posted
I support AltName's decision to remain anonymous.
I'm another regular Hatracker, though I haven't been posting as much as I used.
I have trouble just reading the abortion and sex threads, and there's no way I could participate in them. I feel I should say something because I think a lot of people aren't considering the realities of some situations.
I was raped by a friend in college. A lot of people dismissed it because I wasn't beaten up and because it happened at his house. I had wanted to spend time with him, but not romantically. He was a nice person. He used to take my friends and me to the mall because we didn't have cars. He liked to tell stories. He was much older than me. He'd been in the armed forces before going to college, and by the time I met him he'd finished college and was in law school. His hair was already salt and pepper colored. I didn't consent. I didn't want to have sex with him. But I couldn't prove it, and I didn't file a police report because I didn't want to ruin his life. I felt so guilty and devalued. That is how I lost my virginity which was something invaluable to me.
My boyfriend blamed me for it. He didn't do it openly at first, but slowly he became more and more degrading and used it to make me have sex with him. He always told me that that part of me was his and what a slut I was and how I had cheated on him with the rapist and he knew I would sleep with anyone because I couldn't control myself. He would say things like, "You can't go out tonight. You know how you are."
I already felt guilty enough, and he just pressed my face harder into the dirt. He would say that I had to have sex with him a certain amount of times a week. He didn't really seem to care if I enjoyed it or if I wanted to do it. Alot of times, he would refuse to use condoms because they didn't feel as good for him and he would say that it was my job and that I should care about his feelings. He would pull out, but that was horrible too. It was like he was degrading me even more by getting that stuff all over me. By this point he lived with me so he was there all the time.
He finally broke up with me because he said he was miserable and that I didn't care because I was so selfish.
Had I become pregnant by either of these men, I would not have hesitated to have an abortion. By the grace of God, it never happened, but I think that a woman should be allowed to judge her own situation. After all, with my boyfriend, I wasn't really being raped.
That was a while ago. Since then, I had a few relationships, and I always tried to tell them what happened, but they either didn't care because I wasn't tied up or beaten up, so it's not real rape and it's just really common for young women to lose their virginity that way, or they would get offended if I tried to tell them not to do things because they made me uncomfortable, saying that I was accusing them of being rapists. One man in particular did this after I kept trying to refuse to perform certain sex acts for him, and he would leave me little to no choice.
I've had a much more considerate, loving significant other for a good amount of time, but there are still times when I just burst into tears because I feel a disgusting person. I am always apologizing to him because I still feel like I've done something wrong. I'm always afraid that I'm not doing my "job" and keeping him sexually satisfied, no matter how much he tells me otherwise. I feel guilty for not doing things with him when I'm feeling sick or tired, even though he always tells me that he doesn't think he ever deserves sex as an inalienable right.
I can't share this kind of thing under my regular username. I don't want to be known as a rape victim. I dont' call myself a rape victim, I say "I was raped." It is something that happened to me. It is not who I am.
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It really, really would be. Obviously not all, but all the ones I know (a non-representative yet sizable sample). I have personal knowledge of this.
Since I don't have personal knowledge of it, I appreciate you sharing your insight, just as I appreciate AltName sharing hers as someone who had an abortion. I think these kinds of reminders are valuable for people on any side of the debate, to keep the discussion civil.
posted
That's insane. I mean, that a guy who professed to be your friend could treat you that way. Any time I've been romantically involved with a woman, the main thing that held me back was my absolute terror that I might do something that made her uncomfortable, and I couldn't deal with the thought of making someone feel that way, even when another side of me wanted to press the romantic relationship very much.
I can't imagine what could possibly be going through a person's head when they're having sex with an unwilling partner. I mean, predators in dark alleyways are easy to dehumanize and think of as monsters, and then they sort of seem to make sense and fit into the world. But a friend, who you assume should care about you, who suddenly decides that what you want is completely secondary to what they want from you? It messes me up, and I'm really sorry you went through that.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: The second difference is that AltName is not a hypothetical person who may possibly have their feelings hurt. She's a real person who did have her feelings hurt. If there's an "abortion survivor" here who has been genuinely offended by some of the pro-choicers comments, by all means they should speak up (anonymously if they choose) and let everyone know how that feels and why we should be more sensitive.
