"I'm doing this to de-mystify abortion,"

Nevyn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Ud3g2ymOM

I found this really intresting. Pregnancy is a high risk for her and she would be leaving behind a 'special needs' child and is of high risk of having another child who'd have special needs.

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-im-live-tweeting-my-abortion-on-twitter/

“I’m doing this to de-mystify abortion,” she says. “I’m doing this so other women know, ‘Hey, it’s not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.’ It’s just not that bad.”

These are the words of Angie Jackson, a blogger and mother of a 4-year-old son. Her IUD birth control failed; she is four weeks pregnant and writing about her abortion on YouTube, her personal blog, and on Twitter under the hashtag #livetweetingabortion.

Last Thursday, Jackson visited a Planned Parenthood where her doctor gave her the first dose of RU-486, the abortion pill. (Note: The abortion pill is not the same as the morning-after pill.) She had to take four more pills — swallowing two and letting two others dissolve in her mouth—on Friday and Saturday.

She hasn’t taken to her various media platforms to show the graphic parts of her abortion. Instead, Jackson is chronicling how her abortion feels physically and emotionally — as she puts it on YouTube, “It’s just not that bad.” It’s almost like guerilla sex ed.

And the quote form her own blog.

http://angietheantitheist.blogspot.com/2010/02/choices.html

Those of you who follow me on Twitter or who I've emailed or called already know, but for the rest of you: My birth control failed, and I am pregnant. I have been in physical pain for days, and I think a certain amount of the emotional distress (read: suicidal depression & panic attacks) I've been under has been caused by hormone fluxes and my body being taken over. I can't *afford* to have all nutritional resources diverted elsewhere, and I'm not ready to be the mom of two kids.

Hell, I'll never be ready for that. I decided about ten minutes after my son was born that he was the only one in the world for me. As it became clear he had special needs, this decision cemented. I honestly believe that being an only child will be the best thing for HIM, in no small part because I feel at least somewhat capable of being a good mom to him, but not of being a good mom (certainly not a great mom) to two special needs children.

There's a list of reasons from personal (I don't want two special needs kids, sorry), to financial (remember how I already lived in a car with one kid? Imagine doing that with no car and two kids. I know I already have!), and health (I don't wanna die.) But you know what? "I don't want to be pregnant" is a *good enough* reason to get an abortion! Really & truly. "I don't want to give you a kidney" is a good enough reason not to be forced into an organ donation that would save another person's life. This is not different, and shouldn't treated as such.

This isn't a secret and this isn't something I'm ashamed of. I'm getting an abortion. It's the right move for me and for my family. And honestly, I can't wait to get it over with and get back to being the writer, speaker, activist, silly, fun, girlfriend, mom I'd like to be, instead of the pissed off incubator I currently am. This is not a child; this is a squatter which could potentially become a child. Or kill me. Maybe even both. None of those are outcomes I'm frankly interested in.

This may sound... cold? At the moment, it's hard to care what anyone else thinks. I know this is the right thing to do in this circumstance, and I won't be regretting this later. I love my son & I'm glad I have him. When I was pregnant before, I *felt* like I was carrying a baby, the little boy I had always wanted. Right now I feel like I have a tapeworm or some kind of horrible infection. Maybe the hormones aren't working right yet or maybe I'm practical.

Whatever last minute doubts I may have had were squashed by spending yesterday in a crowded room (church auditorium, actually) with 600 special needs children, during my son's school field trip. Holy crap, am I glad I'm getting an abortion!

And, just in case it needs to be stated more clearly, you guys know I'm glib but that doesn't mean I don't till feel this stuff. Put on a happy face, right? I'm not giddy about it or anything, but I'm not going to get emotionally manipulated into feeling bad that in the case of Me vs. It, I choose me.

cynder

I dont agree with it.... i would die for my kids not kill them so i can live happily ever after.

i would put the unborn before me too. If you have a risk of dying because of pregnancy DONT GET PREGNANT.... get steralised.........

