REVIEW: ‘Bump+’ Dares to Take on Abortion ‘Reality’
by Pam MeisterAbortion is a sensitive topic no matter which side of the argument you support. And when I was asked to review the first episode of a web show called “Bump+,” I wasn’t quite sure I wanted to do it.
When it comes to abortion, I am in the pro-life camp. I wasn’t always – but having two children of my own changed my mind. And I’m thankful I was never in a position to have to even think about it. For me, exceptions to this rule are cases like the one in Brazil last year, where a 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins because her stepfather raped her. At that age and that size (she was only 80 pounds), doctors said her life would be endangered.
My personal feelings aside, I realize that — at least for most people — abortion is a serious topic and if you are faced with that choice, it shouldn’t be made lightheartedly. I know several women who have had abortions, and I know that for two of them, the decisions were definitely not easy.
This is why I decided to check out “Bump+,” which is a faux “reality show” about three women out of about 300 who were chosen to participate in a show that will follow them for four weeks, chronicling their struggle to decide whether to have their unplanned babies or abort them. In addition to following their stories, viewers will “decide how our characters’ stories will end,” says executive producer Dominic Iocco. “We’ve opened the official website to comments and our team will craft the final episodes based on audience feedback. The choice is really up to you.” Viewers are encouraged to submit their own stories and comments.
According to the show’s co-producer Christopher Riley, the show is “an experiment to see if a story [can succeed] where nearly four decades of angry rhetoric and political posturing have failed. We’re not making a moral or political statement; hopefully, we’re starting a conversation with the audience.”
“Denise”
The first episode is less than nine-minutes long, and in it we are introduced to the three women at the office of Dr. Patterson (Andray Johnson). Denise (Isabelle Giroux) is the mother of two who is “addicted” to red candies; she helps herself to all of the red Starbursts in the bowl at the receptionist’s desk despite being told they are intended for children. Denise seems a bit like a space cadet; like she’s on something. She’s the mother of two children and we learn that her spouse (boyfriend?) is abusive. She asks for codeine, then tells Dr. Patterson that when Buzz is nice, he helps her with the children and “he’s a real godsend.” The doctor sees terrible bruises on her neck, which he finds hidden under her turtleneck sweater.
Is this why Denise is considering the abortion of her third child? Does she not want to bring another life into an abusive home? Or is it that she is simply overwhelmed by her life’s circumstances and doesn’t want an additional complication?
“Jason” and “Hailey”
We then meet Hailey (Lyndsey Doolen), who is accompanied by her boyfriend Jason (Angelo Restaino). Out of all three of the women, Hailey seems the least concerned about the difficult decision ahead of her and more excited about being on a reality show. Her answers to questions by the off-camera producer seem too much like an audition for a part in a commercial. Jason seems just as eager for fame, saying after the nurse escorts them into the examining room, “We did it, we did it!” and rubbing his hands with glee as he looks for things to “play with” as they wait. Sadly, in real life, I can imagine that exploiting one’s pregnancy would appeal to someone who is dying to become the next Kate Gosselin, Heidi Montag or other reality show star.
Hailey has been pregnant before, giggling as she tells Dr. Patterson, “I get pregnant really easily.” So is this really a “difficult decision” for Hailey? And one wonders if she has not heard of birth control, especially as we learn she is hoping to enter a nursing program. Dr. Patterson asks her how having a newborn will affect her ability to carry out her studies. She seems confused, at which point Dr. Patterson asks if she has already come to a conclusion. Jason jumps in and says no real decision has been made, but “we’re good to go on the show.” Ugh. Slimy boyfriend? Yep, they’re really out there too.
“Dr. Patterson” and “Katie”
After Hailey, we meet Katie (Tina Schlapprizzi). She is obviously the one who seems most affected by the choice she must make. “Once I make it,” she says, “I can’t go back.” She stopped taking prescribed hormone therapy because it didn’t seem to be working, her husband is a soldier who has been sent to Iraq, and she says there is no one in her life she can go to about her pregnancy. She begs Dr. Patterson for his personal views and advice on abortion, but he won’t say anything other than that he is there to “support you to make the best decision that you can.” When he asks her how long her husband has been deployed overseas, she doesn’t answer him – which would explain why she feels she cannot go to anyone she knows about her problem.
Comments thus far on the “Bump+” website range from personal stories about unexpected pregnancies to concerns that the black Dr. Patterson is the only minority represented to comments that the acting is “awful.” Perhaps, but the characters’ lives and problems seem plausible. I actually found that the acting (which isn’t “awful,” in my opinion) was secondary to the story.
