Jill, Derick and Israel- Part 17

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, JesSky03 said:

Do we know much about Cathy's adopted parents? Perhaps they are the white savior type who saved this baby from abortion and reminded her of it constantly. If you grew up thinking the only reason you are alive today is because abortion was illegal, and your adopted parents supported that idea and constantly preached about it, then I can understand Cathy being anti-abortion. And even if her parent's didn't preach about it constantly, the idea that you are only alive because your mother wasn't legally allowed to end your life but would have if she could- well I too would struggle to support abortion. Might be unpopular opinion but if I try to put myself in her shoes then I can sort of understand where she is coming from and can't imagine the mental turmoil that must have had on her and others like her. 

She doesn't even need to have had parents who told her she was lucky her bio-mom had not aborted her.  She may have come to that conclusion herself.  I have known adoptees who opposed abortion for that reason, and in one case the parents were pro-choice.

While I am very strongly pro-choice, I have always understood that many people who are anti-abortion/"pro-life" are honestly concerned about a moral issue.  Just because I believe that a woman's right to her own body should supersede any "right to life" of an uninvited fetus doesn't mean that I don't see the complexity of the problem.  

If you believe that a fetus is the equivalent, (in terms of standing before God or by some other criteria) of a born human being, then the abortion issue becomes a question of whether a woman's rights to control her own body is greater than the fetus's need to be in her body.  You might judge that the nine-month physical sacrifice and the long-term emotional and in many cases economic burden of carrying the child to term are not as important as the fetus's life.  It is "a life." And no amount of repetition of the idea that fetuses are "less" than the born human is going to change your mind.

Women should have the right to choose precisely because it is such a complex issue.  We are not talking about elective surgery to correct some perceived "flaw" in face or body.  We are talking about a life.  If we can grieve (and most of us do grieve) about an early-term miscarriage, how can we dismiss even an early-term abortion as not being the loss of a human life?

Don't get me wrong.  I support the woman who wants to have that abortion, and I don't support women like Cathy or other people who would deny women choice in this matter. But I understand why they feel strongly about it.

To be sure,  in the end, I think that the "right to life" rhetoric makes the mistake of minimizing the woman's importance and right to autonomy.  I believe that, knowingly or unknowingly, pro-lifers see women as primarily defined by their biological function and see women as vessels rather than as individuals equal to men.  The sentimentality about poor little babies and God's gifts, etc. is a weapon in the battle to keep women as secondary to men.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, karen77 said:

And her statement is incorrect, her birth mother may have chose to still have her anyway, regardless of whether abortion was legal or not.

And, in fact, her mother could have chosen to abort her even if abortion was illegal.   Depending on her income bracket and/or contacts it might have been perfectly safe.  Not all abortions were the "back alley" dangerous kind.

 To get a safe abortion,  a woman could travel to countries where abortion was legal if she had the money.  A woman could get a friendly doctor to treat her for "menstrual problems" in a way that resulted in an early-term abortion if she was pregnant.  And there was a thriving "abortion tourism" business in places like Mexico and Puerto Rico, where abortion was illegal but trained physicians could perform safe abortions under the radar.

Then there were the dangerous illegal abortions.  If a woman really didn't want a child, she could (and often did) risk her life.

 

 

[ClaraOswin]

Wait...what's the Derick/lightning story?!

[season of life]

Jill recently wrote on her blog that Derick had been chatting with a friend when lightning struck nearby. She said they later realized had Derick not been talking to the friend, the lightning may have hit him.

[JermajestyDuggar]

38 minutes ago, season of life said:

Jill recently wrote on her blog that Derick had been chatting with a friend when lightning struck nearby. She said they later realized had Derick not been talking to the friend, the lightning may have hit him.

Does she not know that lightning constantly strikes the earth and we've all just missed a strike or two at some point? I think I may need to go read that story for a good laugh...

[anotherone]

8 hours ago, Alicja said:

agreed. like I said before, complications from medical procedures happen every day, which is sad but humans make errors sometimes.

why can't they leave her family alone? they lost a daughter, let them grieve for God's sake.  

What irked me about that article is that it implies from the title - Woman dies days after having an abortion - but nowhere do they say they believe that the abortion had anything to do with her death.  They say they don't know if it was due to natural causes, medical causes, or foul play.  The article could have just said, - Woman dies four days after picking her nose - and it would have basically been the same story.