Something slightly different has happened here in the past -- I offended Belle very deeply with an analogy in an abortion discussion, and subsequently apologized. I certainly don't think she should have kept it to herself and not spoken up; then I never would have known she (or anyone else) was offended. I think that goes both ways; I certainly speak up when I've been offended, though I try to wait and cool off a bit first, especially if I'm really mad.
There is one context on this forum where I go out of my way to remain silent, but that's to preserve my sanity rather than to keep myself from getting offended.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if one can win. If a woman has a baby in a certain situation, she is vilified as a single mother, if she has an abortion, the same. It's hard to make these sort of decisions enough as it is without vilification and judgement. People need support and compassion to help them get through things like this and to cope. Judging and lecturing only makes it worse. Just like being too black and white about people's personal pain and experiences.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
reconstituted, you need to meet new guys. Move to Seattle, I know a bunch who are way, way cooler than the ones you're used to. ^_^
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this thread has become a discussion on abortion. I suppose it was inevitible, especially when such a provocative and dismissive statement about that came at the very start
AltName,
quote:Perhaps the people doing the throwing do not realize that they are hurting some people that they may have considered to be friends. I know that I am hurt, and that my feelings of friendship towards some of you has been diminished by harsh attacks.
You ask for empathy here, but you don't seem to give much of it yourself. The simple fact of this issue is, there are many people who feel abortion is murder: the killing of an innocent child. There are even some people on your own side of the fence who believe that abortion is the killing of a human being, but a human being who is sub-human and thus whose life is less worthy of protection than the convenience of the mother. That is not a popular word to use with regards to this situation, but it is accurate nonetheless. It was not, in your situation, a necessity that you get an abortion. Therefore it was a luxury, or a convenience.
I don't understand why it is reasonable to say, "I know you think abortion is murder of children. But don't criticize me, because it would be mean and hurtful." That to me sounds like a fundamental denial and dismissal of the opposing position, because 'being mean' is not a sufficient reason for a person of conscience who believes that way to remain silent, quite frankly.
quote: Listen to my side of it before you begin posting your denouncements of me, though.
Your side of it presents mitigating circumstances, it's true. What it doesn't do, as you seem to imply-and even demand of others, somewhat-is make the abortion acceptable. At least not according to those who believe differently than you do.
Under your own personal belief system, abortion is not murder. I understand that, and I even respect it. But you seem to wish to be asked to be judged on the basis of your own beliefs, and none other. That's the impression I get, anyway. But people don't work that way. You don't work that way, because you are hurt and offended when people criticize you from their own set of beliefs. You would apparently rather they stay silent.
------------
Perhaps it is an impossible thing to have happen, perhaps it is unfair of me to desire it. But as someone who is pro-life, I am honestly irritated when I hear premises like the one behind this thread which seems to me to be, "I know you think that abortion is the murder of a child. But my feelings get hurt when you criticize abortion, and thus those who abort and make statements about them. So don't do it, don't be mean."
Empathy is a two-way street. If you expect empathy, you should realize that some of the people you ask it of believe that you have, in fact, murdered a child-your child-in servicie to your own lifestyle needs. That is not what I believe. I do not believe abortion is necessarily child-murder. But I can at least acknowledge the people who do, and respect the restrain they offer without getting really upset.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: And not to knock or insult AltName, Sterling, but if she were truly brave, she wouldn't be hiding behind an alias. She may be many things, but posting under an alternative screen name is hardly a brave thing to do, no?
Very few people here post under their true names. Some make no secret of the identities behind their screen names; Some make it easier to discover who they are than others.
By telling this story, Alt still exposed herself to the possibility of harsh criticism and moral condemnation by those who oppose the choice she made. That doesn't hurt any less because its target is behind a mask.
I don't think any less of Alt for not wanting her experience and the reaction to it attached to her "normal" identity for perpetuity. You may feel differently, but I'm holding to my opinion that this was courageous. I hope that I would feel that way, whichever side I was on.
And on that note, the responses of those who oppose abortion have largely been respectful. Thank you.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of it DOES turn mean, though. I can completely see how someone who'd had an abortion would see a lot of the, "Oh, well if a woman doesn't want to have a kid, she just shouldn't have sex" stuff as an attack.
So many times when the issue of "choice" is discussed, only two choices are presented:
single motherhood
and
have an abortion
But, I personally know a wonderful married couple who have a daughter now because of adoption.