As I said earlier, abortion is a difficult question for many. That being said, if the first episode is a good indicator, the producers are treating this topic in as sensitive a manner as they can, and I find myself curious to find out where the characters’ paths will take them with the help of viewers. Out of the three characters, I am most drawn to Denise and Katie, who have real problems – as opposed to Hailey, for whom becoming pregnant for a fourth time is simply an inconvenience that she can exploit in a bid for her 15 minutes.
Am I right? We’ll find out as “Bump+” continues to unfold. The next episode airs Monday, February 1. Episodes air every Monday and Thursday until March 15. You can beecome friends of the show on Facebook or follow it on YouTube to be reminded about the next episodes.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
135 Comments
I stopped reading when I saw this:
"For me, exceptions to this rule are cases like the one in Brazil last year, where a 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins because her stepfather raped her. At that age and that size (she was only 80 pounds), doctors said her life would be endangered."
So an abortion in this case is only acceptable because the pregnancy could have endangered her life? What about the fact that she was RAPED? How about the fact that she was 9 YEARS OLD? How about the simple fact that a 9-year old girl has no clue what sex, pregnancy, and parenthood are about?
No one – not a 9-year old or a 19-year old or a 49-year old – should be forced to have a baby that is the result of a RAPE. Taking away the right to abort a fetus that was conceived against the will of the girl/woman is just wrong – there is no other way to put it.
What have we come to, where the decision to kill a child or not has become "entertainment"? : (
It seems to be working – that is a lot of conversation they have going on the first episode. I am curious how they incorporate the comments to actually shape the conclusion.
Wow the comments about the show are just as interesting as the show. From reading the comments posted on the website it is really interesting to read bother perspectives on the issue.
Yes, let's "start a conversation with the audience" by filling a situation with so many ifs and buts, it becomes extremely unlikely if not completely unrealistic. When difficult if not extreme cases are used to promote the sweeping legalization of what remains murder, the very premise becomes dishonest.
In that way, it's no different than parading poor uninsured people to promote statalized health care, or pointing out rare and unlikely case of self-defense failures to abolish private gun ownership. Hey, it's almost as if the same people were doing all three!
My wife and I are unable to have our own children, and so far we've approached two mothers who have decided they'd rather have abortions than adopt to us.
It is heartbreaking that a woman would rather kill her child than adopt the child to a couple who would receive such joy from adoption.
Can we vote for sterlization? Because these women are obviously too stupid to have children.
@Francesco Did you watch the episode? The situations seem pretty believable as Pam pointed out. Seems like conversation is the premise and having spent part of my life on both sides of this issue I think that could be a good thing – of course it might also be impossible.
Not only entertainment, but the choice is based on a web poll of viewers? I think that's seriously disturbing.
Okay, this is going to be several parts – it's just too complicated an issue not to be:
I am someone who considers myself leaning pro-life but still has some pro-choice tendencies (like rape, life of the mother – even though I know those instances are rare, they are still there). The decision to have an abortion I think is difficult for most people. And I've thought a lot about the solution to this ongoing debate, because although I believe that it is a human life (any other argument is just ridiculous – it's alive (growing, moving, etc.), and unless you got impregnated by a gorilla, it's human), I am also concerned about the consequences of giving that life all the exact same legal protections as someone who has been born, since the baby, at least until viability, is competing with someone else's life – the mother's – and how I would prefer that the gov't not be involved at that stage, either saying yay or nay.
Cont'd
Some examples would be pre-natal care. Right now, that is up to the doctor and patient. Some doctors are sticklers for no caffeine, no tuna, etc. Others (like mine) believed in "moderation". If the embryo/fetus becomes a separate legal entity, it would be entitled to protections that might include what the mother can do and eat during the 9 months of pregnancy, apart from what her doctors say. I mean, if the scientific community is fighting about climate change, what about all the studies that one day something is fine and then another it's not fine. How would you even legislate that? Do you really think that the legislature would defer to the medical community? Especially if there is no consensus? Doesn't it create a breeding ground for scams and profit at the expense of mother and child?
Cont'd
In other words, the embryo/fetus is a human life and abortion should be the last thing on one's mind (except in instances regarding the life of the mother), but doing away with it, and giving a being that for 7 months relies on the life of another separate legal protection, or even letting the gov't get its hands on legislating anything to do with that complicated issue, to me, just leads to disaster and doesn't change the landscape at all. IMHO.
But that's not the purpose of this post (just a little background). Don't jump on me too hard – this is hardly the place to have a long discussion on the issue, just letting you know where I stand – I support ways to decrease the need for anyone to have to consider an abortion, I believe in parental consent and I do NOT agree with partial birth abortion and support a ban.
Cont'd
Anyway, about this particular piece, I think that perhaps watching people having to make that decision I think might be helpful in this way – what are all the reasons and situations that make women think that abortion is the ONLY choice, and how do we educate them that it is NOT the ONLY choice and that every choice is hard, but the choice for life is probably the best out of all of them, whether they keep the child and struggle with being a single-mother, or they give the child up for adoption, thereby making some other family happy by giving them the chance at parenthood that you are not quite ready for yet.
