Thoughts on abortion: How can we not grieve millions of wasted lives since Roe v. Wade?
Editor's note: This column is a response to a recent pro-choice column that was highlighted on AnnArbor.com.
In his address today on the 45th annual World Communications Day, Pope Benedict XVI writes: "I would encourage all people of good will who are active in the emerging environment of digital communication to commit themselves to promoting a culture of respect, dialogue and friendship. Those who are active in the production and dissemination of new media content, therefore, should strive to respect the dignity and worth of the human person. If the new technologies are to serve the good of individuals and of society, all users will avoid the sharing of words and images that are degrading of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance, that debase the goodness and intimacy of human sexuality or that exploit the weak and vulnerable."
After reading these words today, I decided to post the following article, which I had originally written to commemorate this year’s “March for Life” and the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This landmark Supreme Court decision legalized the destruction of more than 50 million children.
While each of these lives had dignity and worth in the eyes of God, one of these lives was especially important to me.
Next to my bathroom sink, I have a “rogue’s gallery” of the children of friends and family. Every time I glance at this collage, I remember happy times: recitals and birthday parties and family vacations. My niece trying to swing a baseball bat bigger than she is.
In one corner of the frame, there is an empty space. It represents a little face that never saw the light of day. His mother “chose” his life away. They told her it was the easiest way. A decade later, she is still grieving.
When I first discovered what had happened, I blamed myself. I had been living in another state, completely oblivious. Still, I couldn’t help but feel guilty. If I hadn’t been so far away, maybe I could have given her the kind of support she needed to choose differently. Maybe.
Would it have mattered? We’ll never know. She was young, and caught up in a high school romance. Ignoring the chastity lectures, like many teens, she never guessed how quickly the consequences would catch up with her. In the end she “handled” things herself. "Just a blob of tissue," they said. But every year, she’d see a child who was the same age as the one she lost . . . and wish she’d had the nerve to run when she had the chance. So do I.
Each year at this time, hundreds of thousands of people converge on Washington for the annual "March for Life." More than once I have considered getting on the Ann Arbor bus along with other local residents heading for Washington. But I've never actually done it. The truth is, this particular anniversary evokes feelings in me that I would just as soon process privately.
However, silence only perpetuates the problem. We have to talk about it. Respectfully, yet directly. To remain silent is simply not an option. Too much is at stake.
Fifty million people. That's a lot of wasted lives. If these children had been allowed to live, standing shoulder to shoulder, they would stretch from Los Angeles to Bangor, Maine . . . nearly three times. As a society, how can we ignore this? How can we not miss them, grieve for them? How can we pretend their destruction was someone else's legitimate personal choice, and that it has no affect on the rest of us? How many of these children were future doctors, physicists, artists, teachers... and mothers, eliminating future generations as well? How long can we deny the gift of life, and retain our own humanity?
"No man is an island," wrote John Donne, "entire of itself.
Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. . . .
Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls.
It tolls for thee."
Heidi Hess Saxton is a contributor to the AnnArbor.com "Parenting" channel. She is a graduate student at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, and a married adoptive mother of two children. You can reach her at heidi.hess.saxton@gmail.com.
Comments
Roadman
Mon, Jan 31, 2011 : 1:20 a.m.
I would like to give a hearty thanks to all those locally who have been outspoken bastions of the pro-life movement. These would include the Right-to-Life of Michigan branch at 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive in Ann Arbor as well as the Washtenaw County Republican Party. Individually, Ann Arbor native Ron Weiser, state GOP chairman, gave a poignant speech at the August 2010 Republican State Convention underscoring the Michigan GOP's support for the unborn as examples of the GOP's concern for the defenseless members of our society. Also, Ann Arbor resident Chase Ingersoll, who currently sits on the Washhtenaw County Pepublican Party executive committee, made impassioned statements against abortion in his run for a State House seat against pro-choice Democratic nominee Jeff Irwin. I salute your good work. Cheers!
bedrog
Sat, Jan 29, 2011 : 9:23 p.m.
another voice to say this article is arrant nonsense in an overpopulated world where systemic overbreeding often is accompanied by flagrant religiously sanctioned child abuse ( as in turning kids into hate filled wannabe 'martyrs'in some of the most procreative cultures.) Don't breed, if you cant love and nurture what you produce. and 'roadman' never ceases to amaze ( and not in a good way).
Roadman
Sun, Jan 30, 2011 : 11:23 p.m.
"Don't breed, if you can't love and nurture what you produce." I agree. The way to do this is by abstinence - not killing a fetus.
Rod Johnson
Sat, Jan 29, 2011 : 4:53 a.m.
I'm curious: what's the significance of "The Extraordinary Moms Network Presents ..." over the title?
Heidi Hess Saxton
Mon, Jan 31, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.
My columns have this header because it is the title of my blog -- which is dedicated specifically to parents of adopted, foster, and special-needs children. Thanks for asking!
Jon Saalberg
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
@average joe: I apologize. I was wrong - actually overpopulation is already upon us: Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
Half a Hippie
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
AnnArbor.com, didn't the "Faith" label used to be more prominent? I must confess, I would never have read this column had I noticed it was filed under faith. I avoid abortion discussions based on religion because the arguments, as evidenced by the comments here, are circular, many people just get increasingly irritated with each other, and nothing is accomplished. For those who are arguing against abortion using religious reasons, that isn't going to gain much ground with atheists, or those with differing beliefs. Our secular nation, of which I am proudly part, is going to need secular arguments.