It may not be any easier a choice than the other two, but it is a viable choice, one I almost never see discussed.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
One of the responsibilities of communication is that it is mutual. Viewing all such statements as an attack is akin to sticking your foot out into a crowded hallway, and then getting angry when it gets stepped on.
"If a couple was seriously committed to not getting pregnant, they could choose to abstain," is not an attack. It's simply a true statement.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, I can understand that - but on my end, there's a big difference between "an attack" and "oversensitive to disagreement." On the other end, obviously, there isn't. I can't control that, though.
posted
The thing is, it can easily be viewed as an attack so long as people continue to stigmatize unmarried pregnancy. It can make the pro-life movement (partly) look like a strong-arm tactic to make women stop having premarital sex or to make it more blatantly obvious who has engaged in such activities.
posted
Sorry, but I'm going to always think unmarried pregnancy is a problem. That's not going to change.
As for premarital sex - that's between two consenting adults, so I don't have a problem with it. I think it's not the best thing to do, but I don't think it's my job to enforce that on anyone else. Obviously I see abortion differently.
Again, you're not mentioning the adoption issue.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"If a couple was seriously committed to not getting pregnant, they could choose to abstain," is not an attack. It's simply a true statement.
Well, the statement includes an assumption about what one could reasonably call a "serious commitment." Some would say that the use of prophylactics that reduce the chance of conception to near zero is sufficient for a serious commitment to not getting pregnant.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Particularly considering we practically throw teenagers at cars, and the overall chance of death due to being in an automobile (not even talking about the chance for a teenage driver) is approximately equal to the complement of the effectiveness of birth control pills + condoms. Are people less committed to not killing their teenage children than a couple using bcp + condoms are to not getting pregnant?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why not, pH. The mother doesn't have to take care of the child, it makes another couple happy, the mother saves herself from possible physical or emotional trauma, it appeases the vast majority of pro-lifers, and the child can live a full, healthy life.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you cite that, fugu? The odds of dying in a car accident lifetime are 1 in 82. In one year, the odds for a given person (not teenager) is 1 in 6,345.
Obviously, given those statistics, you could still be right. But I'd really like to see the cites on that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I didn't say anything about adoption being an abortion substitute.
I wondered why it tends to be the "choice that is never named" in this debate.
It is a valid choice, but you'd never know it from the way it's almost never mentioned by either side.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To elaborate: I don't think it's particularly courageous to tell people anonymously that you've had an abortion. Lots of people have had abortions. But I don't think the original poster was trying to be courageous; I think she was trying to remind people that you can be a moral, decent, intelligent person and still choose to abort a child.
But I got something a little different from her story, because -- and people who've been here for a while know this one, too, because I'm not particularly into anonymity, even if it'd preserve my reputation -- I've been the creep. I wasn't as bad as the guy in her anecdote, but I took advantage of the innocence and naivete of someone I was dating and persuaded her -- perhaps even pressured her -- into sex. And we weren't ready for a child, and we both knew it, and we strongly suspected that we'd be terrible parents -- and, of course, weren't willing to face our own parents with our distress and shame. So we opted for an abortion.
It was horrific. I won't go into the details, but the experience turned me from a passionate pro-choicer into a regretful pro-lifer. And it all happened -- or, well, mostly happened -- because I was a sleazeball.
So maybe we made the right decision. Maybe not. But I don't think the fact that there's someone more obviously to blame in the first anecdote on this thread necessarily works to justify the decision; had he been a little less urgent and a little less scummy, he could easily have been me, and his situation would have been my situation.
There's a grey area, obviously. But one of the things I've come to believe as I grow older is that those arbitrary, unfair, often silly-sounding standards and traditions and "values" -- those "principles" by which we define ourselves and our communities -- exist precisely because the grey areas are dangerous. Sure, if you get lucky, you can successfully parse all the variables for any particular issue and navigate it without harm -- but it's far easier and far safer for most people to simply maintain a rigid firewall of "principle" well short of the actual danger zone.
And so it is with abstinence. Yeah, sex is great. And most days, I don't actually regret having had a lot of premarital sex, as much as it complicated my life. But had I been a little stronger in my adherence to principle, a little less willing to push the envelope, I would have never wound up killing a completely innocent human being.
