arndt@lymph.DEC (01/24/85)
This is the experience of one woman. I present it for what it is worth.
She SAW abortion, rather than debated it from a comfortable chair.
Let the ASSHOLES rant about 'emotionalizing' the issue. As if somehow
emotions were invalid or not part of the process. I'll believe they have
really thought about it and believe what they say when I see them carry
the baby and put it in the bucket.
-------------------------------------------
"While working as an LPN in 1977, I held to the popular 'open-minded' or
so called 'pro-choice' view of obortion. It goes something like this:
'Personally I think abortion is wrong, and I would never have one, but I
would also never interfere with someone's right to have one if they so
choose.' That was easy to walk in at the time. It allowed me to speak
out of both sides of my mouth.
But the Lord graciously tampered with me. I was then employed at a large
women's hospital in Florida, which had one of the most advanced neo-natal
intensive care units in the area. It was on the second floor. The delivery
room was on the first floor where I worked, and the surgical ward was on the
third. One wing of the surgical ward was dedicated to abortions.
My usual assignment was caring for the newborn - assessing their vital signs,
eating habits, feeding and bathing them. One evening, however, there was
a shortage of staff on the third floor, and the supervisor asked me to cover.
Before the evening was over, I was assigned to monitor the 'progress' of a
15 year old girl about to 'deliver' her saline abortion in room 317.
Room 317 is indelibly marked in my memory. It was one of the most expensive
rooms in the hospital, known as 'The Suite.' It was complete with shag
carpeting, co-ordinated wallpaper and bedspreads, a large picture window with
drapes, and a large color television. This contrasted with the pain of the
situtation, with the dim lighting which was purposed for this 'type' of
procedure. Such a darkening, which opposes the normal bright lighting for
optimum visibility and safety, brings to mind Ephesians 5:11-13: 'Have nothing
to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is
shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything
exposed by the light becomes visible.' I know that scripture now, but didn't
consider it then.
This 15 year old was lying in her bed, trembling violently, eyes open wide
as saucers, staring straight ahead. She was whimpering like a scared toddler
after a nightmare. She never acknowledged my presence. Or the presence of
her mother who stood tall and very sophisticated in the corner, staring out
the window, chain-smoking cigarettes. She likewise didn't utter a word, or
even acknowledge my presense, her daughter's, or the presense of her dead
granddaughter now lying in the bed also, just aborted. A conspiracy of
silence in the shadows.
Along with another nurse, already experienced with abortions, we quickly
cleaned up the teenage mother, disposed of her baby in a white bucket,
placing the child in a dirty utility room, next to dirty bed pans, old
wound dressings, and other garbage. There were seven other buckets there,
the result of one day's work with saline. Each container had the name, sex,
time of 'delivery', and weight written on the lid. That was the same
information I was used to marking for newborns on the first floor. I'm not
sure if it was sick curiosity, horror or rage which motivated me, but I
then removed every lid and looked into the eyes of these discarded babies,
and at their perfectly formed hands and feet. Many of them were not much
smaller than my own premature daughter, born that year in the same hospital.
This then was a true picture of abortion, and I needed to see it for what
it was. I needed also to repent. As I walked away from room 317, I
remember thinking how pitiful the 15 year old girl was - feeling that
abortion was not the solution for her, and feeling responsible for her pain,
rather than feeling I had somehow helped to releive it. And most of all I
learned that abortion was a horror, that no one should be allowed the choice,
and knowing I must fight it.
[Marcy Shefferman, her husband Larry, and their three children live in Laconia,
N.H. Larry serves as a pastor at the Laconia Christian Fellowship, and Marcy
is serving as the acting director for the recently formed Lakes Region Crisis
Pregnancy Center.]
--------------------
Regards,
Ken Arndt keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (01/28/85)
[......]
OK, I'll buy that abortions can be gross when viewed in detail.
However, I think what we need is some comparisons.
Has anyone had a similar experience with an ILLEGAL abortion? How gross
are they?
Keith Doyle
{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithdrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
> Let the ASSHOLES rant about 'emotionalizing' the issue.