[JermajestyDuggar]

4 minutes ago, anotherone said:

What irked me about that article is that it implies from the title - Woman dies days after having an abortion - but nowhere do they say they believe that the abortion had anything to do with her death.  They say they don't know if it was due to natural causes, medical causes, or foul play.  The article could have just said, - Woman dies four days after picking her nose - and it would have basically been the same story.

Isn't it obvious? God struck her dead. That's the only logical explanation.

[VelociRapture]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

She doesn't even need to have had parents who told her she was lucky her bio-mom had not aborted her.  She may have come to that conclusion herself.  I have known adoptees who opposed abortion for that reason, and in one case the parents were pro-choice.

While I am very strongly pro-choice, I have always understood that many people who are anti-abortion/"pro-life" are honestly concerned about a moral issue.  Just because I believe that a woman's right to her own body should supersede any "right to life" of an uninvited fetus doesn't mean that I don't see the complexity of the problem.  

If you believe that a fetus is the equivalent, (in terms of standing before God or by some other criteria) of a born human being, then the abortion issue becomes a question of whether a woman's rights to control her own body is greater than the fetus's need to be in her body.  You might judge that the nine-month physical sacrifice and the long-term emotional and in many cases economic burden of carrying the child to term are not as important as the fetus's life.  It is "a life." And no amount of repetition of the idea that fetuses are "less" than the born human is going to change your mind.

Women should have the right to choose precisely because it is such a complex issue.  We are not talking about elective surgery to correct some perceived "flaw" in face or body.  We are talking about a life.  If we can grieve (and most of us do grieve) about an early-term miscarriage, how can we dismiss even an early-term abortion as not being the loss of a human life?

Don't get me wrong.  I support the woman who wants to have that abortion, and I don't support women like Cathy or other people who would deny women choice in this matter. But I understand why they feel strongly about it.

To be sure,  in the end, I think that the "right to life" rhetoric makes the mistake of minimizing the woman's importance and right to autonomy.  I believe that, knowingly or unknowingly, pro-lifers see women as primarily defined by their biological function and see women as vessels rather than as individuals equal to men.  The sentimentality about poor little babies and God's gifts, etc. is a weapon in the battle to keep women as secondary to men.

Speaking only for myself:

I deeply mourned the early loss of our first pregnancy this winter. Logically, I knew it was a small bundle of cells that had no viability outside the womb. Emotionally, I felt the loss of the potential life and all it had promised. 

Note I said potential life. Because even in my deepest moments of grief I still realized my loss was not comparable to a stillbirth or the loss of a child born alive. My child was not living in any way that would support them outside my womb - as sad as I was (and still am) I am not going to delude myself into believing an actual life was lost. The promise of a life filled with love and joy and learning was lost, but not a realized life. That may seem odd or cold to some, but it gives me some comfort. I didn't have to experience the horror of choosing a tiny coffin or watching my child take their final breaths the way some parents do - I hope I never experience that, but for now I am grateful that wasn't my experience.

 And I don't fault or blame any woman for choosing to end a pregnancy for any reason either. Just because I lost a very wanted potential child and mourned it doesn't mean others will feel the same way. No one has any place to judge others for their decisions - not even Cathy or those like her whose mothers would have aborted if they had been able to. 

(I read somewhere that Cathy actually tracked her birth mother down at one point and was told she would have aborted if she had been able to. While I sympathize with her if that is indeed true, it still gives her no right to tell others what to do with their bodies or lives.)

And yes, I do see the complexities of the issue and why people hold the opposing view. It doesn't make their view morally, ethically, or scientifically right though. 

(And just in case this comes across as bitchy or angry - not my intent at all. )

[anotherone]

3 hours ago, CoveredInBees said:

I daresay there are people out there who will think that the women's lives aren't as important as it was their choice to undergo the procedure whereas the unborn child is blameless. Some sort of pro-life karma or something.

Of course, life isn't as simple as that which is why it's important to have rights over your own body.

Of course it is that simple.  You do what the rules say, and nothing bad will happen to you. Jesus will make everything alllll better.   And if something bad does happen, there are plenty of people that will twist and mangle the truth around so that it seems like it was the right thing all along.  Or, it will turn out that somehow you really didn't follow the rules correctly, so it was all your fault.  I do believe they all believe that it is that simple.  I think there is something comforting to know that it is out of your control and you never have to feel responsible for making any choices.

