.
The playing god argument doesn’t really hold up though. All kinds of people “play god” every single day — they have to. Medical professionals, first responders, aid workers, all make decisions about who lives and who dies.
You make the decision about what is the most humane and appropriate course of action based on the facts as you understand them. Sometimes this may mean letting someone die (e.g. do not resuscitate), it may mean speeding up their death (a conversation regarding this is being held in many countries right now).
It’s easy to be dogmatic and argue that only god has the right to end life but I see that as a cop out. We must take responsibility and Aaron and his wife did. They chose not to let the fetus or his wife suffer any longer than necessary when the hope of survival was nil. It was a tough choice but one they took and I honor their courage in doing so.
Derek,
I disagree with your assessment of John’s statement.
He is not being dismissive. He is making a cogent point.
If your reasoning for aborting babies is “they are going to die anyway,” then you might as well kill everyone else around you, go to the hospital and kill all the patients, all the auto collision victims in ithe Emergency Room, etc. After all, they are all going to die anyway.
William, I think your black-and-white view of this subject is “missing the point.” Chris, forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but what you seem to be pointing out is that the child had absolutely *nil* chance for life or viability. There was a considered medical assessment made, and even if the woman had given birth to the child, it *still* would be dead. This is several standard deviations of difference from, say, someone with a severed artery in an emergency room, who has a healthy chance of survival with medical intervention.
This couple and their medical professionals chose to compassionately end the suffering of the mother, and potentially save *her* life– birth is always a risky process, even in the best of circumstances, and a stressing mother giving birth to a dead/dying child doubly so. This is, again, VERY DIFFERENT than a medical professional looking at an auto accident victim with a good chance of survival and choosing not to help that individual. (I keep using this example because you yourself brought it up.) Chris is not advocating that ALL abortions be performed because “they are going to die anyway,” he is pointing out that in THIS PARTICULAR, *SINGLE* instance, this child was already as good as dead and would not survive past birth, and literally WAS going to “die anyway.”
Peace.
So are pro-lifers who kill abortion doctors playing GOD? They are taking a human life. Or would you just say that they are doing the work of God, like God spoke to them.
It seems people like to choose and pick when it is convenient for them to align things with their beliefs even if they are inaccurate or unscientific.
What a bunch of nonsense!
We “prolifers” don’t kill abortion doctors.
There have been only a small handful of abortionists killed since Roe v Wade. Not all of them have been attributed to abortion opponents.
The overwhelming majority of abortion opponents have never killed an abortionist, and never will.
Abortionists, however, have slaughtered 50 million babies since Roe v Wade alone.
I’d say the lion’s share of violence and killiing rests in the hands of abortionists and their supporters who have oceans of blood on their hands.
Well, first of all, it’s hard to attribute much credibility to the woman who believes that it’s OK for people to kill doctors who perform abortions.
That said, I object to her use of the phrase “pro-abort support.” The outpouring of support that Aaron and his family have received in the past few days is not happening because people are saying “Yay! Go abort your baby! I’m pro-abort!” People are supporting them because they had to make a difficult and heartbreaking CHOICE, and thank goodness they were able to make that choice for themselves. Jill can give vague examples of all the women she’s met who regret having an abortion, but the thing that is important to remember is that Aaron and his wife decided that it was not right for them to carry to term a baby that will not survive outside of the womb. This is what is right for THEM. Not for anyone else. For them.
Also, sirenomelia goes WAY beyond just being handicapped. They were told their baby would not survive. I’ve never been in that situation, but I can imagine that carrying a baby to term, when you know the whole time that it will not survive, would be much worse than making the sad choice to abort.
Basically, this is a decision that is best made by the family, NOT by the government and religious fundamentalists. I do not think that Stanek has a good point.
Robin, They didn’t have to choose to kill their baby. Ten years ago my sister-in-law was told that she had less than 24 hours to live. She was in terrific pain, should she have been killed mercifully? Today she is fine.
