In the Shadow of Mother's Day
| Sat May. 10, 2008 6:52 PM PDT
Below is a guest blog entry in honor of Mother's Day by obstetrician-gynecologist Nancy Stanwood:
I am fortunate to have met many wonderful mothers. These women understand what it means to raise a child well. They make daily sacrifices to keep their children physically and emotionally healthy and happy. As a new mother myself, I find their commitment inspiring.
What I know about these mothers, though, won't be celebrated on Mother's Day. They came to me to have abortions.
I am an obstetrician-gynecologist, and in my 13 years of delivering babies and providing abortions, I have ended pregnancies for many women with children at home. These mothers account for the majority of U.S. abortions. Six out of every ten women who have abortions in this country each year already have at least one child.
In my experience, these mothers have abortions to meet their responsibilities for their children at home.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
They provide for their families in every way, giving love, time, money, energy, and nurturing. These mothers tell me that if they had another baby, they would not be able to care fully for each child. They know what it takes to be a good mother, and they know when they are not ready for a new baby.
Take my patient Catherine. She came to me for an abortion because her three-year-old son had cancer. His care was consuming her. She knew that she wouldn't be able to attend to him and mother a new baby. Another patient, Dawn, already had a son when she became pregnant. She was also taking care of her mother, who was elderly and unwell. With her resources as a caregiver at the limit, Dawn chose to have abortion rather than short-change her mother and son.
In another case I handled, Louis and Mikela had two children with developmental disabilities due to the genetic syndrome Fragile X. They were managing the demands involved in parenting children with the syndrome, but then Mikela became pregnant again. Genetic tests showed that the baby would have Fragile X, too. Mikela and Louis wanted to give their children what they needed. They could support two children with special needs, but not three. Mikela had an abortion.
Catherine, Dawn, and Mikela had abortions because they knew what it takes to be a good mother. Like the other mothers for whom I have performed abortions, they refused to put their kids at risk of not getting enough food, attention, affection, or any of the other necessities for becoming a healthy, productive adult.
I became a mother seven months ago. By giving birth, I feel I made a solemn promise. I will be responsible for the physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being of this beautiful little creature for the next 18 years and beyond. I will put her needs first, I will always think about her welfare, I will make sacrifices for her.
This is the promise we celebrate on Mother's Day. Many women keep this promise by having abortions.
Unless the law gets in their way. I practice in a state where the government trusts women to do what is best for their families without question. But in many states, mandatory waiting periods and other requirements make it difficult and sometimes impossible for women to end the pregnancies they are not ready for. Such restrictions are an insult to these mothers.
The Catherines, Dawns, and Mikelas of this country deserve better—on Mother's Day and every day. They must be allowed to put their children first, whether they are mothers in my state or any other.
To defend the rights of mothers nationwide, 129 members of Congress have sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act. This bill recognizes that every woman has the right to decide if and when to have a baby, to determine whether she is ready to promise a child love and care. I support this legislation as a doctor, a citizen, and a mother.—Nancy Stanwood, MD, MPH
Comments
What about the responsibility towards the unborn child? Why is it that they shouldn't count, and their lives be equally valuable? It sounds as if a pregnant woman is not already the mother of an unborn child. That's not true. She is. Killing one's unborn child is not responsible parenting.
The mothers should have been given the support they needed to care for all the children. We need to love all children, born and unborn.
I agree with Suzanne. There are lots of people who want children and would love and care for their healthy babies; the one that was certain to be Fragile X would be up to the doctor to abort. If a responsible doctor through testing deems the baby to be a danger to itself by being born, then an early abortion should be done.
Although appearance can be deceiving, there have been healthy babies born when it appeared no healthy baby could possibly be.
My opinion is that all mothers who are real mothers can not in any way kill or have someone else kill their children, born or unborn.
If a mother wants to be a real mother, she must allow her child to live, and after the child is born, if she still chooses, then put the child up for adoption. A good mother just may find a way to keep the child if she will allow the child to be born. One can do all things through Christ who not only strengthens you, but provides a way when there seems to be no way.
I think that if people, men and women, who want sex without responsibility, would learn to use birth control there would be a whole lot less unwanted children and abortions.
I do not believe the government should be making abortion decisions for people, as people are responsible to God for their own decisions and behavior, NOT the government. Government should not be involved one way or the other. Situations such as these should be handled through doctors, not abortion clinics. I do not feel there should be abortion clinics, because the fact that there are abortion clinics makes young people think they can avoid responsibility for their actions.