Heidi Hess Saxton
Mon, Jan 31, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
Although I am proudly Catholic, my arguments were based not on theology but on personal experience and statistics (50 million is actually a conservative estimate) that are readily available for anyone who bothers to look. Whether you are Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, or atheist, fifty million lives is a sobering number. You don't have to believe in God to believe human lives are intrinsically valuable and worth protecting -- it is the basis of most civil societies. Thanks for writing!
pseudo
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
As I have skimmed through these comments I find it hard not to comment. I respect Heidi's right to say what she wants. I don't disagree with AnnArbor.com printing it. I disagree almost entirely with her premise and I think her leaps of logic are significant and I agree with those who pointed out that the Catholic Church is, at best, a hypocritical mess (now more than ever)when it comes to its behavior -vs- what it claims to profess. Further, I am thankful to live in a Country that allows her view to be known, even respected, but has refused to allow it to continue as the law of the land. Ann Arbor is a diverse City in a diverse State in a diverse Nation. Her opinion is one, I'm just thankful that we are all protected from that opinion by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Mike Lincoln
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
As I see it, the author is expressing, in an opinion piece, her sincerely held beliefs on this controversial and significant issue. My opinions are not necessarily congruent with hers on this issue. However, I am dismayed that many--although not all-- of the commenters are dismissing her piece out of hand with epithets such as "...one-sided, poorly-reasoned, judgmental and self-indulgent...", "...beyond the pale", etc. I've lived much of my life in Utah, a sort of political inverse of Ann Arbor. In Salt Lake the tone is generally more respectful and accepting of others' inherent differences than what I've seen today in response to this article. In essence, many of the commenters are saying to Ms. Saxton 'I don't have to listen to your opinion because you're stupid and crazy and probably a Papist.' These scurrilous responses are illiberal, juvenile shouting and not at all enlightening or useful. To be helpful instead of merely sophomoric, please say whether and why your emotional, moral, and intellectual opinions or positions on abortion are different than hers.
Heidi
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
Thanks, Mike. I really appreciate your comment.
Daniel White
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.
@roadman, The Papal States were sovereign states controlled by the Vatican. The Vatican sold land in the same way that France did (the Louisiana Purchase) and Russia did (Alaska) or the same way that you in fact would if you sold your home. This does not mean that they are in the "gold hoarding business", it means that they completed a real estate transaction. The Church needs money to run the government of the Vatican and a Church of more than 1 billion. Please remember in order to give money to charity you have to have money. Can you name a church that gives more to worldwide charities than the Catholic Church?
Heidi Hess Saxton
Mon, Jan 31, 2011 : 5:22 p.m.
It's also probably a good thing to note that the primary purpose of the Catholic Church -- for all the good it has done to help people -- is spiritual formation. The Church teaches and protects the treasury of faith, which is passed on to each generations of Catholics so that we might make a difference in the world through daily, lived-out faith. When people tithe (a practice that originated with Judaism, not Catholicism), that money goes to the parish of that individual -- except for the money requested by each bishop for the diocesan service appeal, which goes to support social programs in the diocese. It is the Church's job to be a living witness in the world to the truth. It is OUR job to internalize that truth, then to live it out by looking out for those who are struggling and in need of assistance.
Patti Smith
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 2:36 p.m.
Oh so many George Carlin quotes are floating through my head, but I'm a lady and won't post them here. I'm also really surprised that the author had any free time at all to even write this article. Since she cares about the "children's" lives so much, I'm sure she spends much of her time volunteering with crack babies and unwanted children, right? Cuz she cares about the children? And I'm sure she's anti war and anti death penalty, right? God I want to quote George Carlin so bad right now....
Dog Guy
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
George Carlin knows better now.
Heidi
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
Actually, you are right on all three counts. I'm raising two such children (we adopted in 2005), and am against war (though I support our troops, including my nephew currently being deployed) and anti-death penalty. Thanks for commenting.
Chip Reed
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 12:43 p.m.
Perhaps the question is, when does a fetus become a person? The simplest answer is the moment of conception, but I guess I have a problem calling something so small as to be invisible, a person. We're never going to agree on this point.
seriouslyquestionmark
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 8:51 a.m.
Heidi, if you honestly believe that there is no such thing as an unwanted child, you are not only living on another planet -- you're living in another world! You really need to open your eyes! Annarbor.com is mainly interested in regurgitating the same three topics for articles over and over again just because they know they'll generate a lot of comments. With a topic as controversial as abortion, I just knew before I even read the article that it was going to provoke a lot of comments (just from the title which someone somehow believed was appropriate to put on the main page).I have no idea how this article made it onto the site. If annarbor.com is interested in retaining any integrity as an online new publication whatsoever, they need to stop approving articles such as this on the site unless specifically titled as an "opinion" because, really, that's all this was. *Note: I was not saying that abortion is one of the topics that annarbor.com constantly prints about, just that similar to those three topics (which we read over and over and over again), this article was clearly approved just as a hot topic, comment-generator.
seriouslyquestionmark
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 7:40 p.m.