The bottom line is that no one has the right to decide. Not the government, not a religion, not the parents. Let God decide.
Hey John, newsflash: not everyone believes in god.
And your sister was alive. This baby was not yet born. It’s not even apples and oranges, it’s apples and fire hydrants. But if she chose to end her own life, my answer is yes, I’m a believer in euthanasia.
Individuals should decide what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. Not some imaginary deity watching us from the clouds.
“Let God decide.” Oy…
No one is talking about imaginary deities in the clouds. They are talking about God. Incidentally, you don’t have to be Christian, or believe in God, to be opposed to violence.
No, she doesn’t have a point. She makes unsupported & anecdotal arguments, using “common sense” for things that there just aren’t studies to confirm. You want anecdotes? One of my friends died having her stillborn baby. There, there is one person who might regret it.
Jill Stanek is a well known anti-abortion extremist. It is no surprise that she would weigh in on the side of the persecutors of this couple. I doubt that she has the experience she claims, of talking to many people who are sorry they aborted fetuses which were destined for stillbirth.
Take the time to read her bio. She worked at an abortion clinic. She knows firsthand. I feel very sorry for the Gouveia’s. But Jill Stanek is right on, they made a decision to kill their child.
This only goes to show how important having a choice is.
Both options have emotional consequences that the families have to deal with. There is NO question about that.
First, to clarify, Robin misspeaks to say I think “it’s OK for people to kill doctors who perform abortions.” That is advocating murder, which I obviously do not. Meanwhile, by her support of abortion, Robin does.
Second clarification, this one to Mary, I have indeed spoken with many post-abortive mothers who regret killing their handicapped babies. In my capacity as an RN who held a nonviable handicapped abortion survivor until he died, I have had opportunity for much interaction with this sad group of mothers.
Third, there are physical reasons not to abort related to women’s health and safety. I gave a couple examples in my post:
“Furthermore, abortion hurts women. Forcibly dilating the cervix and entering multiple surgical instruments into the uterus to cut the baby apart and scrape the inside of the uterus carries multiple risks, including an incompetent cervix and miscarriage or premature delivery of the next wanted baby.
“There’s also the increased risk of breast cancer from abortions due to increased exposure to estrogen and decreased maturation of breast cells.”
Thanks, Jill
To address Jill’s post:
First, calling abortion providers murders that must be stopped is dangerous rhetoric. While you may not be calling on violence you are essentially loading a gun and handing it to a lunatic. Take some responsibility for the violence you incite.
Second, maybe some women regret having an abortion. Most however do not. The psychological effects of abortion are less than post partum depression.
Third – these physical reasons are laughable. When I gave birth to my daughter, I had to take pitocin to dilate my cervix (what you call “forcibly dilating). “Multiple surgical instruments” were inserted – to check fetal heart-rate, to break the water, to later insert water, ultimately resulting in a C-section, a procedure FAR more dangerous than an abortion.
Finally, the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute and every respected, mainstream health organization have debunked the breast cancer/abortion link as myth. Stop spreading lies.
Tara, as to whether the killing of preborn children is murder or not, the answer is readily available by answering the question, When does human life begin? Science and medicine agree it begins at fertilization. Do you?
If we agree on this basic biological premise, the second question is: Have preborn children committed a crime worthy of capital punishment? Based on definitions as we know them, is abortion capital punishment or premeditated murder? (BTW, do you support capital punishment of convicted killers and rapists?)
Bottom line: It is appropriate to call abortion murder. You are advocating the negation of free speech for fear of inciting violence. Any free speech – even free speech advocating peace – can incite violence. Ask Dr. King. Ask Ghandi.
Re: pitocin given at full-term delivery, your cervix was “ripe.” It was soft. it was ready to dilate. If it were not ripe, you would have not been given pitocin. I don’t know the circumstances of your delivery, but you may have accentuated my point: The rush to unnaturally deliver your daughter may have been the reason for the C-section, particularly if you failed to dilate.