Final
In other words, I would love to find ways to convince more people that choosing life is the better choice out of all the hard choices that are out there. But most of all I wish to find a way to teach our youth that while sex is a beautiful thing, it is not an end in and of itself, no matter how great it feels. At high school age and college age, while fun is important, what is most important is preparing you for real adult life. We don't do that anymore really (at least not as a society), and so we infantilize them while at the same time claiming their old enough for sex and to make the decision about abortion. Kids are confused and it's time that the adults start running the show again.
I agree – I've been on both sides and I think a conversation by the PUBLIC on how best to deal with these issues is the best way. Because if we show some kind of united front and agreement on how we think is the best way to deal with the issues, then it's something we can show our elected representatives and go from there.
If we are constantly at odds and never listening to either side, we get nowhere. It is not always an easy decision to do it or not to do it. For me, the best decision is to choose life, even if that is still a hard decision. It's that little nugget that I think would be the most valuable in making abortion pretty much a dead issue.
I think that abortion should be kept to the rare circumstances of medical necessity, rape, and incest. In the latter two cases, I think if an abortion is chosen, then the rapist or the person who forced the incest should be slapped with an involuntary manslaughter charge on top of any other charges they may face.
That being said, I think the best way to curb abortion is to make it readily apparent just exactly what is in your womb when you get pregnant. I also think we need to effect a societal change in the perception of women's choice. Women do have control over their own bodies, but the concept of "right to choose" should apply to whether or not you have sex. Anyone, I mena anyone, who engages in sex needs to be fully aware that pregnany could be an outcome, almost no matter what you do. That's another reason why I opt to allow abortion for rape and incest. The woman's right to choose to have sex was taken from her. If she chooses retroactively and someone dies as a result, then charges of involuntary manslaughter seem only appropriate. The sex criminal didn't intend to get her pregnant, but it happened, and now someone has died.
One other thing on my posts: I understand that abortion used to be illegal in many states before Roe v. Wade and I'm sure the issues I am concerned about were handled in some way. But it was also a different time – the Free Love and Sex Genie wasn't out of the bottle yet. Mores are, unfortunately, different and more base now than they ever were before, in that having babies out of wedlock, writing books about sexual affairs in your youth, etc. are all accepted without question by too many people.
Final
Again, on your side, but just letting you know how some on the other side might think. Independents and moderates, that is. If you want to win them to your cause, you use common sense, reasoned arguments, etc. You hit them with those things and they will come around, just like they did in MA. Not saying MA has gone 100% red, but they certainly aren't liking the blue either. We need to bring the message like Scott Brown brought his message and I think that we can win the day on the pro-life issue.
Just my 2 cents.
it's been done before – Christians vs lions and all that,,,,,,
The author did not write that she thinks the Brazil case is the ONLY exception. I imagine she referenced that case because she felt it was the most obvious case where abortion was justified, for the reasons you cite.
Here we go again. Doublespeak much? No one should be forced to have a baby, ok. Then it's "the right to abort a fetus". Does using the word 'fetus', instead of baby make it seem more righteous to you? Nobody said we should 'force' women to have a baby, especially when raped or the mothers life is in danger. That being said, abortion on demand as a means to live your life without complications(raising a child), choosing a particular sex, etc., etc., is, simply put, Infanticide………………………Hanzo
Excellent post. The sensationalisation of an issue so important as this is dubious at best, demented at worst.
……………………………….Hanzo
Well said. It's also hard to believe that women who have children can support abortion………………Hanzo
How is abortion in the case of rape any different than any other abortion? The result is still a dead baby, and port-abortive women have a far greater rate of suicide than women who have not had abortions. Rape compounded with abortion certainly is not healthy.
Having an abortion does not undo a rape, but compounds the emotional and psychological ramifications and kills a child.
I'm with you on this one. Our son and his wife are, so far, unable to have children. Which in some moments is humorous. He is one of seven, and she is one of five girls. There are so many parents waiting for children that abortion just seems the selfish end to a selfish act.
While the situations may seem believable, the sensationalism aspect is troubling. When an issue is presented in a way to also be entertaining, the result is oftentimes to take away from the core questions of the subject and make people numb to the ramifications of the issue. You said yourself that while it could be a good thing it might also be impossible. Obfuscation by putting a human face on the issue is usually a tactic of those who support said issue, it depends on the light in which said subject is portrayed. I must say now that I am pro-life, and I found the episode to be no more than a churlish, petulant and vapid attempt to explore a very serious issue …………………………..Hanzo
Amen, so do I ……………………..Hanzo
EVERYONE who is "pro choice" should watch SILENT SCREAM (it's online). Then come back and tell us your views.