( I have a sister in law who has pulmonary hypertension - pregnancy will kill her as her heart would stop and also her breathing).

shivvyban

Thaedydal wrote: »

These are the words of Angie Jackson, a blogger and mother of a 4-year-old son. Her IUD birth control failed; she is four weeks pregnant and writing about her abortion on YouTube, her personal blog, and on Twitter under the hashtag #livetweetingabortion.

grindelwald wrote: »

i would put the unborn before me too. If you have a risk of dying because of pregnancy DONT GET PREGNANT.... get steralised.........

Read the top quote, grindelwald

As for your sterilisation comment - some/most woman see this as de-womanising (or whatever the proper term is).

Faith

grindelwald wrote: »

i would put the unborn before me too. If you have a risk of dying because of pregnancy DONT GET PREGNANT.... get steralised.........

LOL yeah, because that's as easy as writing the words. Do a search, find the threads from women here who are desperate for sterilisation procedures buy can't get them done for love nor money.

I thought that was a very brave and interesting video.

Mr. Presentable

“I’m doing this to de-mystify abortion,” she says. “I’m doing this so other women know, ‘Hey, it’s not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.’ It’s just not that bad.”

Yeah, whatever justification will let you sleep nights. There is no mystique surrounding abortion.

As the other poster said, she ought to discover birth control as suits her situation.

shivvyban

nipplenuts wrote: »

“I’m doing this to de-mystify abortion,” she says. “I’m doing this so other women know, ‘Hey, it’s not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.’ It’s just not that bad.”

Yeah, whatever justification will let you sleep nights. There is no mystique surrounding abortion.

As the other poster said, she ought to discover birth control as suits her situation.

She was using birth control!

Pyr0

I can't really comment from a womans point of view or give an accurate "what I would do in this situation" type response being a guy and all. I agree with what she's doing, I don't see any benifit to bringing a child into a world who has Special needs and who you don't actually want.

If you have a risk of dying because of pregnancy DONT GET PREGNANT

If you read the post you'll see that the woman in question went to pretty good lenghts to avoid getting pregnant.

Mr. Presentable

shivvyban wrote: »

She was using birth control!

But not suitable to her situation!

Look, if getting pregnant will kill you, then make sure you can't. Her chosen form was not appropriate to the risks of failure.

seamus

nipplenuts wrote: »

As the other poster said, she ought to discover birth control as suits her situation.

She's using an IUD, which is 99% effective as a birth control method. So you could say that she's taken the most appropriate precautions.

Tubal ligation is in fact slightly *less* effective statistically and is an invasive medical procedure.

Since she has some form of medical reason why a pregnancy isn't a good idea (didn't watch the video), you can be very sure that medical procedures such as tubal ligation or hysterectomy pose a serious risk of death.

So short of asking her to risk death or be abstinent because she's ill, she was taking the best precaution she could.

She was a victim of bad luck, not carelessness or negligence.

cynder

if i had an illness like that, they could take my womb and ovarys so i wouldnt get pregnant.

If it is such a life and death situation then that would metit a hysterectomy........ or getting steralised......

but thats ok if i forget to take the pill one night and i get pregnant than ill take a few pills and kill the baby, thats it me sorted...... if you have a illness that requires you not to get pregnant the responsibile thing to do is make sure you dont by being steralised or having a hysterectomy.......... the merina coil is a good option too but the others are more fail safe.

Pyr0

nipplenuts wrote: »

But not suitable to her situation!

Look, if getting pregnant will kill you, then make sure you can't. Her chosen form was not appropriate to the risks of failure.

What are the costs involved in getting sterilized because I get the feeling that's what you're implying ? I doubt you can just stroll into a doctor and get it done the same day for 60 euro..

grindelwald wrote: »

if i had an illness like that, they could take my womb and ovarys so i wouldnt get pregnant.

If it is such a life and death situation then that would metit a hysterectomy........ or getting steralised......

but thats ok if i forget to take the pill one night and i get pregnant than ill take a few pills and kill the baby, thats it me sorted...... if you have a illness that requires you not to get pregnant the responsibile thing to do is make sure you dont by being steralised or having a hysterectomy.......... the merina coil is a good option too but the others are more fail safe.