Re: NIH “debunking” the breast cancer/abortion link, why is it then that lead NIH researcher, Louise Brinton, who organized the 2003 sham denying the link, published a paper last year acknowledging a 40% increased risk of breast cancer following abortion? http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/01/pro-aborts-rip-latest-study-by-their-own-people-on-abortionbreast-cancer-link/
By your definition of when life begins a massive number of adult women need to be charged with involuntary manslaughter (I think in the us that’s called 3rd degree murder) for having miscarriages.
Clearly that’s a ridiculous concept. The world is not black and white and a fertilized egg is not a baby. Claiming murder when it loses the potential to become one is based on the sumplistic thinking of religious dogma and nothing more.
Derek, do you seriously not know the difference between natural miscarriages and induced abortions?
I thought science was indeed black and white. Do you disagree with science that human life begins when human sperm meets human egg?
> Derek, do you seriously not know the difference between natural miscarriages and induced
> abortions?
Yep, do you understand the meaning of the word involuntary? You’re right it’s ridiculous to claim manslaughter for natural miscarriages — as ridiculous as claiming abortion is murder. The difference is that my claim does not incite idiots to kill people whereas yours does. And you know it, and yet you continue to do it.
> I thought science was indeed black and white. Do you disagree with science that human life
> begins when human sperm meets human egg?
At grade school levels science is black and white. Real science is complicated and things are rarely clear cut. What constitutes life is not simple or easily defined.
Every egg in your body is “alive” and has the potential to become a baby. It just needs one more step to do so than does a fertilized egg. I would not consider having a hysterectomy murder. I would not consider male masturbation murder. I do not consider terminating a fertilized egg murder.
Use of the term is simplistic, inflammatory and entirely unhelpful in a constructive conversation.
“Yep, do you understand the meaning of the word involuntary? You’re right it’s ridiculous to claim manslaughter for natural miscarriages — as ridiculous as claiming abortion is murder. The difference is that my claim does not incite idiots to kill people whereas yours does. And you know it, and yet you continue to do it.”
You are being completely nonsensical. Abortion intentionally ends the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, it is murder. During a miscarriage, a woman does not kill her child- he/she dies naturally.
And actually, your claim does “incite idiots to kill”. Abortionists have killed millions of innocent human beings because of a similar poor understanding of biology (or perhaps a denial of biological fact?)
“Every egg in your body is “alive” and has the potential to become a baby. It just needs one more step to do so than does a fertilized egg. I would not consider having a hysterectomy murder. I would not consider male masturbation murder. I do not consider terminating a fertilized egg murder.”
This paragraph shows an appalling lack of comprehension of basic biology. If you want to debate this issue, you really need to educate yourself on this. Otherwise, you’ll only continue to produce a (very) weak defense of your position.
Let’s get one thing straight: I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
One of the things that really annoys me about anti-choicers like you, Jill, is the fact that they can’t get their science straight. Since science actually contradicts your points, I can kind of see why you’re relying on perpetuating these lies. To begin with, the majority of abortions occur during the first trimester and the preferred method is vacuum aspiration. It’s an incredibly safe method to perform abortions and having an abortion or even multiple abortions does not put future pregnancies at risk (http://www.annals.org/content/140/8/620.full). Also, the American Psychological Association (APA) has determined that choosing to have an abortion does not cause adverse mental health issues (http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf). By the way, unsafe abortions (i.e. where abortions are illegal) account for 50,000-100,000 maternal deaths every year; which is about 13% of all maternal mortality (http://info.k4health.org/pr/l10edsum.shtml).
By eliminating a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has an abortion doesn’t eliminate abortion. All you’re dong is denying women the right to have a safe abortion. Making abortion illegal drives the practice underground and puts women’s lives in danger. How about we not go back to the time when women were dying from septic abortion or where there were entire hospital wards devoted to taking care of women who were so desperate to abort that she would risk her life to do so (http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=283931). As Dr. Waldo Fielding wrote in the New York Times: “What Roe [vs. Wade] said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).