Also, I finally read the comments to the pro-choice article and couldn't help but laugh. That article had 14 comments as opposed to the 79 on this one. Then again, that's probably only because all of us gosh darn liberals come out of the woodworks to comment and nothing to do with the title of this article being so inviting to responses. I'm sure annarbor.com has statistics on how manypage views each article got and I'm interested in knowing if it is reflective of the number of comments. Was the article with the tabloid-esque headline more successful in drawing viewers? If not, feel free to correct me and/or make fun of me.
seriouslyquestionmark
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 6:27 p.m.
Jen, Excuse me, as a layman I believed "column" & article were synonymous. Upon further research, it turns out a "column" is typically an opinion piece. Although I did fail to see where it was labelled as an opinion, that could entirely be my fault for not realizing that a "column" is indeed an "opinion". My bad on that one. I will say that comparing an article entitled "Can We Talk?" is entirely different than having a loaded title including the words "wasted lives". Based on title alone, "Can we talk?" could have, literally, been about anything. The title of this column was written specifically to draw up a response in people. It seems like the vast majority of commenters agree with me on this one, so I'm just gonna leave it to rest. joe, Are you aware how many thousands of children are in the foster care system that are never adopted? According to one article I found just by googling "how many children in foster care never get adopted?", an estimated 123,000 children are in the foster care system in America and only 45% of them were adopted. So yea, I'd say putting a kid up for adoption doesn't always work out for the best. There are success stories out there, tons of them I'm sure, but that doesn't make the tens of thousands of children without families who time out of the system at 18 sleep any better at night. I know adoptions at birth exist too obviously but I think it's a crying shame to keep bringing children into the world when there are already so many out there who need love. I should note that I'm not saying that a pro-choice article belongs on here any more than the pro-life one. If this website is going to post opinion pieces like this, however, it should be on an even plane. There's no reason that this title had to be so harsh while the other article was so ambiguous. The editor should have caught that and modified it so that the articles could accurately be compar
Rod Johnson
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
Isn't another planet already another world?
average joe
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.
Again, the author never stated that the woman had to keep the baby after birth. There is the adoption option.
Jen Eyer
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
This article is labeled an opinion, with the word "Column" appearing right before the headline. How and why it appeared on the site are outlined in my comment above.
tracyann
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 4:26 a.m.
Hmmm. I thought Ann Arbor was a place accepting of everyone. Apparently not accepting of differing opinions. So she's against abortion. So what? The title of the article says exactly what it's about. Why would you read it, knowing you don't agree, and then blast her for her opinion? And @dfossil show me one sentence in the article where she "promotes hatred". Seriously. I don't see it. And, just for the record, I'm not saying I agree with her but sometimes the hypocrisy in the comments is laughable.
REBBAPRAGADA
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 3:06 a.m.
The new born baby always arrives as a new object which has never existed before and also would not exist again in future. It describes the magic of creation. The egg cell when fertilized moves and implants itself into the maternal tissue as it chooses to live. The choice is made by the newly created entity to seek its own existence. The biological parent does not influence this choice that results in implantation. To remove what has chosen to live is the problem.
Michigan Reader
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 12:45 a.m.
To those who are calling Heidi Saxton hateful, where are you coming from? I see only compassion and love. There are plenty of other people affected the same way. For everybody else--50 million abortions deal a significant blow to the Social Security Administration in the form of NO TAX REVENUE--reduced benefits for boomers, and finally bankrupcy for the agency.
Daniel White
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
Or a small portion of those 50 million could have been entrepreneurs and industrialist and created jobs. Just saying I am pretty sure all of the babies would not have been unemployed
johnnya2
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 1:18 a.m.
Those 50 million people would be added to the ranks of the unemployed since there would be no jobs. Your argument is stupid, so you get a stupid one back.
CONCERNED CITIZEN
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.
Only in Ann Arbor would you get such one sided comments...CCC12 and Henry...you are the only reasonable people that commented. You would get such a different response in almost any other town. Ann Arbor becomes more liberal everyday! Those of us that live or work here could easily get the idea that this is how the world really is....not even close!
John B.
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 9:59 p.m.
Let us all remember that, historically, many of the most abhorrent crimes against humanity have been undertaken in the name of organized religions; in fact, in many, many cases at the behest of the Catholic Church. Quite frankly, I find them irrelevant at best, perhaps dangerous at worst, so in my opinion (at the very least) they aren't to be trusted.
Timothy Grass
Fri, Jan 28, 2011 : 5:55 p.m.
What about the 100 million people that were killed by atheist/communist totalitarian regimes?
a2scio
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.
The end of a pregnancy is difficult no matter what the reason. I still grieve and wonder about the 3 miscarriages I experienced over 20 years ago. Had they not occurred, who might those children have been? Would they have been like or different from the wonderful children I went on to have? People will always wonder "what might have been." I sometimes wonder what might have been had I not married my ex-husband or had made different career choices earlier in my life. That is normal; regrets occur. Some women may regret having terminated a pregnancy regardless of the reason; others will know and accept that their choice was correct for them. I am and have always been "pro-choice" and would have terminated a Down's syndrome or similar pregnancy. I do not force my views on others and expect others to avoid forcing their views on me. Choice is part of freedom and in the US we are all free. Can we leave it there?
Speechless
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.