Have you even read the post properly ?

Mr. Presentable

seamus wrote: »

She's using an IUD, which is 99% effective as a birth control method. So you could say that she's taken the most appropriate precautions.

Tubal ligation is in fact slightly *less* effective statistically and is an invasive medical procedure.

Since she has some form of medical reason why a pregnancy isn't a good idea (didn't watch the video), you can be very sure that medical procedures such as tubal ligation or hysterectomy pose a serious risk of death.

So short of asking her to risk death or be abstinent because she's ill, she was taking the best precaution she could.

She was a victim of bad luck, not carelessness or negligence.

While it doesn't specify which IUD she used, they are rated at best at 1% failure per woman per year, and at worst 3.8% pw/py. The per woman per year part is very important, and usually overlooked or not understood.

Bonito

It's her body she can choose to have an abortion if she wants. As she said, due to health risks surrounding her being pregnant she opted for the abortion rather than risk child birth. She also has another child to care for.

You think she was selfish? I think she's extremely smart! Especially as she was only gone 4 weeks. She is obviously very responsible about birth control and pregnancy and the situation of being pregnant was far from ideal for her or for her son.

Why should she risk her life and her sons future of having a mother by going ahead with the 2nd pregnancy? Who are any of us to say she is a bad mother or a murderer or anything of the sort.

I believe the sacrifice of the 4 week old unborn was out weighed big time by the continuation of her life and her ability to look after her son to ensure he has the best possible life.

Wibbs

OK lets keep this to the realm of logical responses. Her contraception choice is not one of them. It failed. They do. So lets move on. This subject can bring out the worst in both sides of the debate. Not in this thread it wont.

Mr. Presentable

n8zPyro wrote: »

What are the costs involved in getting sterilized because I get the feeling that's what you're implying ? I doubt you can just stroll into a doctor and get it done the same day for 60 euro..

Actually, I don't know, but I bet if you have a condition as described you could get it done on the Welfare system for free. If they do gastric banding.............

shivvyban

grindelwald wrote: »

if i had an illness like that, they could take my womb and ovarys so i wouldnt get pregnant.

If it is such a life and death situation then that would metit a hysterectomy........ or getting steralised......

but thats ok if i forget to take the pill one night and i get pregnant than ill take a few pills and kill the baby, thats it me sorted...... if you have a illness that requires you not to get pregnant the responsibile thing to do is make sure you dont by being steralised or having a hysterectomy.......... the merina coil is a good option too but the others are more fail safe.

But that's just YOU! That is the way you think and feel. That is your opinion. In my eyes, she's not wrong. I don't know what I would do in her situation and I will you you that in all honesty.

With regards to pregancy, I believe that the responsible thing to do depends on the person.

And on that note, I withdraw from this debate as no-one EVER wins in an abortion debate.

I have my views, you have yours.

G'night and G'luck!

cynder

how can she be that happy while killing a baby?????

Hagar

shivvyban wrote: »

As for your sterilisation comment - some/most woman see this as de-womanising (or whatever the proper term is).

And strangely some/most women find male sterilisation quite acceptable.

Women's absolute rights over their bodies come with absolute responsibilities, she should have ensured beyond any doubt that conception was impossible for her by whatever means necessary.

She is killing a potentially perfect child so that she can care for an imperfect one. How can anybody make that choice?

rainbow kirby

grindelwald wrote: »

how can she be that happy while killing a baby?????

She's making a choice that's right for her and for the child she already has. For that, she should be commended.

Wibbs

nipplenuts wrote: »

Actually, I don't know,

As you say you dont know and I didnt know the lengths it takes for a woman to get electively sterilised in this country. Gastric bandings a doddle by comparison.

Bonito

Hagar wrote: »

And strangely some/most women find male sterilisation quite acceptable.