Shelley,
Unless you spend and identical amount of time supporting the pro-life and pro-abortion positions, you’re not pro-choice. If the focus of your energies is to promote abortion, you’re pro-abortion. Why run from the term? What’s wrong with being pro-abortion?
Your source that touts safe abortions is by two abortionists. Give me a break. David Grimes brags to have been aborting for 38 years (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18abortion-t.html)> Mitchell Creinin is a late-term abortionist who testified in favor of partial-birth abortion (http://www.lifeissues.org/pba/april-5-2004.htm). Their abstract refers readers to the National Abortion Federation or Planned Parenthood for referrals. Dig a little deeper in your vain attempts to claim abortion has no negative consequences.
Likewise, Nada Stotland, president of the American Psychological Association in 2008 when your linked pdf was authored, is a former board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice (http://www.prch.org/about-board-directors).
Science? Pro-abortion ideologists have infiltrated science to keep women from learning the truth about how abortion harms them. How awful of you to deny a woman the right to grieve her abortion.
Your link to an article by an abortionist justifying his profession with factless claims of women hurt by illegal abortions is worthless as well. Furthermore, aAre you saying any law that stands a chance of being broken should not be passed? And are you saying that those who would commit illegal abortions are nefarious, not well-intentioned?
The fact that you point to a conspiracy of “pro-abortion ideologists [who] have infiltrated science to keep women from learning the truth about how abortion harms them” pretty much tells me how desperate you are when confronted with evidence that expressly contradicts the lies you and your anti-choice buddies spew.
Some women grieve after an abortion. Others do not. It depends on the woman and the situation of her abortion. I am not denying women their right to grieve. I’m just pointing out that anti-choicer lies like “women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide or have post-abortion syndrome” are nothing more than that, LIES.
I’m not pro-abortion. I’m pro-women. I’m pro-CHOICE because I’m about protecting women’s right to choose what to do with their lives and their bodies. I find women’s choices, health, and safety paramount and any action to deny them any or all of these is incredibly paternalistic and outright misogynist. How dare you say that you know what’s best for every single woman out there? HOW DARE YOU?
I have nothing against women who are against abortion in their own lives. Women who, if they ever had to make that choice would never consider an abortion. That is their choice to make. But once people like you try to take that choice away from women – through lies, harassment, intimidation, or trying to change the law – that’s when I have a problem.
@JillStanek You wrote “How awful of you to deny a woman the right to grieve her abortion.”
THANK YOU so much for saying that. One of the worst bits of collateral damage caused by legal abortion and the “feminist” mindset, is the unacceptability of openly grieving fetal (or embryonic, etc.) death.
I understand a little of what Mr. Gouveia and his wife experienced. I have never had an abortion and have always been pro-life, but I have experienced an unwanted pregnancy (I was unmarried, would have lost my job, etc.) that ended in miscarriage. Despite wanting desperately not to have gotten pregnant, the miscarriage was devastating (so much so, that I was shocked at myself.)
I miscarried naturally and at home and , in a strange way, I was and am grateful for that experience, because I was confronted with and got to acknowledge the humanity of my child (who, until that point was mostly theoretical, even to me. I was still in the first trimester.)
That acknowledgment was the *only* acknowledgment I would get (outside of an online support group) of my child’s humanity — and thus of my own great loss. It is not acceptable in a country where abortion is legal and viewed as therapeutic to acknowledge the loss of an unborn child as the loss of human being and a relative. I found that fact *very* hard to bear immediately after my miscarriage (my poor long-suffering boyfriend had to put up with my railing against that fact) and it hurts and angers me to this day.
I understand why Mr. Gouveia and his wife came to the decision they did. I sympathize with their great, great loss and wish them healing.