I totally concur on all your points. Very well posited in a lucid and sentient manner. Unfotunately we are besieged on a daily basis by those who use Doublespeak in an effprt to marginalise the true issue at hand, that a life is being taken. The proponents of abortion on demand use semantics to twist words to their purpose, calling an unborn baby a 'fetus' or even, unbelievably, a 'fertilised egg'. I think if everyone fully understood the techniques used in abortion procedures, as well as the fact of how late in the pregnancy abortions are performed, the issue would be a moot point, as wholesale rejection of abortion on demand, excepting the cases noted by yourself, would result……………………………Hanzo
I think you're picking a fight with the wrong person here. No one is more pro-life than myself. That being said, first lets follow your 'logic' in the event of a pregnancy that endangers the life of a mother. Do we give up one life to bring another into the world? No, we don't. Back to your question,how is abortion in the case of rape different? Well, to begin with, and this should be obvious to any rational being, the pregnancy was the result of a crime being perpetrated upon the woman inquestion. Would I like to see the woman carry the baby to full term, and, if she dosen't want to care for the child, give it up for adoption? You bet I would. The issue of post-abortion mental health is but one of the dirty little secrets the msm covers up in their insidious anti-life posture……………………Hanzo
Bill Clinton once said he wanted abortion to be 'safe, legal and rare'. I couldn't agree with him more. So why do his supporters obstruct any effort to inform people of choices other than abortion? Or to inform them of the facts of gestation and their pregnancy? Or to promote abstinence so young girls don't get hit with such huge 'choice' when they're too naive to make an informed decision? It could be a virtually obsolete procedure, so why do they stop abortion from stopping?
"Do we give up one life to bring another into the world? No, we don't."
The life is already created. That being said, there is almost never a case where abortion is a lifesaving procedure. In the case of cancer, the mother can choose to receive or postpone cancer treatment, and the death of the unborn child is an unintended consequence.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the direct action is that the fallopian tube is removed, in which the indirect action or unintended consequence is the death of the unborn child.
99+% of abortions are of cases other than rape, incest, life of the mother.
Not sure if I heard you right – no abortion in the case of endangering the mother's life? You can't be serious.
If someone is endangering my life (or others), knowingly or unknowingly, I have the right to kill them to save my life (or the life of others). The issue should be how real is the "endangerment" – clearly, mental discomfort doesn't cut it. But, if a baby (yes, BABY) is directly creating a condition that has a significant change of killing the mother, the mother has the right to kill that baby.
I agree – something obscene about the whole thing, especially the 'viewers help determine how things will turn out' aspect. Wha? Does that mean voting on whether someone else should have an abortion? Depraved.
If he wanted abortion to be rare, he shouldn't have subsidized it.
Exactly mousiemarie! I agree with you there. Basically, the answer is probably that they only used the 'safe, legal and rare', to appear centrist, but they really don't believe it. As you said, if you really believe that (and right now I do), you would work to the goal of making it RARE, very rare.
This is the point of my posts above and I hope that this web show helps the discussion along in that vein. Because one is PREVENTION (abstinence and birth control, as appropriate), but since accidents can happen no matter how much you try to prevent (I had an ectopic pregnancy with my IUD!), it can and will happen. Life finds a way. So after prevention comes really giving young girls and women a choice, a real choice by showing them that while any decision they make will be hard, the BEST choice is the one that chooses life.
As I said, there is almost no cases where abortion is the cure. Can you think of one outside of Brazil case?
"but since accidents can happen no matter how much you try to prevent (I had an ectopic pregnancy with my IUD!),"
Practicing abstinence can't get you pregnant. It's 100% successful.
So, ufm, what exactly is your disagreement with me then, or are you simply trying to play devil's advocate by disagreeing with me when you actually seem to agree? Did I bruise your ego? Did I offend you? I didn't say how many abortions are performed to save the mothers life, you quoted the figure, if we can eliminate 99+% of abortions I would get on my knees and thank God. So, where's the beef? Methinketh thou doth protest too much, friend………………..Hanzo
"Anyone, I mena anyone, who engages in sex needs to be fully aware that pregnany could be an outcome, almost no matter what you do."
By this logic, if I trip and break my leg I should not have the bone re-set, since – after all – everyone knows that tripping can be an outcome of walking
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
– Ayn Rand
Exact same thing.
No. Not offended. I was introducing more information not for argument, but for others who may not know the nuances of the issue regarding life-threatening medical situations and abortion.
We agree.
It is a decision to kill "LIFE".
Ayn Rand fails to recognize that an unborn child is a separate body with separate DNA. It relies on its mother for nutrition and protection, but then so does an infant, so does my grandmother.
Choosing to engage in activity which frequently results in creation of another human being is up to the mother, but she must realize the ramifications are creation of a child, and that she has no moral grounds for destroying that life.