And unlike the anonymous poster who started this thread, I wasn't some naive innocent betrayed by a callous cad. In that scenario, I was the cad.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: A lot of it DOES turn mean, though. I can completely see how someone who'd had an abortion would see a lot of the, "Oh, well if a woman doesn't want to have a kid, she just shouldn't have sex" stuff as an attack.
-pH
The fact is that no one says "Oh, well if a woman doesn't want to have a kid, she just shouldn't have sex" out of the blue. They say it in response to people who try to assert the unreliability of birth control as a reason why abortion is necessary. When one voluntarily has sex, one is taking the risk that a pregnancy will result, even when that risk is only 1 in 2000 over the course of a year.
Barring rape, no one is "forcing" a woman to have a child by banning abortion. They are removing one particular means of not giving birth, but it is still entirely within the woman's control as to what probability of pregnancy she is willing to face: 0% to 15% depending on sexual activity engaged in and birth control method used.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, your point makes no sense. The fact that so many people die in automobile accidents means that stricter driving laws need to be in place, and, though I see the point you are trying to make, it doesn't change the fact that, knowing contraception to not be 100% effective, they chose to have sex, and take the risk of becoming pregnant.
AltName, I'm sorry you had to go through that, but, as Rakeesh said, that doesn't change the fact that abortion is murder in my eyes.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If abortion were banned though, the problem would be a lot worse... I've never been in that situation before, but I am not sure if I could get an abortion even though I am pro-choice because I am anti-restrictions and limits. Impose too many restrictions and the problem gets a lot worse. Botched abortion attemps, folks going to back alleys, the rich being able to afford to go to places like Mexico and Canada to get it done. I'd have a hard time doing it myself, but it's too complicated to call it murder, and you really cannot win because not all children who go up for adoption end up in happy safe homes. The best a person can do in these situations is to take care of people regardless of what they choose. If they choose to have a child, they need support, not condemnation, though the best thing to do is to either avoid sex (hard to do, and if the opportunity presented itself, I'd give in!) or to use birth control and condoms to avoid conception, but that is not always practical. A person could miss their pill, a guy can complain about sheathing himself in what is essential a one finger rubber glove, folks get caught up in the heat of the moment and make mistakes I think middle ground is needed, slack, room for people to do something about their mistakes. And I am completely against the concept of screening a fetus and aborting it because it doesn't live up to a standard. It's such a complicated issue, which is why I try to avoid it all together because it stresses me out.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, you judged her in your first post on this thread, Bob. It was a positive judgment, but a judgment none the less.
Edit: Let me be clear, I'm not trying to condemn you for that. I'm attempting to point out that we all make constant judgments about right and wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Botched abortion attemps, folks going to back alleys, the rich being able to afford to go to places like Mexico and Canada to get it done.
Compared to 3700 abortions a day, every day.
quote:you really cannot win because not all children who go up for adoption end up in happy safe homes.
Not all children who are born end up in happy safe homes. Not all children aborted would have ended up in unhappy or unsafe homes.
quote:he best a person can do in these situations is to take care of people regardless of what they choose.
It entirely depends on what you mean by "take care of people." I cannot, by silence or words, provide moral cover for abortion. That does not mean I have to point my finger at every person I know had an abortion and tell them they did wrong. It does mean that I cannot, in the course of comforting someone, seem to support the idea that nothing wrong was done.
quote:And I am completely against the concept of screening a fetus and aborting it because it doesn't live up to a standard.
I am, too (obviously), but I still have a hard time seeing how financial, occupation, educational, or other hardships can justify an abortion if disability cannot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I would like to commend AltName on her courage to tell this story. While some of you may agree with me, I think it takes tremendous courage to stand up and tell a story like that, even if it is anonymous.
I also think that she made the right decision FOR HER in the situation. I agree that abortion isn't for everyone. I'm pro choice because I believe that every woman has the right to choose for herself. I don't think it should be dictated by a law. Plus, even if abortion was illegal, it wouldn't stop women from having them, and it would only make abortions less safe for the women involved. I don't know how I feel about abortion personally. I have no idea what I would do in a sitation like the one AltName was placed in. But I do feel that I cannot make the choice for anyone else. I can state my opinion and give them advice, but I would never attempt to force a person to either have or not have an abortion. I think that goes against the freedom that we hold so high in this society.
You may disagree with me. I accept that different people feel differently than I do. I don't think less of people here for having different opinions, and I hope that they feel comfortable to share them with me. I'm willing to learn more about the other side of the arguement.