But I still firmly believe that abortion is *not* the answer and that those who claim the unborn are not human do not help, and sometimes harm, women.
Pro-life is a misnomer. Pro-life forces cause unbelievable suffering for women, LGBT, and anyone who isn’t Christian. Pro-choice folks are more committed to promoting human life than so-called Pro-lifers.
So how do you explain pro-lifers who are female, who belong to the LGBT community and/or who are non-Christians? And Christians who are pro-abortion?
“Pro-choice folks are more committed to promoting human life than so-called Pro-lifers.”
I think you meant to say “destroying”.
The choice Aaron and his wife made was to kill their disabled child. That child was presumably still alive when his wife went in for her abortion. (If the child wasn’t, then she was in the process of miscarrying)
It is either wrong to kill a disabled child or it is not? Would you kill your 1 year old disabled child if you learned that he/she would die in two years? Would you kill this child to prevent their suffering? Or your suffering?
If not why would you do this to a 5 month unborn baby? Why is it different and ok to kill a 5 month unborn baby but not a 1 year old baby who has 2 years to live?
The fact is that parents can and do take the pregnancy to term and deliver the baby. The baby is comforted and cared for by his/her parents and then dies. While this is painful for the parents, in the end it is ultimately rewarding because 1. they met their child 2. they were able to say goodbye to their baby 3. they were able to grieve 4. they were comforted in knowing they did everything to help and love that child 5. their child died because of the physical condition and not by the “choice” of his/her parents.
In the end, these make ALL the difference. While the parents will always grieve for that baby, they will experience some measure of healing.
I don’t believe abortion heals parents in this situation and it certainly has no positive effect on the health of the child. I believe this is the main reason why they keep telling themselves and anyone who will listen why they HAD to abort.
What is truly tragic is that there are 3 victims here: the unborn baby painfully destroyed by his/her parents, and the mother and father who were sold a lie – abortion once again is the solution to a problem pregnancy.
This is all doctors have to offer couples? What a tremendous lack of imagination and a lack of hope.
“At grade school levels science is black and white. Real science is complicated and things are rarely clear cut. What constitutes life is not simple or easily defined.”
Wow! Real science can now provide a detailed millisecond understanding of the process of fertilization and has confirmed that a unique, self-directed life exists at the very beginning of fertilization. Please take the time to educate yourself on this. For you life may not be easily defined, but at the moment fertilization begins, a new unique, never to be repeated human life has commenced. Understand what life means to a biologist and how scientists actually define life.
“Every egg in your body is “alive” and has the potential to become a baby. It just needs one more step to do so than does a fertilized egg.”
Which is why the oocyte is NOT a human being and why prolifers never claim that it is. It is however, a living human cell. And by the way, there is no such thing as a “fertilized egg”. The ovum, once fertilized has become a single cell embryo which is called a zygoyte. That IS a new human life.
” I would not consider having a hysterectomy murder. I would not consider male masturbation murder. I do not consider terminating a fertilized egg murder.”
your analogies are non sequitur. Sorry.
“Use of the term is simplistic, inflammatory and entirely unhelpful in a constructive conversation.”
I think in light of the above, your conversation is not constructive. It’s impossible to have a constructive dialogue when one party is ignorant of basic scientific knowledge of fertilization and embryology.
So an abortion has “adverse psychological consequences” … but carrying a slowly dying unborn child inside of you for NINE MONTHS has no psychological effect? That’s just ridiculous.
I know I’m not a medical doctor, but I don’t really know of any way you can live without a bladder or kidneys. Therefore, there was absolutely no miracle coming… there was no chance of this baby ever taking a breath of its own. What possible purpose would have been served in forcing this poor woman to drag this out? To appease others misguided judgmental morality?
I’m not going to say that I personally agree with abortion in every instance… but I just don’t believe it can be a black/white all or nothing issue. In this instance, it seems clear to me that it was necessary and my heart goes out to them.