More correctly, one can say that the assholes, the ones who cannot
make their point through reasoned argument and need to resort to manipulation,
are the ones who are emotionalizing the issue.
--
BRIAN: "You're all different!"
CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen
MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
--
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlrpreece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/31/85)
>Let the ASSHOLES rant about 'emotionalizing' the issue. As if somehow >emotions were invalid or not part of the process. I'll believe they have >really thought about it and believe what they say when I see them carry >the baby and put it in the bucket. ----------------------- Well, YOUR emotions are involved in what YOU believe, but I'm not sure I see why they should be important to me or to the law. As to what's in the bucket, regardless of what it looks like, it is qualitatively different from what I would consider to be a baby. ----------------------- > ...This contrasted with the pain of the >situtation, with the dim lighting which was purposed for this 'type' of >procedure. Such a darkening, which opposes the normal bright lighting for >optimum visibility and safety, brings to mind Ephesians 5:11-13: 'Have nothing >to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is >shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything >exposed by the light becomes visible.' I know that scripture now, but didn't >consider it then. ----------------------- Oh, come on. If you haven't had any exposure to modern birthing practice, I suppose that's not your fault, but the preferred environment for birthing these days is a room as much like a home environment as possible, with low light levels. This is for both mother's and neo-nate's comfort. The former would still apply in the situation you describe. Is the birthing room where my two children were born a place of shame because its lights were turned down? Scripture, whatever its value to you, is totally irrelevant to the argument. ----------------------- >her mother who stood tall and very sophisticated in the corner, staring out >the window, chain-smoking cigarettes. ----------------------- I would question the sophistication of anyone seen chain-smoking, but that's another argument entirely... ----------------------- >I remember thinking how pitiful the 15 year old girl was - feeling that >abortion was not the solution for her, and feeling responsible for her pain, >rather than feeling I had somehow helped to releive it. ----------------------- I didn't see anything in there to indicate that the girl was pained by the result rather than by the situation of being pregnant in the first place. A first trimester fetus is not alive in any reasonable sense of the word and has not been alive. It is incapable of life on its own and has no right to the use of its mother's body for external life support. I think abortions are sad for a lot of reasons: they cause anguish for the man and woman involved, some result in health problems or death (fewer than if the pregnancies went to term, more than if the pregnancies never started), they often cause problems in relationships between the woman and her parents and her mate. Sure you feel sad when you see a dead fetus; it LOOKS like a baby. But it's not. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/31/85)
> Exactly how is it so much different from a baby? I suppose you would > have been one of the people 150 years ago saying, "they look like > people but they aren't" ---------- Well, I hope not. I believe a fetus is qualitatively different from a baby. It doesn't have a functional brain (at the age I'm talking about), it doesn't have complete neural pathways from sensors to processor, it can't live without its attachment to its host. Clearly it has the potential to develop those abilities and features, but at that time it does not have them and they are part of a reasonable definition. This distinction is recognized in laws allowing cessation of life support for adults with similar problems. Those laws would ask for evidence that the patient's status was not going to change; I'm not making an analogy, I'm pointing out that those differences are elsewhere recognized as making a qualitative difference. I would also distinguish on experiential grounds. A fetus has no experience, no awareness, no personality, no assemblage of beliefs and perceptions, no past. I believe that makes it qualitatively different as well. Of course, even if it WERE a baby I still wouldn't grant it a right to the use of its host's circulatory system without her continuing permission. ---------- > ... Also, the "side-effects" you > mentioned are very downplayed whenever a women comes to have an > abortion, and people complain when groups feel they should be brought > up. ---------- Most of the side-effects I mentioned are present whether the pregnancy is continued or terminated, but I certainly would hope that everyone considering an abortion consider their own likely reaction to it. That's different from presenting a deliberately horrible picture with the intent of scaring them away from it. ---------- > With regards to the emotional issue, how are his emotions any different > from those people are trying to invoke when they tell us of all the > poor incest and rape victims? I am not downgrading what has happened > to them, it is a tragedy, but the pro-abortion people play on emotions > in the same way when they tell of all their "hypothetical" cases that > would be denied abortions. ---------- I don't see that as a strictly emotional issue. You call them "hypothetical" immediately after admitting that such victims do exist. Some people may use the existence of rape and incest victims to provoke emotions; I don't. I think they are just a subset of those who, for personally compelling reasons, do not consent to the use of their body by an undesired visitor. I don't make them a special case. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (02/01/85)
> > [......] > > OK, I'll buy that abortions can be gross when viewed in detail. > > However, I think what we need is some comparisons. > > Has anyone had a similar experience with an ILLEGAL abortion? How gross > are they? > > Keith Doyle > {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd I have a friend who had one in 1970, and I don't want to talk about the details, but man, we're talking GROSS. She hemorraged badly and almost died. The abortion was incomplete, and things had to be fixed up by an intern in a hospital who, thankfully, decided to keep his mouth shut. It was 12th week, by the way.