I would also like to thank everyone for being so civil about such a controversial topic. I think it means a lot that we can talk about abortion so calmly and civily.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Impose too many restrictions and the problem gets a lot worse.
I'm wary of any argument based purely on the difficulty of legal enforcement. That's not a moral argument; it's merely a practical argument.
On the reasonable extreme, we can say "banning liquor is bad because it creates a black market in liquor." That moves us to "banning LSD is bad because it creates a black market in LSD." And from there, we get the absurd extreme of "banning murder is bad because criminals will still commit murders, and they'll commit more ghastly murders if they have to hide them."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Yes, she was asking to stop being judged while reminding people that she was not a bad person...asking, in effect, for a different judgement.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't work like that. It seems like limiting people's choices and putting their backs against the walls makes the problem worse, and not better. It doesn't apply to something like murder which is clearly wrong, and yet there is self defence to consider as well.
quote:I am, too (obviously), but I still have a hard time seeing how financial, occupation, educational, or other hardships can justify an abortion if disability cannot.
I can't really explain why either, except to say that I believe that abortions should be extremely rare, should not be used as a form of birth control either and are largely up to the individual person depending on the circumstances and the people involved. Every story is different.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It doesn't apply to something like murder which is clearly wrong...
I need to observe here that, from the pro-life perspective, that's exactly what you're applying it to.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your own statistics support what I asserted, Dag . Notice the table only covers single methods of birth control.
1 in 6345 is about .01%.
Since both birth control methods must fail for pregnancy to occur, the approximate pregnancy rate for using both BCP (combined) and condoms, from your table and assuming proper use, would be .003% (this is not completely accurate because one would have to multiply the failure rate to get the new failure rate, then use that value to calculate chance of pregnancy; it should be close, though). Even using improper use statistics the chance would be about .014%. Heck, layer in a rhythm method and it gets much much better.
Also, there's an extraordinarily important statistic missing from the chart you link: the amount of intercourse assumed in a year. By every factor of ten the amount of intercourse is decreased, that's a factor of ten decrease in the odds of getting pregnant.
Flaming Toad on a Stick: No. Regardless of if traffic laws are good or bad, currently, it is extraordinarily clear that most people (I suspect including yourself) consider the risk of driving under them reasonable. Given, as I suspect few would argue, an unexpected pregnancy is not worse than death, then it would seem pretty reasonable for most couples to accept the risk of pregnancy given appropriate precautions, provided they are willing to accept it as much as one accepts the risk of death while driving, or the risks of his or her teenage child dying while driving.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm wary of any argument based purely on the difficulty of legal enforcement. That's not a moral argument; it's merely a practical argument."
Its not "merely a practical argument," to point out that enforcing a particular law would be difficult, if the difficulties involve applying the Rule of Law, necessitating Big Brother type survelience, and enforcement beyond mere capriciousness. Those are moral issues, as well as practical issues.
Of course, every moral argument is ultimately a practical argument, so maybe practical vs moral is a needless distinction?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I can give you even better approximations since we know the frequency of pregnancy absent birth control is 85%. The pregnancy rate for any given method will be failure rate * chance of pregnancy given failure, and the worse chance of pregnancy given failure will be is 85%.
So if we have two birth control methods with failure rates f1 and f2, then they individually have pregnancy rates at most p1 = f1*.85 and p2 = f2*.85, and together they have a failure rate of f1*f2*.85, which happens to equal p1 * p2 / .85 .
So the chance of pregnancy given proper use of both condoms and bcp (combined), assuming whatever rate of intercourse the chart does, is at worst .003% / .85, or about .0035% .
Still quite comparable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: I don't see why not, pH. The mother doesn't have to take care of the child, it makes another couple happy, the mother saves herself from possible physical or emotional trauma, it appeases the vast majority of pro-lifers, and the child can live a full, healthy life.
Well, speaking from my personal perspective, carrying a child would cause extreme emotional trauma that would likely lead to physical trauma. Under ANY circumstances, not simply the "young, unwed mother" scenario.
quote:I didn't say anything about adoption being an abortion substitute.
I wondered why it tends to be the "choice that is never named" in this debate.
It is a valid choice, but you'd never know it from the way it's almost never mentioned by either side.