I don’t know. I can’t for a second imagine my husband taking me to get our child aborted or even suggesting such a thing. What kind of husband and father does that?
I have an unpopular voice to bring to this debate, but someone needs to say it: Why are we having so much trouble with killing human beings? *I* believe that this is something we need to be doing MORE, not LESS, of– but we need to be doing it in conscious, compassionate, and well-thought-out ways. Murders of passion are NOT the answer to our overpopulation problem, nor are murders of politics, although I appreciate both for their positive impact on the “carbon footprint” of the human race. However, death needs to happen, NEEDS to happen, in order to keep our biosphere in balance. We thin out populations of wolves that are preying on livestock, we thin out populations of rabbits that are preying on crops, why do we refuse to take the same care with our OWN population? Where are the “park rangers” who deal with US?
I come from a rather Hermetic school of philosophy– I believe that “God”, or the animating, intelligent/unintelligent force of the universe, lives in each and every one of us. We are, each one of us, Little Gods, running around on this ball of dirt, constantly making decisions about what lives and what dies. We create our own realities. Do we have the right to? Clearly we do, since we CAN. Am I going to pull this leaf off of this branch and kill it? Am I going to eat this hamburger, or choose to kill some soybeans and eat a veggie burger instead? Am I going to have eggs for breakfast, or kill some celery and murder some peanuts so that I can chew on them?
Death is a part of life. We each have the choice, in every moment, to give or withhold some being’s death. We ARE the divinity, expressing Itself– and so, we DO have the responsibility to “be god” and choose who lives and who dies. I choose to take this responsibility and own it, instead of shipping it off to some invisible scapegoat in the sky that I choose to call “God.” (Or Krishna, or Allah, or WHATEVER.)
I personally am “pro-choice” on two things– Abortion, and euthanasia. I truly believe is love to decide not to bring someone into a world that will not be a good and supportive place for them, before they have experienced it. Their energies will find another way to express, somewhere else in the universe, if they don’t get born with that particular set of parents. It is also love to leave choice in the hands of adult people who wish to die– Only THEY know the suffering they are going through. If a person knows they will die in six months, and are in incredible pain, and will be for the duration of that six months, getting progressively worse? Then, who am I, to enforce their suffering? Compassion, one of its many forms anyways… is release from pain.
I believe, as a person who loves children, a person with a working uterus, that it is absolutely my choice as a Little Deity, just like all of us are, whether or not my Gate of Life admits another person into this overburdened and wheezing world. My pro-choice stance is one of compassion, and one of love. My compassion is this: I refuse to bring yet another child into a home of poverty and poor education, and I have the CHOICE not to do so. I refuse to bring yet another child into a home of hunger, and I have the CHOICE not to do so. I refuse to bring yet another child into a home of hatred, and I have the CHOICE not to do so. I refuse to bring YET ANOTHER CHILD into a home of abuse, and I have the CHOICE not do do so! If I am not in a very good, supportive, loving situation, it is MY responsibility, as a Little God of My Own World (as each of us are), to NOT bring a child there, whether by birth OR by adoption. And that is love. I have met too many wasted, screaming children of abusers and drug addicts, who weighed everyone else down in their lives, before dying miserable in the streets. What the hell kind of God would perpetuate THAT? Not THIS Little God. Life is NOT always sweet. It is NOT always good. And it is NOT always the choice.
I will also bring up another point: He-LLO, has anyone forgotten how overpopulated we are? Part of the problem here is short-sighted people like Jill Stanek, who have fallen hook line and sinker for the tripe that we must preserve life at all costs. No, actually, we musn’t. Our sweet mother, the Earth, is collapsing under the weight of so many people! Many great people have said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Preventing people from happening is a civic duty, in my eyes. I would like there to be enough to go around for the next generation– and in order for that to happen, there needs to be a small enough next generation for the resources to go around TO. You can cut an apple into 10 slices, right, and feed a slice each to 10 kids… but what if there are 50 to one apple? 100? 200?