Bringing this back to Roe v. Wade, I feel that it represents one of the best U.S. Supreme Court decisions ever made. The majority in 1973 correctly understood that fetal development is an evolving, ongoing process from conception to birth. By the late stages of pregnancy, the fetus is nearly a fully-formed person, while it is far from that in the early stages. Morally speaking, voluntary pregnancy termination at two months is not in the same league as carrying out such a procedure at seven or eight months. Although their arbitrary division of pregnancy into trimesters was clumsy, the Court majority in 1973 did the best they could. This only reflects the nature of law, which is often an awkward and inexact tool for reconciling social ethics. The anniversary of Roe v Wade should be a time to celebrate an unusually well-reasoned decision by the federal high court. On the other hand, it's ethically appalling and sad that so many anti-abortion activists resolutely oppose access to birth control and availability of information about it. It's more than time for this society to leave the Middle Ages behind.
Daniel White
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 7:05 p.m.
@Bethie, I am offended by your comment. Does this mean AA.com should not allow you to post it? There is a reason this is an opinion peace. On a side note, why is it you chose not to spell out God?
Rod Johnson
Fri, Jan 28, 2011 : 1:09 a.m.
Daniel, did I suggest somehow that you were attacking her for it? You comment struck me as a little naive, but not mean-spirited.
Daniel White
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 6:35 p.m.
Rod yes i have encountered that before and i simply asked her why she had not. I did not attack her for the way she had wrote it. By saying I was offended, I was attacking her comments hypocrisy not her spelling.
Rod Johnson
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
It's common, especially for Jews, not to spell out the name. Have you really never encountered it before? There are various interpretations, but the one I've head most commonly is that you don't write the name in a place where it might be deleted or erased. It's a matter of humility and respect, not some kind of goofy affectation.
Bethie
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 6:09 p.m.
This article is extremely one sided. She speaks about all the lives lost....What about all the lives saved of the women who were unable, for whatever reason, to take care of a child? Those lives were saved...how can you measure the life of a cell against that of a full grown person? Personally, I believe that these women are still mothers; mothers who made a choice to do what was best at the time. It must be the hardest decision, that is to decide between 1) raising an unwanted child you are unable to care for or do not want, or 2) stopping the development of the child in the first place. I support a woman's right to CHOOSE! Who are you to condemn free choice? It's their body, their choice. As a normally big fan of AnnArbor.com, I am so offended that this article was posted. What we even do with fifty million more children in this country?! We are already unable to properly care for unwanted children now. Poverty is running rampant and we haven't the resources to support our current population, let alone a 50 million increase. Let's take care of the living now. Yes, it is a tragedy to have to make the decision to abort in the first place, but let's not dishonor the women who have made this choice by attempting guilt trip them with...um religion!? For lack of a more eloquent and sophisticated phrase, that is sooooo uncool! Do not bring g-d into this argument. Children are not conceived by g-d, but by people. People who have the right to choose whether or not they can support a child.
KathrynHahn
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 10:28 a.m.
Don't take offense by the other posters. They want all of society to believe in their magic god. I can't imagine 50 million more ppeople in this Country, adding to our already over populated, under-employed, uninsured nation.
average joe
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 1:44 a.m.
The lives of the women that have been saved??- Of all abortions, I would bet that 80+% are not due to the health & safety of the would be mother. These are for the convenience of the woman, and her life was not saved. And an unborn child, is much more than "a cell"; I've never heard anyone call it a cell. Since you refer to the women as "mothers", are you admitting that the "cells" are really live Babies? There is the adoption option too,(#3 option) where the child will be "wanted". And by the way, His name is God.
Daniel White
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 5:24 p.m.
Wow. Pro-life is an extremist view-point? I was not aware that an opinion held by roughly half of all Americans was so extreme. Is everything that readers do not believe in an extremist viewpoint? Lets tone down the rhetoric on both sides of the issue and thoughtfully consider the issue. There are pros and cons to the abortion issue. As a Catholic I think the cons far outweigh the pros. If the problems are are hunger, abuse, and poverty, then can't we look toward a solution short of abortions (which is killing a fetus/child depending on how you view it). On a side note, the Roman Catholic Church donates more to charity then any other religious/civic organization in the world. I would challenge anyone to find all this treasure/jewels that the Church has.
abc
Mon, Jan 31, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
@ Daniel White. Estimating the income stream from the U.S. only, there are 68 million Catholics in America. Household income is about $50,000. The census bureau says the average household size is three, but we will use four instead as to not over estimate. 68 million divided by 4 is 17 million households expected to tithe 10% of their gross income, or $5,000 per year. That is an expected revenue stream of $85 billion from the US alone. But maybe everyone will not tithe 10%. Half still $42.5 billion. Even if you think that is still too high cut it in half again, it is still more than $20 billion AND U.S. Catholics represent only 6.8% of ALL Catholics. Cut it in half again; the numbers are still staggering. Then of course there is the already acquired wealth of the church. In America there are over 20,000 listed parishes. There are also thousands of schools (primary through HS), universities, hospitals, cathedrals, etc. many with their own ways of raising money and /or endowments. What all that worth, I have no idea but more than 30,000 holdings it quite a bit of real estate. Oh and this is just one Catholic country. It is naïve to argue that the Catholic church does not have a huge income stream, does not have vast land holdings around the world, and does not have actual jewels and treasure. The Catholic church asks for 10% on the gross income from 1/7 of ALL humans on earth.