Women's absolute rights over their bodies come with absolute responsibilities, she should have ensured beyond any doubt that conception was impossible for her by whatever means necessary.

She is killing a potentially perfect child so that she can care for an imperfect one. How can anybody make that choice?

I see that side of the argument but she could die giving birth and she also has a high chance of the other child being born with one or more disabilities. Then where is the new borns and her sons life going to go?

Nevyn

She has an IUD a copper coil she didn't use an IUS the merina and it could be that all hormoanal contraception is not an option for her due to health reasons.

The cost of an elective surgery to have her tubes tied in the american health care system and the childcare needed while she recovered means that it is not an option for her. grindelwald are you aware of the side effects and complications which happen after a hysterectomy? They are only done when there is an extreme need.

As for not being able to use contraception medically and having special needs kids, I know of someone who is in that situation has two children on the autism spectrum and despite being over 35 and having a medical card can not get her tubes tied.

Wibbs

grindelwald cop on. Did you miss the part about logical responses in my warning? Next one on either side that gets all hyped up and posts before they think will be taking a break. Last warning.

cynder

and I'm not ready to be the mom of two kids.

Hell, I'll never be ready for that. I decided about ten minutes after my son was born that he was the only one in the world for me. QUOTE

I *felt* like I was carrying a baby, the little boy I had always wanted. Right now I feel like I have a tapeworm or some kind of horrible infection QUOTE

Whatever last minute doubts I may have had were squashed by spending yesterday in a crowded room (church auditorium, actually) with 600 special needs children, during my son's school field trip. Holy crap, am I glad I'm getting an abortion!QUOTE


I went to switzerland with the children to lapland appeal every child there was a blessing not a curse, just because you have 1 special needs doesnt mean you'll have a second.

Bonito

Summary;

She has a child which needs extra care due to disability.
She took precautions to avoid pregnancy.
Hysterectomy obviously not an option or she would have done it long ago considering her attitude in her video and her blog.
She acted quickly rather than prolonging her feelings.
She states in her blog that after her son was born she swore to take any measures possible that she could to prevent either her life being risked or risking her son not having a mother.

To me that sounds like a dam well responsible loving mother!

minidazzler

Fair play to her. She made the right call for her own circumstances, if anyone anywhere doesn't agree with her, well...tough.

She does look a little anguished in the video, but it's better than death and leaving her existing child without a mother.

cynder

does having a diabetic child whos nearly died twice from it count as a special needs child. or one that is being assessed for an ASD and also might be adhd count as special needs.

or having a husband with cancer, hell we all have our problems im just saying if it was me i would make certain i would not get pregnant,

my mother in law(60), aunt(50) and cousin(32) have had hysterectomys. that is why i would chose it as my option.

Tiddlers

And strangely some/most women find male sterilisation quite acceptable.


I'm no expert but from what I understand female and male sterilisation are incomparable:one's a major procedure,the other's not. From what I know,hysterectomies are not recommended at all for young women.The woman and the hormones it releases are very important for the heart and general physical and mental health of a woman so it makes perfect sense she has not had hers removed and does not want a baby to jeopardise this.

Why shouldn't she have an abortion?It's blatantly obvious that it is the best decision for the position she is.If she had the baby, you can be sure that there would still be people criticising the fact she has two kids she can barely afford, financially & emotionally, to take care of.

She makes it clear at the end she is not happy about it despite how she may sound.I think she is a very brave women and I congratulate her.

Hagar

Jemmy wrote: »

I think you missed...

Pregnancy is a high risk for her and she would be leaving behind a 'special needs' child and is of high risk of having another child who'd have special needs.

What makes you think I missed anything? I clearly said she knew the risk she was taking so she should have made 100% sure not to get pregnant.
If the risk of the second child being special needs is so obvious how come she didn't have the first child aborted? Surely the scans would have shown up something?

Bonito

grindelwald wrote: »

does having a diabetic child whos nearly died twice from it count as a special needs child. or one that is being assessed for an ASD and also might be adhd count as special needs.

or having a husband with cancer, hell we all have our problems im just saying if it was me i would make certain i would not get pregnant,

my mother in law(60), aunt(50) and cousin(32) have had hysterectomys. that is why i would chose it as my option.