While it certainly is a valid choice, even an excellent choice, it takes incredible strength of character to make it. From my personal perspective, it seems like a very difficult thing to do. A woman that gives up her baby bears the shame of unwed pregnancy, the burden of carrying a child for nine months, and the trauma of giving that child up. Both keeping the baby and abortion seem to me like easier options. I think the reason why adoption isn't mentioned more often is because it takes very high levels of maturity and nobility. It doesn't seem like the option that the average person would choose.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with adoption is that it addresses only part of the problem of pregnancy. Its a good option for someone who doesn't want a child, but is willing to go through the life altering physical processes of bearing a child.
Since those life altering physical processes are, well, only worth it to most people if they want to have a child, its an option that, while a good option, isn't very helpful.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, I rather doubt that most women have an abortion and don't suffer emotionally for it. It's not like it's not traumatic.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swampjedi- If that was addressed to me, I never said that abortion wasn't traumatic. Or even that it was less traumatic than adoption. I just think that in the short term, it is an easier choice to make.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: By telling this story, Alt still exposed herself to the possibility of harsh criticism and moral condemnation by those who oppose the choice she made. That doesn't hurt any less because its target is behind a mask.
I don't think any less of Alt for not wanting her experience and the reaction to it attached to her "normal" identity for perpetuity. You may feel differently, but I'm holding to my opinion that this was courageous.
I'm changing my mind. Maybe it was brave.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to thank both sides of this for making what had the potential to be a total bloodbath one of the more positive discussions I've seen. Even the anonymous posters are taking some serious emotional risk here, because it's very easy to feed the "if they really knew me they'd hate me" monster... especially with a traumatic experience like an abortion. Tom's post, as has already been said, took considerable courage, too. But my main point is that people are letting some strong emotions into play here on both sides without it wrecking the atmosphere. I think that's both a good and deeply commendable thing.
Edit: about the one behoind the mask thing... it festers, believe me. it may hurt less immediately, but it really can reinforce the idea that you are worthless and people only like you because they don't *really* know you. That's from *my* personal experience, so appropriate caveats regarding anecdotal evidence, etc.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by reconstituted: I was raped by a friend in college...That is how I lost my virginity which was something invaluable to me...My boyfriend blamed me for it...It was like he was degrading me even more...After all, with my boyfriend, I wasn't really being raped...Since then, I had a few relationships, and I always tried to tell them what happened, but they either didn't care...or they would get offended...there are still times when I just burst into tears because I feel a disgusting person...I feel guilty...
Recon, I am seriously moved by your plight. You've been treated badly and are still not healed of the wounds that you received. I'll bet that if you found a sympathetic counselor, maybe a psychologist, you will be able to put your horrible experiences behind you and move on in a healthier relationship. You sound like you are living with depression, and maybe post traumatic stress disorder. Medication along with counseling may help to make you happier and better adjusted. I wish that you didn't have to feel guilty, and that you would be able to reach a point where sex is a good thing, something that you do for you, not for someone else's pleasure. But that sounds like a journey for you -- it's not where you are now.
Good luck. I really hope that you can get help and learn how to have a healthy and good relationship.
quote:Originally posted by pH: Well, speaking from my personal perspective, carrying a child would cause extreme emotional trauma that would likely lead to physical trauma. Under ANY circumstances, not simply the "young, unwed mother" scenario.
-pH
You seem to be trying to make a blanket statement about pregnancy. Not all pregnancies are traumatic, and (excluding cases of rape), the mother and father are responsible for it. I've known quite a few people that have had abortions. Not only did some suffer severe physical problems (one is now sterile) but every one of them suffered an emotional trauma.
I'm not saying that pregnancy is perfect, but they took that risk when they had sex. I'm all for women's rights, but if there is an option that doesnt include the killing of your baby, then why not take it?
Synesthesia, I don't see your point. The fact that people will break the law will invalidate it? By your argument, every law that has ever been broken is invalid.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Toad, I WAS speaking from a personal perspective. I said, speaking for me personally, that pregnancy would be damanging. To me. I, personally, am not sure that I could handle pregnancy under any circumstances whatsoever. And no, I don't think that that would change just because I got married.
posted
That's not exactly what I mean... Limiting the options will make the problem more severe and lead to desparate actions, where as people who are wealthy would still be able to get abortions if they were banned in this country... I'm not stating that laws are invalid or something....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Notice the table only covers single methods of birth control.