Ricebrnr
Sat, Jan 29, 2011 : 4:09 a.m.
Hmm.. well you asked for it. Ever heard of the Vatican? Nope no valuables there, historic or otherwise... <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html</a> <a href="http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A89576" rel='nofollow'>http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A89576</a>
Daniel White
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
ABC where or what is this wealth you speak of? Do you have some kind of proof? Can you please be specific.
abc
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.
"On a side note, the Roman Catholic Church donates more to charity then any other religious/civic organization in the world." Ask yourself how many of the 1 billion Catholics tithe even 5% (10% is expected) of their yearly salary. Even if you estimate way low the number will be staggering. Then ask your self what does tha church need the money for, they are not buidling roads and bridges. They supposedly use this money to do god's work. I guess that is donating. So no surprise that they are big donators. However the bibile addresses that here Luke 21: 1-4 "I would challenge anyone to find all this treasure/jewels that the Church has." Yes you are right here. The church has found many ways to hide its wealth, which is indeed sad. St Francis got it, but precious few have gotten it since him. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
Roadman
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.
"I would challenge anyone to find all this treasure/jewels that the church has." When the Roman Catholic Church had ownership and soverignty over vast lands surrounding Rome and well into central Italy over a century ago, the Italian government wanted to have the Vatican cede control and title to these lands. The Church and the Italian government cut a deal in which the Vatican would only have sovereignty over the Holy See area inexchange for the Italian government paying over vast amounts of the gold reserves in its treasury to the Church. After this deal was consummated the area known for centuries as the "Papal States" cease to exist. And the Vatican was in the gold hoarding business.
Henry
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.
Talk about intolerance! Read these intolerant and politicly incorrect views from a supposedly enlightened group of Ann Arbor citizens. Do these same citizens approve of the deaths caused by the Baltimore abortionist? To say that abortion does not effect the citizens of the country is totally blindered. If more that 50 million additional citizens were paying Obama taxes and purchasing cars and houses and food, out economy would be would be totally different. Come on folks, Learn to tolerate. Accept real diversity of views. Pull YOUR heads out of the sand. Stop this real child abuse!
Dog Guy
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 5:16 p.m.
If you dislike intolerance and political correctness and smug self-righteousness and hair-trigger defensiveness, what are you doing in Ann Arbor?
fjord
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
In a reply to my earlier comment (to which I cannot reply directly, for some unknown reason), the author states that "[t]here is no such thing as an 'unwanted' child." This delusion comes from a non-existent fantasy world in which there is no child abuse, no neglect, only a twisted Norman Rockwell ideal of what family life could be (but never actually was). It is not reality. Not every unwanted child is lucky enough to be put up for adoption -- most end up abused and ignored. Perhaps there really is a shortage of infants available for adoption, but foster programs are overwhelmed. If anti-abortion advocates truly cared about every child past birth, there would be no need for foster programs. Do not call these people "pro-life." They're "pro-birth." After that, you're on your own.
Heidi
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.
Adoption is always the best choice for parents who believe they are unable to parent. My husband and I are raising two such children, and they are amazing gifts to us!
average joe
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 1:23 a.m.
I don't believe the author stated that one would have to keep the child after birth. Have you heard about this thing called adoption....
Heidi
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 1:17 p.m.
Thanks, Jen. The topic of abortion is one that tends to engender a lot of passion on both sides. As you mentioned, a couple of days ago, "Can We Talk?" made the case for the pro-choice position. The tone of the article – from the title to the final line – appealed for understanding based on dialogue and mutual respect. For the most part, the author got just that. In this article, I made a case for the pro-life side. While many Catholics (regrettably, not all) are indeed pro-life, the pro-life point of view is represented by people of all faiths and of none. In sharing my experience (as the author of "Can We Talk?" did in her letter), I was attempting to illustrate the complexity of the issue. And by pointing out the sheer numbers of lives represented, I had hoped to get people thinking about the broader implications of the abortion issue, how the effects of one woman's "choice" can spiral out to touch the lives of many other people. Today nearly one in five pregnancies end in abortion. Among minorities, the figures are much higher than that. Clearly there are many, many people who have had to make such difficult choices. I do not hate them, any more than I hate the woman in this story. Neither is it my place to judge them; more often than not, these woman punish themselves enough. I simply want to present another perspective in this discussion, in hopes that it might (1) persuade some to avoid making the same mistake, and to choose life and (2) encourage people to think about how other options -- such as adoption -- might be better communicated to women in crisis pregnancies, so they have ALL the information they need to make a truly informed choice. Prior to Roe v. Wade, over 20% of unplanned pregnancies (usually to single women) ended in adoption. Today that figure is less than 2%. This, in and of itself, is something worth changing.
Jen Eyer
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
Responding to those who questioned why AnnArbor.com would run this piece... Over the weekend we ran a pro-choice piece called "Can we talk (about how we talk about abortion)?" <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/community/news/can_we_talk/">http://www.annarbor.com/community/news/can_we_talk/</a>. I promoted that piece on the homepage in my weekly "Community Wall Links" post. AnnArbor.com aims to be a hub for local news, information and viewpoints. Heidi's opinion is one that's shared by a fair number of people in our community. I think it is valuable for people with strong viewpoints to step out of the echo chambers of their own networks, blogs, etc. and share them here on AnnArbor.com, where people with a variety of viewpoints can discuss the issues at hand.