Unfortunately, it's not you or your family or your situation that this thread is about.

Jemmy

Hagar wrote: »

What makes you think I missed anything? I clearly said she knew the risk she was taking so she should have made 100% sure not to get pregnant.
If the risk of the second child being special needs is so obvious how come she didn't have the first child aborted? Surely the scans would have shown up something?

Try reading it again, people have already pointed it out so I'm leaving it at that, but she was doing what she could to prevent being pregnant 99% sure best you can get really.

Novella

Fair enough! Can't really think of anything else to say. She took the precaution not to get pregnant. She did. Personally, that's enough for me. In my mind, it makes no difference whether it would be a completely perfect pregnancy. She was using contraception and so shouldn't have to go through any pregnancy.

I have respect for her for posting that because god knows she's gonna slated to no end.

SeekUp

Whether anyone thinks of abortion as right or wrong, or a right or murder or whatever, I think it's interesting that she's like, HEY, I'm doing it.

I find that there is a . . . well, I'm not sure if abortion is mystified, per se . . . but I certainly know that there are expectations of what happens when you walk up to the clinic, what the nurses will say, what happens when you go into the room, what you'll see and how you'll feel when you leave. And that experience is thought of as what happens in all cases.

And while I'm a firm believer in privacy and the right to it, it's often beneficial to humanize situations that can seem so black and white to those uninvolved. A real person in a real situation who is trying to do what they think is best for them, and seeing/reading about/hearing their experience through the process. If it were me, I'm not sure that I would share it with the world, and I DO think there's such a thing as TMI, but I think it could be beneficial to others, knowing that not all experiences with this situation fit into a preconceived box.

Nevyn

Hagar wrote: »

Surely the scans would have shown up something?

For a lot of cases and a whole range of genetic disorders the scan don't show anything.

SeekUp there are sites where women have gone into those details.
There is http://www.imnotsorry.net/ where women share stories and there is
What to expect when you are aborting. which is one young women detailing her abortion which was surgical rather then medical like the lady above.

Hagar

99% is obviously not the best as she did pregnant. In the same situation I would go for the 100% option.

Another poster claims that male sterilisation is a quick and painless process by comaprison to female sterilisation. If so, why did her husband not take this option? The truly loving parents that this couple claim to be would surely have made that small sacrifice? Surely it would have been better than conception followed by abortion?

Boston

Hagar wrote: »

What makes you think I missed anything? I clearly said she knew the risk she was taking so she should have made 100% sure not to get pregnant.
If the risk of the second child being special needs is so obvious how come she didn't have the first child aborted? Surely the scans would have shown up something?

Huge jump to assume the risks where known before the first child was born. It's an assumption based on nothing.

grindelwald wrote: »

does having a diabetic child whos nearly died twice from it count as a special needs child. or one that is being assessed for an ASD and also might be adhd count as special needs.

or having a husband with cancer, hell we all have our problems im just saying if it was me i would make certain i would not get pregnant,

my mother in law(60), aunt(50) and cousin(32) have had hysterectomys. that is why i would chose it as my option.

Heres a gold star. You're fantastic and great. However not everyone is you, not everyone is able to cope with the things you cope with.

Faith

Hagar wrote: »

Women's absolute rights over their bodies come with absolute responsibilities, she should have ensured beyond any doubt that conception was impossible for her by whatever means necessary.

With the exception of abstinence, you cannot make conception impossible. Having your tubes tied has failure rates. Male sterilisation has failure rates. Hell, my mum has a friend who had a hysterectomy and still got pregnant! The woman in the video took the necessary precautions, and they still didn't work. That is not her fault, and she should not be castigated for having an abortion in that case. She clearly had to chose between death of her barely formed fetus, and death of herself - leaving her special needs son without a mother to boot.