8 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Isn't it obvious? God struck her dead. That's the only logical explanation.

Yeah but why did he wait four days?  For the suspense?

[Bad Wolf]

To bring any wandering fundies back in line. See, don't think you  can get away with anything. God will get you in the end...Josh.

[EmCatlyn]

1 minute ago, VelociRapture said:

Speaking only for myself:

I deeply mourned the early loss of our first pregnancy this winter. Logically, I knew it was a small bundle of cells that had no viability outside the womb. Emotionally, I felt the loss of the potential life and all it had promised. 

Note I said potential life. Because even in my deepest moments of grief I still realized my loss was not comparable to a stillbirth or the loss of a child born alive. My child was not living in any way that would support them outside my womb - as sad as I was (and still am) I am not going to delude myself into believing an actual life was lost. The promise of a life filled with love and joy and learning was lost, but not a realized life. That may seem odd or cold to some, but it gives me some comfort. I didn't have to experience the horror of choosing a tiny coffin or watching my child take their final breaths the way some parents do - I hope I never did, but for now I am grateful that wasn't my experience.

 And I don't fault or blame any woman for choosing to end a pregnancy for any reason either. Just because I lost a very wanted potential child and mourned it doesn't mean others will feel the same way. No one has any place to judge others for their decisions - not even Cathy or those like her whose mothers would have aborted if they had been able to. 

(I read somewhere that Cathy actually tracked her birth mother down at one point and was told she would have aborted if she had been able to. While I sympathize with her if that is indeed true, it still gives her no right to tell others what to do with their bodies or lives.)

And yes, I do see the complexities of the issue and why people hold the opposing view. It doesn't make their view morally, ethically, or scientifically right though. 

(And just in case this comes across as bitchy or angry - not my intent at all. )

I agree that one can mourn a miscarriage without thinking that the embryo/fetus was a fully-developed human life. (I did--twice.) But my point is that the feelings of grief/loss for the unborn link to the perception that this is "a life."  That then takes us to the question of "is it morally right to end this life?"  

The abortion debate is problematic because it arises from conflicting views of when human life begins. If you believe that "life begins at conception," you are going to feel that it is morally and ethically wrong to abort a baby.  If you believe that "life begins at birth," you are not going to see abortion as tantamount to murder.

Now I I have many vegetarian and some vegan friends.  I do not share their belief that it is wrong to kill animals and eat them.  But I can see how to them the moral and ethical thing is not to eat animals.  

In the same way, I can see why "pro-life" people see abortion as murder.

That doesn't mean that I will grant them the power to change the law or do things to limit abortion rights.  If my vegetarian/vegan friends were trying to make the slaughter of animals and/or the sale of meat for food illegal, I would oppose them also.

The bottom line is that believing something strongly doesn't give you the right to regulate other people's behavior.   The "pro-life" movement is at fault not because they are wrong about when life begins.  They are at fault because they are trying to make other people live according to "pro-life" beliefs.

So, to return to Cathy, I understand and respect where she is coming from.  I don't care if she condemns abortion and calls it murder.   She has a right to her opinions like the rest of us.

But when people like her try to reverse the clock and make abortion illegal, or when they interfere with women's right to choose by doing everything possible to close down abortion clinics, then they are violating the rights of those who don't share their views.

 

 

[VelociRapture]

11 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree that one can mourn a miscarriage without thinking that the embryo/fetus was a fully-developed human life. (I did--twice.) But my point is that the feelings of grief/loss for the unborn link to the perception that this is "a life."  That then takes us to the question of "is it morally right to end this life?"  

The abortion debate is problematic because it arises from conflicting views of when human life begins. If you believe that "life begins at conception," you are going to feel that it is morally and ethically wrong to abort a baby.  If you believe that "life begins at birth," you are not going to see abortion as tantamount to murder.

Now I I have many vegetarian and some vegan friends.  I do not share their belief that it is wrong to kill animals and eat them.  But I can see how to them the moral and ethical thing is not to eat animals.  

In the same way, I can see why "pro-life" people see abortion as murder.