R
Mon, Jan 31, 2011 : 1:59 a.m.
There were some very big differences between the two articles (look at the titles, for goodness sakes!). The first "pro-choice" article was in the form of a letter to Michigan voters. It acknowledged two reasonable sides to the debate. It pled for civility and understanding, while explaining an individual experience and perspective. This one, on the other hand, was a rant more suited to a comment section. As I said in my previous comment, it is judgmental and one-sided. It was not a letter addressed to voters, it was a column (not even labeled opinion) and much of the content was something previously written with the audience of an anti-choice rally, not worthy of reprint in a news publication. I respect different points of view (including anti-choice ones, though I disagree) and I believe they belong on annarbor.com when they are thoughtful and intelligent discussions-- not rants or republished essays for like-minded groups.
Moids
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 5:51 a.m.
How is this article useful to us? It doesn't encourage dialog, it encourages hardening of opposite views, it encourages us to believe that we can only win or loose. The only thing we're left with is anger imprisoned in an assumption of duality; a duality that is defined by the question itself, which reduces the universe to right or wrong. Over the 38 years of this kind of argument, has there been anything to encourage real dialog, or heaven forbid, understanding? Has our culture grown from this kind of polemic? Has this argument enriched our spirituality? It certainly hasn't enriched mine. It's an old, boring, cheap trick that gives the author and editor a false sense of righteous power: if you can get us screaming at each other, you can rationalize that you've given us our necessarily vile tasting medicine. Please don't waste my time with sensationalist morality that sends me scrambling to my precious facts that support my argument and harden my opinions to the point of paralysis. I suggest you take a look at the great English Romantic poet William Blake's "Book of Urizen" and consider its argument for how ridiculously self destructive this kind vitriol is.
Rod Johnson
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.
Lovely post, kudos.
Cash
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 10:47 a.m.
Well said.
Jon Saalberg
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 1:30 a.m.
Even with "normal" population growth of 2%, within another generation or so, our planet will be unable to adequately feed all its inhabitants. As it is, millions are starving all over the world. Yet we still have the specter of the Catholic Church telling its adherents to eschew birth control and overpopulate our world. Very unfortunate.
seriouslyquestionmark
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 10:46 p.m.
Average Joe, just do a quick search of "2050 population food" and tons of articles (both scholarly and non-) come up predicting that we will very possibly not be able to adequately feed our population by then.
average joe
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 1:12 a.m.
In just one generation?? Really? I 'd like to know where you came up with that "falling sky" alert. Did you know that US farmers are producing twice as much food on the same acreage than they did just 18 years ago? World production has risen too.
ccc12
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 1:08 a.m.
I had my baby die 17 weeks into the pregnancy. It was a fully formed little boy that I delivered. Looked just like you and I--but only 6 inches long. It is not a blob of tissue. No matter how much the baby may not be wanted by it's mother or father, that is no excuse to kill him/her!
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 11:14 p.m.
Wrong a six year old can be raised without it's mother. Anyone else willing to do it can. If i gave you a 17 week old fetus to raise...even with all the benefits of modern medicine, how viable is it really? Thought so.
Ricebrnr
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 11:13 p.m.
Wrong a six year old can be raised without it's mother. Anyone else willing to do it can. If i gave you a 17 week old fetus to raise...even with all the benefits of modern medicine, how viable is it really? Thought so.
Daniel White
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
I would make the argument that a 6 year old isn't viable without its mother so your comment really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't make it self defeating.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:19 p.m.
At 17 weekshow can it be defined as "fully formed" if there is no chance of viability without the mother? Condolences on your loss but your argument is self defeating.
Roadman
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
This is a beautifully thoughtful piece. I remember Ann Arbor's own Ron Weiser at a Republican gathering citing the pro-life views held by the Michigan GOP as evidence of his party's concern as the voice for the defenseless unborn. I can say with a great deal of pride that Right-to-Life of Michigan activists have been a moral genuinely committed force toward encouragement of women to follow through with childbirth rather than aborting their fetuses. Tom Monaghan has sponsored a Right-to-Life of Michigan office at his Domino's Farms premises. I believe that abortion activists who have attained elected public office such as Sabra Briere and Rebekah Warren have been misguided in their advocacy for abortion rights. Briere had led the lobby for amending the Ann Arbor City Charter to make ithe city a "reproductive-free zone". Joan Lowenstein, former City Council member, has been a donor to Planned Parenthood.
Roadman
Sun, Jan 30, 2011 : 11:32 p.m.
No grudge. Actually, I generally believe that Briere, Warren, and Lowenstein have been generally decent community leaders as elected officials who I respectfully disagree with on the abortion issue. Joan remains a leader on the DDA.
bedrog
Sun, Jan 30, 2011 : 9:26 p.m.
lordy...so planned partenthood ( children only if they can be loved and cared for) is somehow supposed to bad, by you? and what's this joan lowenstein grudge youve got going ?? oh, right...she wasnt receptive to your hatemonger friends in city council meetings. Sorry, i forgot. you never cease to amaze!!
Soothslayer
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:49 a.m.