Jemmy

Hagar wrote: »

99% is obviously not the best as she did pregnant. In the same situation I would go for the 100% option.

Another poster claims that male sterilisation is a quick and painless process by comaprison to female sterilisation. If so, why did her husband not take this option? The truly loving parents that this couple claim to be would surely have made that small sacrifice? Surely it would have been better than conception followed by abortion?

Yes yes your right, my god how dare she have sex with her husband when she is taking such a high 1% chance of getting pregnant. Evil woman, I think she did it on purpose! :rolleyes:

Ever consider there are reasons her husband couldnt get the snip?! She has long term health problems, they have a special needs son, maybe it is not possible to pay for these operations also.


ACTUALLY even those ops arent certain, an ex of mine well his mother had her tubes tied as she developed a long term illness herself and still fell pregnant. It's not 100% either.

Faith

Hagar wrote: »

99% is obviously not the best as she did pregnant. In the same situation I would go for the 100% option.

What is that, pray tell?

Hagar wrote: »

Another poster claims that male sterilisation is a quick and painless process by comaprison to female sterilisation. If so, why did her husband not take this option? The truly loving parents that this couple claim to be would surely have made that small sacrifice? Surely it would have been better than conception followed by abortion?

Because only married women can get pregnant, yeah?

Nevyn

Hagar wrote: »

99% is obviously not the best as she did pregnant. In the same situation I would go for the 100% option.

Another poster claims that male sterilisation is a quick and painless process by comaprison to female sterilisation. If so, why did her husband not take this option? The truly loving parents that this couple claim to be would surely have made that small sacrifice? Surely it would have been better than conception followed by abortion?

Who said she is married?

Life isn't perfect we do the best we can and unfortunately people can despite taking precautions in these sort of situations and have to make the best decision they can.

Hagar

Faith wrote: »

What is that, pray tell?



Because only married women can get pregnant, yeah?

My mistake, I know the birds and the bees bit, honest, I misread something and thought the woman didn't want to die and leave her husband to cope alone with two special needs children. I must have followed a link or something, I can't find it now. Mea culpa.

Anyway I'm reasonably sure that there is a medical procedure to render a woman 100% sterile, you read about cases where women are accidentally sterilised in hospital and sue so it must be possible.

Wibbs

A hysterectomy would be a pretty sure way, though even then possible as Faith has pointed out. I can see how it could go ectopic for a start.

Unless you're a 2000 yr old Jewish lady in the habit of entertaining archangels the only 100% sure way of not getting pregnant is abstinence. However remote, vasectomies fail, tubal ligations fail etc. Outside of those the IUD is as close as you can get. I suppose a man and woman with tubes tied and him wearing a condom might be 100% but sooner or later that would fail too. At which point call the kid Houdini Sperm Jones.

ztoical

Tiddlers wrote: »

I'm no expert but from what I understand female and male sterilisation are incomparable:one's a major procedure,the other's not.

+ 1 anyone whose ever had to get a pet done would notice a massive difference between male and female. I've two cats, male one went in and came back fully awake, running around and not happy with me at all but got over it in a couple of hours, female one came back barely awake and I was told I had to sit up with her and call the vet if she didn't come around after x amount of time. she had to go back for checkups while himself didn't. Also cost a hell of alot less to get the male done.

Male genitals are located outside the body and thus easier to get at and easier to operate on. Some places you can go in for a vasectomy as a day patient. The cost difference is also massive between a vasectomy and tubal ligation. A Hysterectomy is even more costly and has much higher health risks.

grindelwald wrote: »

how can she be that happy while killing a baby?????

[a] not everyone views a fetus as a baby or views abortion as murder and I don't think "happy" would describe what this woman is feeling about her actions.

Frankly given the number of woman who get several abortions in their life cus they see it as their primary means of birth control, this womans attitude and actions are hardly something to be appalled at. She is being quite level headed and an abortion is a medical option for someone in her position that carries less risk then a hysterectomy.

I'd prefer that then someone having 10 kids and then expecting the state/tax payer to carry the burden of paying for them.