That doesn't mean that I will grant them the power to change the law or do things to limit abortion rights.  If my vegetarian/vegan friends were trying to make the slaughter of animals and/or the sale of meat for food illegal, I would oppose them also.

The bottom line is that believing something strongly doesn't give you the right to regulate other people's behavior.   The "pro-life" movement is at fault not because they are wrong about when life begins.  They are at fault because they are trying to make other people live according to "pro-life" beliefs.

So, to return to Cathy, I understand and respect where she is coming from.  I don't care if she condemns abortion and calls it murder.   She has a right to her opinions like the rest of us.

But when people like her try to reverse the clock and make abortion illegal, or when they interfere with women's right to choose by doing everything possible to close down abortion clinics, then they are violating the rights of those who don't share their views.

 

 

I agree with you on the rest, but I slightly disagree on the first portion. My grief was in no way linked to the fact that I thought or felt my potential child was alive in any sense - our loss occurred at around 4.5 weeks, meaning that the heartbeat likely never even began because something went so wrong with development. Therefore, there was no life in our specific case to speak of.

My grief was linked to the promise that pregnancy had initially given us that nine months later we would be welcoming a living and breathing child into the world. I grieved what was hoped for, not what actually was.

Again, just speaking for myself here. Others who have suffered losses or had abortions performed are always free to feel differently.

(And I want to say I'm sorry for your losses.)

[ksgranola1]

Very well said by all.

Abortion is a complex issue & that is one reason I don't feel its legality should be decided by a room full of men who could not even begin to understand that complexity.

[bashfulpixie]

2 hours ago, ksgranola1 said:

Very well said by all.

Abortion is a complex issue & that is one reason I don't feel its legality should be decided by a room full of men who could not even begin to understand that complexity.

I could not agree more.  The fact that the issue is constantly decided by a bunch of men who would never be in the position of having to make that difficult decision is so frustrating

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I agree with you on the rest, but I slightly disagree on the first portion. My grief was in no way linked to the fact that I thought or felt my potential child was alive in any sense - our loss occurred at around 4.5 weeks, meaning that the heartbeat likely never even began because something went so wrong with development. Therefore, there was no life in our specific case to speak of.

My grief was linked to the promise that pregnancy had initially given us that nine months later we would be welcoming a living and breathing child into the world. I grieved what was hoped for, not what actually was.

Again, just speaking for myself here. Others who have suffered losses or had abortions performed are always free to feel differently.

(And I want to say I'm sorry for your losses.)

 

We all experience things diifferently, and you are right, none of us should assume we know how someone else would/should feel.   Unfortunately that is precisely what people like Cathy don't understand/can't learn.  There is one right way to do things and the laws and everything else should reflect this perceived "right way."

As in your case, I didn't experience the loss of an early term pregnancy as the loss of a little person but the loss of a promise.  The first time, in fact, I only knew I had been pregnant when I went to the obgyn with what could have been an unusually heavy latish period.  The second time I knew I was pregnant for three weeks.  There was hardly any time to think of the embryo as a person.  But the possibility was there, and I grieved for the imagined possible person that wasn't to be.  (That was more than 30 years ago, and less than a year after the second miscarriage, I had a pregnancy come to term.  My daughter is 30 now, and the child that followed is almost 27.  I am very lucky, and I trust you will be too.)  

Even thinking of a pregnancy as a promise more than a person doesn't change that a miscarriage is often an intensely emotional experience that feels like the death of a loved person.  I am told that some women who have abortions feel this way also.

That is the sense of this poem, "The Mother" by Gwendolyn Brooks. A fundie anti-choicer would see it as proof that abortion should be made illegal, but I always read it (and occasionally teach it to Women's Studies classes) as representing the complexity of the choice, the ambivalence that a woman (especially one who has had other children) might feel when choosing abortion.  Even a few cells that didn't become a baby is a person that didn't become.

The sad thing about the abortion debate is that because it hinges upon different ideas about what "life" and "person" mean in the context of pregnancy, it sometimes makes use of the sentimentality of some people in order to deprive other people of the right over their own bodies.  

[VelociRapture]

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

 

We all experience things diifferently, and you are right, none of us should assume we know how someone else would/should feel.   Unfortunately that is precisely what people like Cathy don't understand/can't learn.  There is one right way to do things and the laws and everything else should reflect this perceived "right way."