Okay Americanjohn,
If I had to be exterminated because my dad commited a crime… pfff this is waste of breath and abortion in this case is for troglodytes.
Put yourself in this womb:
Okay so, you get a death sentance because of a criminal and yet you have never done ANYTHING wrong. You, the innocent being does not count because of a criminal!? Where's the freedom?
@MovieBob
Also, there is no life issue involved with breaking a leg. There is no life created, and there is no life ended.
You seem to be arguing for sex with no consequences, as if abortion is a moral equivalent to breaking a leg.
Right, but I'm married and wanted to space my children out. The Pill wasn't working for me, so I tried something different. Who knew I was so fertile! LOL!
And I'm sure there are tons of other married people out there that wish to do the same and I know plenty of married people who have at least one child who was an "oops". My second and last child was an oops and I love her dearly and she is and always will be a gift from God.
See, don't assume things about people. I wasn't going to use the "rhythm method" for 3 years, which DOESN'T WORK very well anyway. I can probably name you off 10 people I know that were conceived by their mothers using the rhythm method. And I don't think that I have any right to tell other married couples what form of birth control to use. Frankly I don't think I have a right to tell anyone, married or not, what kind of birth control to use. I can expect them to take responsibility for what happens if they don't, but otherwise, none of my business.
Point being, people have sex whether we want them too or not. Birth Control is out there and you can use it and still have an oops. My point was not to encourage those people to have abortions (whether they are married or single), but rather to acknowledge that accidents happen to the best of us, but we should encourage LIFE instead of abortion.
You're ignoring the point of ladykrystna's post. If you're demanding abstinence, or abstinence education only, then you're following a losing battle plan and will save fewer babies than a broader based plan will save.
BTW — do you know whether or not ladykrystna is married or not? She practiced BC and got pregnant anyway. Perhaps her husband might object to a demand for abstinence based BC.
I didn't say he was telling the truth, I agreed with the statement.
All of the opinions on this list are a good example of why abortion is a privacy issue… If we are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions we need to find ways to eliminate unplanned pregnancies, and give workable options to women who do get pregnant.
I promise you that overturning Roe v. Wade will not reduce the number of abortions.
Life is a good choice, when it is chosen by the mother. When it is chosen by right wing governments it is just another form of oppression.
So that makes you sad? That some young woman doesn't want to be your incubator for nine months? If you really want a child go adopt one of the thousands of children that are already here and need a parent. Don't demand that someone less fortunate than yourself cook one up for you.
Finally a winger with the guts to say what the rest of you are thinking. Thank you Bob.
word.
I'm for sex (or any activity, frankly) with no UNECESSARILY PERMANENT consequences. Unwanted pregnancy is a consequence of sex much of the time, yes, but unwanted PARENTHOOD no longer needs to be through the various advances of science.
Just about everything we've ever developed or tried to develop a "cure" for is a CONSEQUENCE of something: The Flu is commonly a consequence of breathing, for pity's sake.
I understand, incidentally, that this debate is at a permanent impasse. Whatever the details may be, the final point is that you believe A.) that there is a thing called a soul that makes every life sacred, and B.) that a fetus gets one at the moment of conception (stop me if I'm mischaracterizing anything.) I'm unsure on both counts, but mainly think that we ought not make law based on esoteric "maybes."
(continued)
(continued)
Legally, in most of the civilized world, an unviable fetus is NOT a human being, and thus there is no legal rationale to restrict this medical procedure. Can it not be left at that? You can be against it and consider me a murderer all you wish – just as the vegans can consider me a monster for my hamburger – and let whatever god may or may not exist pass judgement when we meet him?
I don't see where there is room to compromise with these people. I thought Roe v. Wade struck a good compromise balancing the privacy needs of the mother with the needs of the state to protect viable pregnancies. But they will settle for nothing less than criminalizing the procedure at any point in the pregnancy.
Look I don't care if "life of the mother" situation happens only once a year, the fact is, when that choice comes up, it should be up to the family – the mother, the father, etc. – and the doctor to decide. What if I want to give up my life for my baby? What if I don't? My father, a practicing and devout Catholic, said he would always choose my mother first. But I don't think he would begrudge someone the right to decide the other way around. When 2 lives are at stake, the question was – which one is more important? Do you think the gov't should be the one to decide that? I don't want them handling health care in general, so I surely wouldn't want them deciding that for me either.
Abortion is a tragedy for all involved. Lets hope we can either a) eliminate unplanned pregnacies or b) find a way to bring a baby to term that doesn't impinge on the mother's rights.
This tv program seems like a terrible idea.
"almost no" isn't none, so the point is, the exception should always be available JUST IN CASE.