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/03/85)
> OK, I'll buy that abortions can be gross when viewed in detail. > > However, I think what we need is some comparisons. > > Has anyone had a similar experience with an ILLEGAL abortion? How gross > are they? Keith, that is a good point but it is irrelevent to the abortion issue. Anti-abortionists will admit that even if abortion is made illegal, women will still get abortions. The difference is that the mother will be more likely to die as well. This is the goal, we can rid ourselves of immoral women. I am not positive about this, but I believe the term pro-life refers to the fact that currently the consensus is that the father you should not be killed also. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
andrews@uiucdcsb.UUCP (02/07/85)
/* Written 3:44 pm Jan 30, 1985 by preece@ccvaxa in uiucdcsb:net.abortion */ ----------------------- > Well, YOUR emotions are involved in what YOU believe, but I'm not sure > I see why they should be important to me or to the law. As to what's in > the bucket, regardless of what it looks like, it is qualitatively > different from what I would consider to be a baby. ----------------------- > I think abortions are sad for a lot of reasons: they cause anguish for > the man and woman involved, some result in health problems or death > (fewer than if the pregnancies went to term, more than if the pregnancies > never started), they often cause problems in relationships between the > woman and her parents and her mate. > > Sure you feel sad when you see a dead fetus; it LOOKS like a baby. > But it's not. > > scott preece > ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece > /* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.abortion */ ------------------ Exactly how is it so much different from a baby? I suppose you would have been one of the people 150 years ago saying, "they look like people but they aren't" Saying it does not make it true. Also, the "side-effects" you mentioned are very downplayed whenever a women comes to have an abortion, and people complain when groups feel they should be brought up. With regards to the emotional issue, how are his emotions any different from those people are trying to invoke when they tell us of all the poor incest and rape victims? I am not downgrading what has happened to them, it is a tragedy, but the pro-abortion people play on emotions in the same way when they tell of all their "hypothetical" cases that would be denied abortions. Brad
carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) (02/10/85)
In article <47800004@ccvaxa.UUCP> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >Of course, even if it WERE a baby I still wouldn't grant it a right to the >use of its host's circulatory system without her continuing permission. Good thing you aren't a Siamese Twin. With your personality, he/she might decide that they didn't like sharing major organs with you, and have an operation that could kill you both. Carl Hommel
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (02/22/85)
[] carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) writes: >In article <47800004@ccvaxa.UUCP> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >>Of course, even if it WERE a baby I still wouldn't grant it a right to the >>use of its host's circulatory system without her continuing permission. > >Good thing you aren't a Siamese Twin. With your personality, he/she might >decide that they didn't like sharing major organs with you, and have an >operation that could kill you both. > > Carl Hommel I perceive a bogus analogy here. Separation of "siamese" twins is not analogous to abortion of fetuses. Siamese twins form together; they have joint ownership of the organs they share. Thus for one to force the other to undergo an operation involving the shared organs involves an infringement of the other's rights. But fetuses, on the other hand, form after their mothers; they do not share any joint ownership with their mothers. Thus they have no claim on their mothers' bodies, and this objection to abortion is bogus. -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]