As in your case, I didn't experience the loss of an early term pregnancy as the loss of a little person but the loss of a promise.  The first time, in fact, I only knew I had been pregnant when I went to the obgyn with what could have been an unusually heavy latish period.  The second time I knew I was pregnant for three weeks.  There was hardly any time to think of the embryo as a person.  But the possibility was there, and I grieved for the imagined possible person that wasn't to be.  (That was more than 30 years ago, and less than a year after the second miscarriage, I had a pregnancy come to term.  My daughter is 30 now, and the child that followed is almost 27.  I am very lucky, and I trust you will be too.)  

Even thinking of a pregnancy as a promise more than a person doesn't change that a miscarriage is often an intensely emotional experience that feels like the death of a loved person.  I am told that some women who have abortions feel this way also.

That is the sense of this poem, "The Mother" by Gwendolyn Brooks. A fundie anti-choicer would see it as proof that abortion should be made illegal, but I always read it (and occasionally teach it to Women's Studies classes) as representing the complexity of the choice, the ambivalence that a woman (especially one who has had other children) might feel when choosing abortion.  Even a few cells that didn't become a baby is a person that didn't become.

The sad thing about the abortion debate is that because it hinges upon different ideas about what "life" and "person" mean in the context of pregnancy, it sometimes makes use of the sentimentality of some people in order to deprive other people of the right over their own bodies.  

I agree with you. It is sad to me that people as rigid as Cathy or the Duggars or Bateses are incapable of putting themselves on another person's shoes in that way. That manner of living strikes me as so limited and sad. You never experience anything that makes you think or wonder or challenges you in anyway at all. Ignorance may be bliss, but learning is way more fun.

I consider myself extremely fortunate. We lost our first pregnancy in late February, about a week after our first nephew was born. As tough as that was, we at least had something to be very happy about at the same time.

And a little over two months later we found out we were expecting again - and luckily things are progressing excellently this time around. We've been able to hear the heartbeat four times now, have had four excellent ultrasounds, and have even been able to share the news publicly this time - all things we weren't able to do during our first pregnancy and things we have really tried to savor. So while I'm concerned and nervous, I'm also very hopeful at this point. 

[ClaraOswin]

16 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I agree with you on the rest, but I slightly disagree on the first portion. My grief was in no way linked to the fact that I thought or felt my potential child was alive in any sense - our loss occurred at around 4.5 weeks, meaning that the heartbeat likely never even began because something went so wrong with development. Therefore, there was no life in our specific case to speak of.

My grief was linked to the promise that pregnancy had initially given us that nine months later we would be welcoming a living and breathing child into the world. I grieved what was hoped for, not what actually was.

Again, just speaking for myself here. Others who have suffered losses or had abortions performed are always free to feel differently.

(And I want to say I'm sorry for your losses.)

Sort of conservative person's opinion ahead....................

For me...I see the cells as a potential life in the beginning. Your comment about the heartbeat basically illustrates when I, personally, think an actual "life" begins - the heartbeat.

When are humans considered deceased? When our hearts stop beating. To me, we are alive when our hearts start beating. Is that life viable at 10 weeks? Obviously not. But it's still a life with a heartbeat. So in my IDEAL world, abortions would not occur after the heart starts beating. I know that the world we live in isn't my ideal though. And it never will be. So I understand why safe (well, as safe as a medical procedure can be) abortions need to be legal to a certain point. And I don't think the whole worlds needs to have the same opinion as me on the subject. (Though sometimes I do have a hard time with people thinking a 20 week fetus isn't a baby.)

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

20 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

She doesn't even need to have had parents who told her she was lucky her bio-mom had not aborted her.  She may have come to that conclusion herself.  I have known adoptees who opposed abortion for that reason, and in one case the parents were pro-choice.

While I am very strongly pro-choice, I have always understood that many people who are anti-abortion/"pro-life" are honestly concerned about a moral issue.  Just because I believe that a woman's right to her own body should supersede any "right to life" of an uninvited fetus doesn't mean that I don't see the complexity of the problem.  