I don't think that was the point…. and if you knew how hard it was to adopt a child in the US you wouldn't be making such statements… :/ It's sometimes easier to go to the women that choose to not keep the child and have a legal mediator than it is to go through an adoption agency.
Exactly – he government needs to stay out of our personal business.
Because your dad committed a heinous crime. Because your dad assaulted your mother against her will. Because your mother should not have to be victimized again knowing that this fetus was the result of a rape.
And quite simply because the children of rape are the forgotten victims here. As much as you'd like to sugarcoat it to support your Pro-Life argument, children of rape are not unaffected by the fact that they were conceived by a criminal act.
I never said that it had to be chosen by ANY gov't, right or left. The gov't can probably ENCOURAGE people to choose life, though. I don't see anything wrong with that. Society in general should be promoting RESPONSIBLE behavior instead of giving our children easy outs every time something goes wrong. They don't learn the realities of life and they don't learn responsibility without learning that every action has a consequence. That's like basic child-rearing 101, is it not?
Boy would he ever! LOL!
Perhaps he just meant "abstinence" in general, which technically speaking, he's right – you can't get pregnant if you aren't having sex (barring IVF of course). But legislating who can and cannot have sex is NOT the purview of any gov't, local, state or federal, IMHO, and is no different than any other "nanny state" initiative. However, as I said, we can certainly encourage responsible behavior by not providing an easy out for everything that happens to us, especially when it involves the life of an unborn child. And by also teaching our children values and responsibility.
Rare, agreed (even you acknowledge that it sometimes is the case, even if it's "almost" no cases).
Fallopian tube ectopic pregnancy or if the mother has a severe illness that becomes life-threatening when she becomes pregnant.
From a blog:
American Association of Pro Life OB/GYNS wroteon July 3, 2009 at 7:16am
Thanks, Quinten. You're right, it's not always simple. I had a 14 wk pregnant lady bleeding into shock and, in my best judgment, threatening to die. Yet,there was still Ultrasound evidence of fetal heartbeat. I had to make a decision. I asked the Lord for wisdom, and made a decision. (Life would be simple if there were no hard decisions. jdc MD
You must keep the "life of the mother" option open (again, not "health" of the mother). In Judaism, it is permissible to have an abortion to save the life of the mother – the Hebrew word used for the unborn baby who has become a danger to his/her mother translates to the "pursuer". If the presence of the unborn baby is threatening the life of the mother, i.e., has become a "pursuer" of the mother's life, you may abort it.
Thought experiment for ideological american john.
If I kill a woman who is 8 1/2 months pregnant and her baby dies, can I be charged for two murders?
Go around to a dozen different pregnant women and tell them that they're not carrying a child, it's only a fetus.
Is a viable "fetus" in its mother's womb which could, at that very moment, survive outside the mother's womb, a "child"? Will you concede at least that, or has your ideology rendered you incapable of using your brain for conscious, rational thought anymore?
Wow, pretty heartless mikatollah – angry, much? Point is, they're ALREADY pregnant. They'd rather kill their child than be inconvenienced for the remainder of their pregnancy.
Then those are the laws we should be changing… not the abortion laws. Let's make it faster and easier to adopt so good families can be found for needy children, and childless couples don't have to walk around feeling ripped off because some teen mom won't cooperate.
And if you never leave the house you can't get killed in a car wreck. But people are human… we leave the house and we have sex. Any private or public policy that can't deal with that reality is not good for humans.
ABORTION IS A FORM OF RAPE. Rape is intimate violence against a women and abortion is the most intimate form of violence. It rapes a women not only physically and emotionally, but also on the deepest level of her spirit. When a women has been raped, why would you turn around and rape her again? I accuse feminists everywhere with complicity in the rape of the american woman. We have an entire generation of women who need treatment for rape.
Overturning Roe v. Wade may not reduce the number of abortions…but it's a dangerous moral slope we are on to have safe (for some) and legal child murder.
Slavery existed for many years after the Civil War in America, but at least it was illegal. Why should an unborn child not have human rights?
And I used to be an "abstinence only" person, but I have met too many girls who have decided that the Pill is wrong, but sex isn't. I know too many girls who are going to have sex, regardless of how we preach or teach. And it is the girls (and their children) who suffer most from this decision to have sex too early and for no good reason. I wish that the dozen 15-16 year old girls who had babies last year (that I know of) would have been on the Pill. and yes, I know there are religious arguments, and even socialogical arguments, against the Pill. But I don't think that the Pill can be nearly as wrong as abortion. Ever.
Maybe while we are making abortion rare, we can work on getting girls to respect themselves, to see the negatives of the fatherless cycle, and boys and girls to realize that instant gratification isn't always worth the price.
But this is a whole different rant…
What ways would you suggest to eliminate unplanned pregnancies?