Ickle Magoo

Hagar wrote: »

Anyway I'm reasonably sure that there is a medical procedure to render a woman 100% sterile, you read about cases where women are accidentally sterilised in hospital and sue so it must be possible.

You can have a full hysterectomy, which includes both ovaries...that kick starts menopause, hair thinning, osteoporosis, sweats, insomnia, affects hormone production and libido, etc, etc, so it's also something doctors are loath to do to young women.

I was told not to get pregnant again and recommended the marina until I go through menopause rather than invasive surgery which has other health implications. They wouldn't even consider tubal ligation until I was older.

CathyMoran

I did gave sympathy with her until she dismissed it like having a miscarriage, have had several and every one cut like a knife, she seems to be dismissing it as no big deal...I would argue that it is something huge. I do sympathise with ger reasons for having an abortion but she does not fullt explain how it would kill her having her baby (or maybe that is not the case and I picked it up wrong).

cynder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You can have a full hysterectomy, which includes both ovaries...that kick starts menopause, hair thinning, osteoporosis, sweats, insomnia, affects hormone production and libido, etc, etc, so it's also something doctors are loath to do to young women.

My cousin had that done at 32, she had pre cancer cells also has
fibromyalgia and heart condition (she had a major heart operation at 16 and went into medical history as she was only the second person to have had it done at that age, all others died or were diagnosed and treated at birth, she also had it done without a blood transfusion and was put into hypothermia).

she had the hysterectomy done without a blood transfusion too.

Ickle Magoo

grindelwald wrote: »

My cousin had that done at 32, she had pre cancer cells also has fibromyalgia and heart condition (she had a major heart operation at 16 and went into medical history as she was only the second person to have had it done at that age, all others died or were diagnosed and treated at birth, she also had it done without a blood transfusion and was put into hypothermia).

she had the hysterectomy done without a blood transfusion too.

Owweee. Your poor cus.

Xiney

grindelwald, one last time:

This is not about you or your family. Your cousin having to have a radical hysterectomy for HER medical condition has NOTHING to do with this woman's medical condition.


Please refrain from posting about how hysterectomy is no big deal because you know people who've gone through it. Have you? I doubt your family members would agree that it hasn't changed their lives.

Orla K

First I'm not going to get into any argument, as I said in the other thread I find it completly pointless

Right now I feel like I have a tapeworm or some kind of horrible infection.

I mentioned my friend who never regretted having hers in the other thread and this is exactly how my friend describes how she feels.

grindelwald wrote: »

I dont agree with it.... i would die for my kids not kill them so i can live happily ever after.

I find this insane, my mother died when I was 11 leaving 3 children. First off it wasn't from any pregnancy issue(they got it right after me and my father decided to get snipped) but I still know the loss of a parent and if it was an issue where she would have had to abort me to save herself I would have wanted it that way for my brothers sake. There's no sense in dieing for children because they are basicly abandoned after that, even with the other parent around and plently of extended family.


As for the de-mystify part, I think mainly when someone has one it's talked about behind closed doors with a select group. How many people openly have them?

Alright that's all I'm going to say. I can already see this thread decending into madness or circles and I don't want to get caught in it.

G86

I've nothing but respect for her, she's using her own situation to try and help other women who may be terrified at the thought. Her circumstances are irrelevant, every woman has a choice and should never have to justify that choice to anyone.

Fair play to her.

WesternNight

Hagar wrote: »

She is killing a potentially perfect child so that she can care for an imperfect one. How can anybody make that choice?

I can't believe I just read that.


Also, male sterilisation is a far less complex procedure with lesser side effects and a lesser mortality rate than either tubal ligation or a full hysterectomy. It's also less costly. These are all pretty big considerations for couples when deciding how to go about this.

This isn't a debate that's ever going to have a happy ending. But I really do think that the life of the mother should be taken into just as much consideration as the life of a child. It always seems to me that "the right to life" is deemed more applicable to an unborn baby than to a born adult as far as some are concerned. I've never been able to understand that.