If you believe that a fetus is the equivalent, (in terms of standing before God or by some other criteria) of a born human being, then the abortion issue becomes a question of whether a woman's rights to control her own body is greater than the fetus's need to be in her body.  You might judge that the nine-month physical sacrifice and the long-term emotional and in many cases economic burden of carrying the child to term are not as important as the fetus's life.  It is "a life." And no amount of repetition of the idea that fetuses are "less" than the born human is going to change your mind.

Women should have the right to choose precisely because it is such a complex issue.  We are not talking about elective surgery to correct some perceived "flaw" in face or body.  We are talking about a life.  If we can grieve (and most of us do grieve) about an early-term miscarriage, how can we dismiss even an early-term abortion as not being the loss of a human life?

Don't get me wrong.  I support the woman who wants to have that abortion, and I don't support women like Cathy or other people who would deny women choice in this matter. But I understand why they feel strongly about it.

To be sure,  in the end, I think that the "right to life" rhetoric makes the mistake of minimizing the woman's importance and right to autonomy.  I believe that, knowingly or unknowingly, pro-lifers see women as primarily defined by their biological function and see women as vessels rather than as individuals equal to men.  The sentimentality about poor little babies and God's gifts, etc. is a weapon in the battle to keep women as secondary to men.

This is pretty much sums up my thoughts. I've often said abortion is something that woman has to make right with herself and God (if she so believes). While I personally could never have one and I'm not so sure I could take someone to get one, I wouldn't think less of her for doing it.  I'm not living their life, I don't know what is going on, I can't judge, it isn't my place.

I've had a couple arguments with my VERY Catholic very ANTI birth control Aunt, who believes life begins at conception.  I've argued that life can't begin at conception, because that isn't a pregnancy, it can't even be considered a pregnancy until those cells implant into the woman's uterus.  So much can go wrong in that time and to deny women access to birth control because someone thinks life starts the second a man ejaculates.   

[Incognito22]

The latest picture of Izzy balancing on the bumbo edge while reaching for the counter is special.  You can almost see what comes next.

[JesSky03]

1 hour ago, ClaraOswin said:

Sort of conservative person's opinion ahead....................

For me...I see the cells as a potential life in the beginning. Your comment about the heartbeat basically illustrates when I, personally, think an actual "life" begins - the heartbeat.

When are humans considered deceased? When our hearts stop beating. To me, we are alive when our hearts start beating. Is that life viable at 10 weeks? Obviously not. But it's still a life with a heartbeat. So in my IDEAL world, abortions would not occur after the heart starts beating. I know that the world we live in isn't my ideal though. And it never will be. So I understand why safe (well, as safe as a medical procedure can be) abortions need to be legal to a certain point. And I don't think the whole worlds needs to have the same opinion as me on the subject. (Though sometimes I do have a hard time with people thinking a 20 week fetus isn't a baby.)

This whole debate is a little emotional for me right now. I had a miscarriage at 9 weeks and now six months later we are still not pregnant. I think about the loss everyday so just reading about other people's losses, and even pregnancies often makes me tear up. I never got to hear the heartbeat, but they guess the baby died around 6 weeks 5 days so there was a chance that it did beat for a very short period of time. I often think about if I would feel differently if the loss happened earlier or later. Sometimes I wish I could have had a later loss, so I could actually have been able to see my baby. Other times I wish it had happened very early so I wouldn't feel like a life had already begun inside me ( or would I have still felt that way?). So yes, it is a very complex issue and people will feel differently about when life begins. After my loss I feel more confused about that than ever and can neither side with pro-life nor pro-choice as I think each situation is personal and I sit somewhere confused in the middle. 

[VelociRapture]

3 minutes ago, JesSky03 said:

This whole debate is a little emotional for me right now. I had a miscarriage at 9 weeks and now six months later we are still not pregnant. I think about the loss everyday so just reading about other people's losses, and even pregnancies often makes me tear up. I never got to hear the heartbeat, but they guess the baby died around 6 weeks 5 days so there was a chance that it did beat for a very short period of time. I often think about if I would feel differently if the loss happened earlier or later. Sometimes I wish I could have had a later loss, so I could actually have been able to see my baby. Other times I wish it had happened very early so I wouldn't feel like a life had already begun inside me ( or would I have still felt that way?). So yes, it is a very complex issue and people will feel differently about when life begins. After my loss I feel more confused about that than ever and can neither side with pro-life nor pro-choice as I think each situation is personal and I sit somewhere confused in the middle. 