People no longer value life, but 4 footed animals value life. I saw on the news today that a dog adopted 3-4 helpless newborn cats because they were helpless and couldn't take care of themselves, but she could, and did. The dog could have ate the cats, but she didn't, like a good mother, she allowed them to live and be all that they can be. I feel any child that is in a womb should be allowed the same, unless for medical reasons it is not in the best interest of the child or the mother.
I think whole heartedly that any out of wedlock abortion decision is the mother's and the father's decision with the assistance of the mother's doctor. No father should be discarded as if fathers do not matter. It takes two, and two should be making the responsible decision. The one that should not be involved is the government.
"unborn child" is a euphemism for non-existent child. If a mother balances non-existent children with real ones, it is dubious to claim that the child that does not exist is equally valuable as those that do.
"Unborn Children" are not children, any more than wished for miracles are miracles.
John:
It seems like I recall the Scott Peterson trial and Scott was prosecuted for killing two people. Also, when a valuable race horse is pregnant and someone kills the race horse, that someone is responsible for killing two valuable horses. In both of these cases there are two separate existent individuals of value. It is too bad that you feel the way you do, because the child unborn is just as valuable as the one born, unless one can prove there is some medical problem that would seriously make the child of no value to him/herself. Human life is valuable, but is being devalued.
For God's sake, if you "can't" have more kids because of your life circumstances, get your tubes tied. Take the Pill. Use protection. Or DON'T HAVE SEX (hey, what a concept!) If you find yourself pregnant (gee, how did that happen?) don't go the easy way and kill it. Put him/her up for adoption.
They're asking for sympathy, but I'm not buying it. Pregnancy is a major hassle -- I've been through it twice -- but then it's over and the child can be placed in a loving home. They just didn't want the hassle. Based on the facts in the story, sounds selfish to me. Nothing to celebrate on "Mother's Day."
Submitted by JP (not verified) on Mon May. 12, 2008 8:35 AM PDT.
Alice:
1) Good luck shutting down people's natural drive to have sex.
2) You can still get pregnant when using the pill/condoms/etc.
3) Particularly if you are under 30, it is difficult to find a doctor who will tie your tubes. I linked to a site in my name that gives more information on that.
Without knowing their age, whether or not they were using protection, etc. you are jumping to conclusions about their use and access to preventative methods.
You're also assuming that if a child is put up for adoption they can be "placed in a loving home." There is no guarantee of being adopted nor being adopted into a happy home. Those who are not adopted (who in particular are children that might be viewed as "special needs") are placed in foster care. We as a society have taken very poor care of the foster care system and children in foster care, which is why, among other things, people who have been in foster care are at huge risk for becoming homeless once they are dropped from the system (google "foster care+aging out" or look up "aging out" on Wikipedia).
Putting a child up for adoption does not guarantee a child a happy or loved life. Anyone who is pregnant and considering this as an option must take into account that the child may be adopted into a great home, but they may also live a very lonely and stigmatized life where they have been raised in an institution and don't know what a home looks like. The decision to put a child up for adoption should be made no more lightly than the decision to have an abortion.
I love how all the pro-life folks are interested in saving the mass of cells in a woman's uterus, but they aren't lining up to help take care of the babies born to women who can't take care of them when they are born. As a woman, and as a mother, I can't imagine having to make the choice to abort my unborn child. At the same time, I have known some very good women who had abortions, and it wasn't an easy decision for them to make. Sure there was regret, but not one of them looked back and thought they had made the wrong decision. They just knew they made the hard decision.
You don't like abortion, don't have one. But keep your personal morality away from the rest of us.
Amen, Kristina!
I think MarthaA makes a ridiculous statement when she says that no 'real' mother could choose abortion. A very good friend of mine with three well-adjusted, adult children who grew up loved and cared for, had to make the choice a number of years ago to abort one unwanted pregnancy. Her circumstances were such that in a failing marriage with an abusive husband, she had been on the verge of gaining the courage to leave the marriage when the pregnancy occurred. Knowing that the pregnancy would be used by her husband as an emotional means of manipulating her into staying [to be beaten up and treated like a dog] and that she would not be able to take good care of her children financially even without a pregnancy taking her out of the work force for a while and adding medical and other expenses, she made exactly the kind of judgment call the article is talking about: for the greater good of the family there was a sacrifice. She is a warm, loving and nurturing woman. MarthaA's comments and attitude are indicative of a brand of self-righteousness people use to dehumanize women who choose abortion so that they won't have to feel bad about wishing away the freedoms of another person.
Stop with the what about the unborn child argument - the mother is a participating member of society - she has forged relationships, developed a whole personality and PAID TAXES for years. Her rights should automatically come first.