Y-ikes... Really, "wasted" lives? No. The world is dangerously overpopulated as it is. What's the benefit to forcing more upon the world that are not wanted when there are hundreds of millions today that continue to be undernourished, with no access to healthcare, or high quality education and have mimimal "parenting" as it is? Ever see one of those puppy mills on TV? Why not just focus on taking the best care of the children already in need of care in the world and promote safe and sustainable family levels. Enough "octomoms" already.
KathrynHahn
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 9:09 a.m.
I agree, picture a line of 50 million people, living in poverty, unemployed, uninsured... I'm sure there would be many adopted into nice homes, but really...who is to decide, but the person living with that decision? Reminds me of the episode of "Hot In Cleveland" when one character is dating a much younger man, then realizes he could be her son that she put up for adoption...shiver~~~~~
fjord
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:42 a.m.
Better a twinge of regret than an unwanted child. It's better for a fetus to be aborted than to grow up unloved, resented ... possibly even abused. The anti-abortion crowd will do everything they can to ensure that you give birth to your child ... but at that point, you're on your own. Many of those same people also push for drastic cuts to the social programs that aid single mothers, and they scream for lower taxes which result in less funding for schools to educate those children. The hypocrisy is stunning.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 11:41 p.m.
Not enough infants...carefully neglecting all the CHILDREN who age out of the system, never having been adopted, because they are no longer infants. Where is the concern, the call to arms for them?
Heidi
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
There is no such thing as an "unwanted" child. Hundreds of couples in the U.S. wait and wait to adopt, but there simply aren't enough infants available for adoption. The choice is not between abortion and parenting alone. Adoption should always be put forward as a legitimate, loving choice. Abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. It is not constructive to villify the pro-life movement in this way. There are many of us who work hard to ensure that pregnant women have the support they need before and after pregnancy. Others of us have done foster care and foster-adoption. Adoption is always the best choice for women who feel they are unable to parent. Not abortion.
Chimay
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:31 a.m.
When this was posted in the parenting section, I commented that we need to face the reality that chastity lectures don't work. Comprehensive sex education is essential to reducing the number of abortions performed; teens need a trustworthy, private resource to go to for information on sex and contraception. When teens do have this resource, pregnancy rates drop dramatically, which has been documented in research around the globe. You say that 15% of women chose to have an abortion because they could not afford/did not have access to birth control (outrageous that anyone in this country doesn't have access to birth control). That wasn't my point. The point is to reduce the number of abortions performed - something I think we can all agree on - which means preventing pregnancy. Sadly, young women and men do not receive accurate information on contraception and the task of figuring it out themselves is too embarrassing, risky and/or overwhelming. That said, it is one thing to rail against abortion. It's another to use this platform to suggest that people on both sides of this issue come together to ensure that young men and women are educated and have the tools they need to engage in safe sex if that is the path they take. Anti-choice rhetoric like this rarely ever offers solutions or suggestions to work together; it's mainly those who support Roe v. Wade that also work the hardest to make comprehensive sex education available to young women and men. Ask yourself if it makes sense that people seek guidance on matters of intimacy from an old, out-of-touch man with no sexual experience who has also overseen the worst sex PR disaster in the history of humankind. Perhaps it is time to consider a more thoughtful, real approach to this issue.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 11:38 p.m.
"But to address your point, the thoughts on the respect for life and the dignity of the human person did not originate with Pope Benedict XVI. It has been part of the Christian point of view for over two thousand years, originating with Christ" Yep respect for life...The Inquisition, the Crusades, The Witch Hunts, Turning a Blind eye to the plight of the Jews, until rcently being against the use of condoms for use agaimst AIDS on and on both by The Church as well as in His name...
John B.
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 10:07 p.m.
Well-said, Chimay! The extremists never want to hear the truth....
Heidi
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
I have already posted my response to the issue of contraception, anticipating your remarks here. The vast majority of abortions are sought out for reasons other than lack of access to contraception. Respectful discussion does not include making fun of others sincerely held religious beliefs or religious leaders. But to address your point, the thoughts on the respect for life and the dignity of the human person did not originate with Pope Benedict XVI. It has been part of the Christian point of view for over two thousand years, originating with Christ. Ironically, as I discovered as I've been researching my thesis, abortion and infanticide were both prevalent in Roman society during the time of Christ, so this problem has been with us for quite some time. Unless we are prepared to acknowledge the link between strong families and healthy children, and the necessity of educating our young people about sexual responsibility (meaning to abstain from sexual activity until they are mature enough to get married and parent a child), these numbers are going to continue to climb. The Pill has been around over 50 years. Instead of preventing unwanted pregnancies, it has simply escalated the rate of abortions and STDs. Studies show that, even with access to condoms, pregnancy among young adults continues at an alarming rate. Sex respect. Educating counselors and medical professionals as well as women in crisis pregnancies about adoption as a life-affirming choice. Educating parents on the necessity of strong family ties and consistent supervision of teens. Teaching self-respect and self-control for both men and women. These are important steps if we want to eliminate abortion.
dotdash
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:16 a.m.
Cash, I don't know who you are, but that was a beautiful post. Think of all the starving children that could be fed if the Vatican sold just one of their Titians.... But they choose not to.
Cash
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.
Thanks dot dash. I liked reading about the mental health issue. Very good information and pretty telling !
dotdash
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:09 a.m.