I'm really sorry for your loss.

Many people feel horribly conflicted after a loss, no matter how early or late it may be. I felt conflicted for a long time - after about three months (when I already knew I was pregnant again) I started to feel a bit better and less conflicted. It really depends on the person. Had I not gotten pregnant again so quickly I may have had a tougher time moving out of the true grief stage. Even though it was so early, it truly devastated me.

Try not to rush the process or feel bad for not "getting over it" quickly. Grief is different for everyone. And don't overthink the fact that you aren't pregnant yet either. Some bodies need more time to heal than others. You can always speak with your Doctor about it soon if you guys are concerned.

[ksgranola1]

I lost one at 20 weeks & what bothered me most was the cavalier attitude of my OB. I had bonded, felt movement, were all prepared, then came the "no heartbeat" news. We were devastated. But that wasn't even the worst of it. The OB said I would probably go to my due- date & then "dump it." his words. To make it worse, I continued to grow. Total strangers would come up to me & congratulate me. It wasn't like I could hide it. And now, 30 years later, I realized I could have had an induced labor or a D&E. But both my OB's were Catholic. Didn't conceive again for 5 years.

[JesSky03]

5 minutes ago, ksgranola1 said:

I lost one at 20 weeks & what bothered me most was the cavalier attitude of my OB. I had bonded, felt movement, were all prepared, then came the "no heartbeat" news. We were devastated. But that wasn't even the worst of it. The OB said I would probably go to my due- date & then "dump it." his words. To make it worse, I continued to grow. Total strangers would come up to me & congratulate me. It wasn't like I could hide it. And now, 30 years later, I realized I could have had an induced labor or a D&E. But both my OB's were Catholic. Didn't conceive again for 5 years.

My heart truly breaks for you. I can't imagine having to go through that. I'm not sure how you managed not to punch out the doctor who said you could just dump your baby! What an awful, awful thing to say.

 I am more conservative in my abortion views but I will always always always support a woman who needs any kind of abortive type procedure because the pregnancy has failed, or has become life threatening. I myself had to take "abortion pills" because my body was taking so long to realize the pregnancy had ended (though the pills didn't actually work and I naturally miscarried 5 days after taking them). Abortion will never be black and white. 

[2manyKidzzz]

@ksgranola1 I am so sorry that you experienced that. Yes, that cavalier attitude is difficult to comprehend. 

[sophie10130]

3 hours ago, ClaraOswin said:

Sort of conservative person's opinion ahead....................

For me...I see the cells as a potential life in the beginning. Your comment about the heartbeat basically illustrates when I, personally, think an actual "life" begins - the heartbeat.

When are humans considered deceased? When our hearts stop beating. To me, we are alive when our hearts start beating. Is that life viable at 10 weeks? Obviously not. But it's still a life with a heartbeat. So in my IDEAL world, abortions would not occur after the heart starts beating. I know that the world we live in isn't my ideal though. And it never will be. So I understand why safe (well, as safe as a medical procedure can be) abortions need to be legal to a certain point. And I don't think the whole worlds needs to have the same opinion as me on the subject. (Though sometimes I do have a hard time with people thinking a 20 week fetus isn't a baby.)

Just to be detail oriented, from a medical standpoint, death is not when the heart stops beating. Death occurs when the brain ceases to function. If death occurred when the heart stopped beating, we would never administer CPR. We would just call them dead and let it be done. But we know that we can bring people back when their heart stops beating, so medically, that is not accurate. It is only after their heart has stopped beating and sending blood and oxygen to the brain for minutes that we can call the time of death because we know that the brain cannot survive that long without oxygen.

However, I'm not saying you can't believe that's when life starts. That is totally your prerogative. It's a very personal and emotional choice, and it's different for everyone.

 

I listened to a podcast recently about the date of viability, or the earliest date a baby can survive outside of the womb. I think at this point it is something like 23 weeks and 6 days. (And I think that's the name of the podcast. Radiolab.) In the podcast they go on and talk about how people think that should be the cutoff for abortions because the baby cannot survive without the mom so it's not considered living yet. But as our technology changes, we will be pushing that date back and back and back and how we shouldn't use that as a gauge because maybe some day it might be 6 weeks. Or two weeks. Or a fertilized egg.