It is, then, with compassion for my entire race, without satire, that I state: I am PRO-DEATH. And I will be, until there are few enough people that there is enough room for EVERYONE to get the resources and care that they need, without ANYONE slipping through the cracks. In fact, I will be PRO-DEATH even then, for we must each, as Little Gods, make wise decisions about how to control our population so that we never, ever again become this out of balance with the planet on which we live.
The final thing that I will bring up is this, in support of CHOOSING when to bring a baby into this world: Scientific studies have shown, over and over, that the first years of a child’s life are crucial in determining what kind of adult they will be. This means that I, as a mother, like all mothers, would have the responsibility for CREATING the reality of the next generation! Do I want to bring up a hungry world, through my starving child? Do I want to bring up an aggressive world, through my abused child? Do I want to bring up a sociopathic or paranoid or needy world, through my neglected child? Or do I want to bring up a nurturing, supporting, loving world, through my well-cared-for child? I hardly think that’s even a CHOICE– do you?
Mitakye Oyasin, With Love, To All of my Relations.
Jill and John are right on. I am amazed at how twisted people are. You can come up with all kinds of excuses to kill an unborn child. As a mother I would never consider aborting one of my babies. Furthermore, you have called evil good. It is incredible how some of you people villanize people who are pro life and have the audacity to call them doctor murderers while making a hero of the father and mother who selfishly take the life of their unborn baby. Shame on you.
Maeghann you are a nut case. I can’t believe you would write such a ridiculous statement.. I wonder if you would feel that way while your body was being torn into pieces. What you mean to say is you are pro death as long as you are not the one dying. You have no love for mankind and I would hardly call you a little god just a BIG NUT!
LOL, Carol. I’m sorry I scared and offended you so much, it wasn’t my intention. Honey, if *I* die, I am also part of the circle of life, and I’m not afraid of it. Please don’t assume things, or put words into my mouth. My statement comes out of a genuine care for my species as a whole, in part from long study of ecosystems and biological sciences. It *is* a bit tongue-in-cheek, A-La-Johnathan Swift, because I wanted to highlight some of the hysteria and ridiculousness going on around this subject. Peace
As a quick but belated NB: I fully advocate birth control as the FIRST line of responsibility in the whole “reproduction” argument, especially in regards to the stewardship of our planet and species. It’s much easier, and much more loving, to prevent the conception from happening in the first place. IUDs, pills, Nuva-Rings, condoms, the list goes on! There’s even been some advances in MALE hormonal birth-control, how awesome is that?
As another note: http://www.imnotsorry.net/ is a great, refreshing counterpoint to the rhetoric of Stanek and people like her. It is a site where women share their stories of NOT being sorry about having abortions. This side of the debate is important to remember
Wow.
I am saddened & angered but not at all shocked by how insensitive & cruel you are, Ms. Stanek. How terrifying it is that you are actually a nurse!
How is it you & your group of judgmental, hypocritical nut-jobs can actually say you are dismayed with being labeled as violent criminals and actually try to deny being evil & violent when your words & deeds prove that you obviously are scary religious self righteous zealots?
I am actually frightened of people like you, as you are the ones that spread your messages regarding your ‘pro-life” stance by screaming at women, sending dead animals to clinics, bombing facilities & killing doctors/staff members at clinics!
Your written opposing view proves EXACTLY how evil, violent and nasty you pro-lifers truly are! You wrote: “they will be left with the cold hard fact that they killed their handicapped baby.” What the hell is wrong with you, lady? How can you say those things? Your entire being is absent of all that is good in a human-compassion, love, empathy, etc.
Do you have no shame? Where are your morals, values, ethics? Are they invisible? So much for your pro-life Christian values!
You really need to go see someone about your extremely demented mental issues….a good expensive professional, at that! I believe you are a sociopath that just pretends to care about the rights of unborn children, as you certainly dismiss and disregard rights of all others on a continual basis!
I will pray for you…..