New England Journal of Medicine just yesterday printed an article about the effect of abortion on mental health of the women involved. Guess what? NO EFFECT. Effect of childbirth, on the other hand, was huge. There was much more contact with mental health professionals after childbirth than after abortion. It is hard to have a child, hard to be a mother, and if some women don't feel ready for that responsibility, they are probably right.
Cash
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.
Maybe that empty space should represent the millions and millions killed in government supported wars . Maybe that empty space should represent the millions dying from hunger as everyone looks the other way. Maybe that empty space should represent the millions dying from poverty as everyone looks the other way. Maybe that empty space should represent the thousands killed given the death penalty in America, some of them innocent. Maybe that empty space should represent the millions killed by earthquakes and tsunamis. Maybe that empty space should represent the thousands dying from cancer. Maybe that empty space should represent the thousands dying from heart disease. The Catholic Church has obsessed on one cause of death and turned their head on all others, especially since the death of JP2. When they sell the jewels and gold and feed the poor I'll start thinking they really care about people and not political control.
Ellen
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 1:40 a.m.
I'm starting to really like you, Cash
Susie Q
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 11:36 p.m.
I agree that it is very unfortunate and terribly sad to remember the young lives lost to abortion. I feel just as concerned and saddened for the thousands of young women who lost their equally important and valuable lives in botched abortions that they desperately sought in the years before Roe vs Wade. I have no desire to return to those dark days. Make birth control and family planning services more readily available to everyone who wants/needs it. No one knows best about what to do when an unplanned pregnancy occurs than the woman who is pregnant. We do not need government involved in this intimate and private decision.
Ricebrnr
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:13 p.m.
ANY church.
David Briegel
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 12:38 a.m.
Or the church !
Rod Johnson
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 11:30 p.m.
Good question! I'm sure that this "abortion" thing is a whole new issue to annarbor.com readers, who have probably never given it much thought before, and I have no doubt your article will change the world, since appeals to sentimentality are always the best way to make decisions about public policy. And I'm sure your family member appreciates the publicity.
Rod Johnson
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.
You are assuming that I'm assuming anything at all. Maybe I just think it's inappropriate to use a deeply personal event to make an ideological point.
average joe
Thu, Jan 27, 2011 : 1:01 a.m.
You are assuming that the author didn't get permission from her family member. Maybe it was the relative that wanted others to know how she felt 10 years later, and maybe it was her idea originally.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 11:23 p.m.
There are many local people that have been at the forefront of the abortion issue on both sides of the equation, including Sabra Briere, Rebekah Warren, Ron Weiser and Tom Monaghan. Even Governor Snyder has enunciated a centrist position within the Republican Party on abortion that has rankled some Right-to-Life activists. Ann Arbor has been at the forefront of the abortion issue and fostered needed dialogue to engender public understanding on this topic.
dfossil
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.
It amazes me when in the name of enlightenment and good will, the Pro-lifers spew their anti- abortion messages! As this lady quotes Pope Benedict "all users will avoid the sharing of words and images that are degrading of human beings, that promote hatred and intolerance," and she goes right ahead and does exactly what was advised against! She then will claim she is only using Free speech when she promotes hatred. This definitely shows where the AnnArbor.com folks stand since she is allowed this rant and is a "community contributor"
Leanne
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 10:27 p.m.
I don't usually comment, but I have to say this "article" is beyond the pale, even for an opinion piece. Inexcusably bad, annarbor.com. Why give this extremist a platform? "How can we pretend their destruction was someone else's legitimate personal choice, and that it has no affect on the rest of us?" Because it was their legitimate personal choice and it really doesn't affect you.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.
Why must one project one's own religion and moral values into other people's very personal decisions that have no bearing what-so-ever on said projectionist's life?
1st Amendment
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 10:38 p.m.
Why must we obscure the killing of an unborn child as a "choice" rather than calling it what it truly is?
R
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 10:17 p.m.
This article does not belong on annarbor.com. It is one-sided, poorly-reasoned, judgmental and self-indulgent.
Heidi
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.
When this was posted under the "parenting" channel someone wrote to comment that the solution to the pro-life/pro-choice debate is simply making contraception more widely available. This is a point that should be addressed because the two issues are frequently linked. According to one article I recently came across, the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's research arm) surveyed 10,000 women who had had abortions. Only 15% of these woman report that they did not use contraceptives due to finances or lack of availability. Therefore, the vast majority of these pregnancies would not have been prevented simply by making contraception more widely available. Farther down in the same article (link below), we read: "May 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the famous birth-control Pill, as Melinda Beck reminds us in her essay "The Birth Control Riddle" in the April 20 issue of the Wall Street Journal.[3] At the end of her piece Beck describes the latest developments in contraceptive technology ... [in which] Beck has to admit that although there are today more options than ever before, "some three million U.S. women have an unplanned pregnancy every year." In fact, she has to say: "Almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S.--some 3.1million a year--are unintended, according to the most recent government survey, from 2001. One out of every two American women aged 15 to 44 has at least one unplanned pregnancy in her lifetime. Among unmarried women in their 20s, seven out of 10 pregnancies are unplanned." The full article is here: <a href="http://culture-of-life.org/content/view/638/1/" rel='nofollow'>http://culture-of-life.org/content/view/638/1/</a>