We currently have more options in the way of birth control than any generation before, yet stll abort millions of babies each year. Diaphragms, IUDs, Norplant, condoms, and a variety of pills are all available yet are not being used in the majority of cases (if we assume that each abortion is representative of may unprotected sex acts that do not result in pregnancy).
I can think of no adequate excuses for why we have this problem. I appears to me that our civilization's appetite for sex has simply outgrown its capacity to act responsibility with it.
Thanks for posting that! Again, these situations may be "rare" but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered an exception.
My best friend started bleeding during her last pregnancy. The baby was viable at that point and they were able to do an emergency C-section and save both of them, although my friend had to have a partial hysterectomy (and she was only like 35). But what if it were earlier like the one you described? Should the gov't be the one that decides whose life is worth more, or should it be something that individuals can disagree on and therefore should be made as a personal decision.
Would you fault the man who has to choose between saving his wife or his child when both are drowning but he can only reach one in time – so it's both or one. It's a horrible decision to ever have to make, but it's been made and far be it from me to judge the person's decision.
"Maybe while we are making abortion rare, we can work on getting girls to respect themselves, to see the negatives of the fatherless cycle, and boys and girls to realize that instant gratification isn't always worth the price."
Excellent point and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think that is where the problem is going at this point – now it's cool to be young and pregnant and single. The movie stars do it! Girls have lost respect for themselves and I think it has a lot to do with the "sex is power" and "free love" crap that the hippies gave us. Girls' self-esteem is now tied up in how "sexy" she is because by being "sexy" somehow she can control men and therefore be "empowered".
There is nothing wrong with being a little prudish and waiting, if not for marriage than at least for a long-term relationship or engagement. And that goes for boys as well – respect for themselves as men and respect for girls, and not treating them as sex objects.
We really haven't "come a long way, baby". We just traded one master for another.
"Maybe while we are making abortion rare, we can work on getting girls to respect themselves, to see the negatives of the fatherless cycle, and boys and girls to realize that instant gratification isn't always worth the price"
But what if legal abortion is a part of each of those problems? Men feel no resposibility to children they father because it is the woman's choice: love em & leave em , it;s not their problem because she could have an abortion if she wanted to.
This leads to a cultural cheapening of the value of women: women exist for the sexual pleasing of men, and only women are responsibile for any consequences.
This pervasive attitude gets reflected in a lack of self-respect among those women: what hope for love or value can they have other than plying for the fleeting attentions of the men or giving birth to someone who WILLl give them the love they crave.
And it all feeds back into itself for the next generation…
I understand your concern for rape victims who discovered they're pregnant. Still, not every woman in that situation.
For example, a married friend on mine said that she doesn't really support abortion. However, she could see herself aborting the baby if he or she was the result of being raped.
On the flip side, a single woman at my mother's church discovered she was pregnant after being raped. Despite her mother suggesting abortion, the woman believed the baby himself was innocent and carried him to term. The woman is now a single mother of a cute little boy, who is adored by grandma.
The examples above underscore why this aspect of the abortion debate is so tough to answer.
Maybe you could use a more extreme example of ridiculousness. As far as I know, there is no legal place in America where you can get an abortion at 8 1/2 months.
Concede this Bobbo – 88% of abortions take place in the first tri-semester – when a FETUS cannot survive outside the mother's womb.
Will you concede at least that, or has your ideology rendered you incapable of using your brain for conscious, rational thought anymore?
If you have ever met anyone who is the "product" of a rape ..say my really cool 14 year-old son…..you might have a different opinion. Look one of these people in the eye and tell them they had no right to be born….they will beg to differ
Didn't answer my questions. I can only assume the lack of an adequate answer. I, however, WILL answer your questions.
Wrong. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_...
THIRTY states (i.e., the MAJORITY) permit late-term abortions for the amorphous "health of the mother".
So, you are agreed that an 8 1/2 month "fetus" is a "baby" – how about an 8 month, how about a 7 1/2 month?
But, hey ho. We may actually have AGREED on something. So, would you agree in outlawing ALL abortions where the fetus is viable, except if the LIFE of a mother was at risk (rape, incest not an issue because they could have aborted earlier under "americanjohn's law")? Is that your test – viability = a child?
As for conceding that the majority of abortions take place in the first tri-mester. Yes, of course.
However, my post was in response to your inane generalization above that "It is not a decision to kill a child. It is the decision to abort a fetus." You seem to believe that in maybe up to as many as 12% of the cases, it is the killing of a child.
I hope the next time I face a difficult, horrible decision in life I have that kind of courage. If your 14 year old son is cool (and I have no doubt he is) it's because it runs in the family.
Don't know how you can make such a claim since the estimates for abortions pre Ro v. Wade are subject to great dispute. Your claim may be correct if you buy NARAL's numbers wholesale – but, they don't have an agenda, do they?
Truth is, we don't know how many abortions were performed in the US pre Roe v. Wade. However, we're fairly certain of the tens of millions of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortio...
From 1973 to 2005 (i.e., not including the last 4 years) – 45 million abortions. Safe, legal and rare? BS. Guess which one gets dropped first – it starts with an "r".
How about a consensus on post-viability "fetuses"? Proposal: if a fetus can survive outside the mother's womb, no abortions except to save the life of the mother – a mother's "self-defense". You agree that human beings have rights. So, when do those rights attach?
As for your point above, isn't life, regardless of "soul", assumed by our Founders to be a "sacred thing"? Endowed with inalienable rights, etc.?
I don't want to be involved in the political debate part of things, but I don't like many of your smug, adolescent responses.
Your analogy is poor to the point of being ludicrous. Likening choosing to have sex to leaving the house? You really want to go with that one? I have to leave the house every day to provide for my family and to care for many other responsibilities. Because my wife and I have two children, are in our early 40's and don't plan to have any more, we sometimes choose not to have sex when we aren't using BC. I can make that choice (even though it can be difficult, my wife is beautiful and I love her deeply). Yes, and every time we do choose to have sex, even using contraception, we are aware that a pregnancy may result and are prepared to accept that although having another kid isn't our preference now.
By the way, are you related to the Ayatollah? Just wondering.
"As I said earlier, abortion is a difficult question for many."
Its a difficult question only because the obvious conclusion leads to a whole lot of responsibility. You are not Pro-choice or Pro Life. You are Pro Life or Pro Murder.
Let us take a left leaning moderate. If they acknowledge that we should reduce the number of Abortions, they have already lost the argument. They want to reduce the number of Abortions because Abortion is bad, Abortion is bad because its murder, and they have just lacked the will to put 2 and 2 together. Truth is, when it comes to Abortion most people agree, but the perception of the argument is the sticking point.
The issue isn't that tiny part of cases revolving around Rape, incest or Harm to the mother, the majority is people who feel they cant put up with the burden of having a Child. But is your own economic security worth murdering another Human being before they even have time to breath? I rest my case.
I would think that the issue would be a mute point especially when you see the new 3D ultra sound pics of unborn children. I would think that technology has the answer here. Of course abortion is really about a large industry and the inconvience of the mother. I am not unsypathtic to a crisis pregnancy, there is other help out there and adoption is still good choice. I know of many women who have regretted their choice of an abortion.
I agree with you completely. The point is that every woman should have the right to choose her own destiny. What is good for one person might not be good for another. Church lady felt she could handle bearing a child of rape. Your friend obviously would not be able to handle bearing a child of rape. The beauty of this country is that each woman can make the decision that is appropriate for her.
A child of rape has the right to be born if his/her mother wants to have that child. On the contrary, if a woman who was brutally raped does not want to bear the child of her rapist, then she should have the same right.
Well, unfortunately, many pro-lifers refuse to admit that the mental health of the mother and the unwanted child is a serious issue. Postpartum depression is incredibly real for any woman- I can only imagine how much worse it could be if the baby is the product of rape.
It seems like more of a "Choose your own adventure" than Colosseum entertainment, to me. I think they've got an interesting premise, to say the least. It's worth watching to the end.
If you're going to rest your laurels on the popular pro-life late term abortion argument, at least list all of the facts for the rest of the readers.
The phrase "late term abortion" is not clearly defined. Even though a fetus is not viable before the 21st week, many still classify any abortion beyond 12 weeks as a late term abortion. So when pro-lifers use these statistics, they neglect to include those 9 weeks where a fetus is absolutely not able to survive outside of the womb.
How much of that remaining 12% fall into that 9 week period? Then what are you left with?
Sarah Palin has 5 kids. What's your point?
That's why it's called PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
One word: CONDOMS.
I hope all of these women find a different solution to their situation other that abortion.
At the PRC I volunteer at, I met a representative from Operation Outcry which is creating a documentary about women harmed by abortion. The number of women who will be in the doc is jaw dropping.
Check out the OO site here:
http://www.operationoutcry.org/pages.asp?pageid=2...
Two wrongs don't make a right. You seem to think that the 9 year old or 21- or 40 or whatever year old) rape victim should not realize there's this procedure called ADOPTION?
Cont'd
If we are going to get back to that (at least as much as we can), it needs to be done slowly but surely. Hammering people over the head with it rarely ever works. It hasn't worked for health care reform (and they are on the WRONG side of the issue in the first place), and I doubt it will work for this one either, because I think many Americans are personally pro-life but publically pro-choice. It is an anathema to most Americans to tell other people what to do or not to do, even if what they are is considered "wrong".
In other words, I'm advocating for a carrot and stick approach rather than just a stick over the head approach.
You must be logged in to post a comment.