A justice for women!

[shnen]

http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18704

[Yvonne Belisle]

:D

[MidnightSun]

hmm...dunno how to feel about this one. I am pro-choice with exceptions..lol.

I only think abortion should be allowed in the cases of rape or incest. I am completely against late-term abortions and aborting a child cuz u "oopsed".

I also don't like the idea of the guy having no say what so ever *shrugs*
Dunno...maybe I am a stupid teenager :)

I wouldn't exactly consider that a victory but thats just my opinion.

[Yvonne Belisle]

The down side to a man having his say is that with appeals it could be dragged out to where it would no longer be safe for the woman to do.

[Myst]

Well except in the case of her life being endangered (at which point I don't think the guy could've even taken it to court or it would've been thrown out immediately), she could put the child up for adoption.

[Yvonne Belisle]

In the US even if her life was threatened it could go to court because there is always an expert willing to say what you want them to say. Thus while she may have a doctor that says it is life threatening for her to carry a second doctor could be brought in to say why it isn't. We have a messed up legal system sometimes.

[Myst]

True. Tho in this case we know it wasn't life threatening. Do you think if this had gone the other way it'd set a legal precedent that could cause a woman to die in pregnancy? Or do you think that if that were a possibility whatever was decided here wouldn't have so much of a bearing?

I'd be interested to see what Semele and Freyja have to say about it :)

[Faery-Wings]

I may be off base, but I still feel that it is the woman's body and the woman's right. I would hope that women, in general, would consider the feelings of the father. I know, however, that is not always the case. But it makes me nervous that the man could potentially have equal say. What happens in the case of an abusive husband? Or one who belives the woman should be barefoot and pregnant? Or if he has religious objections?

I also think it would be a difficult case to expect the mother to give the child up to the father if he wants it after the birth. That is one of the biggest downside of surrogacy. It doesn't always end up the way you want it to.

Tough call tho.

Just my 2 cents. :)

[Phoenix_Blue]

Quoth chryssi1:
I may be off base, but I still feel that it is the woman's body and the woman's right. I would hope that women, in general, would consider the feelings of the father. I know, however, that is not always the case. But it makes me nervous that the man could potentially have equal say. What happens in the case of an abusive husband? Or one who belives the woman should be barefoot and pregnant? Or if he has religious objections?

I also think it would be a difficult case to expect the mother to give the child up to the father if he wants it after the birth. That is one of the biggest downside of surrogacy. It doesn't always end up the way you want it to.

Tough call tho.

Just my 2 cents. :)
**Shakes head** No, I don't think you're off-base. But there's a flaw in the reasoning nonetheless, from my own perspective anyway.

What happens when couples who already have a child break up? They don't kill the children. So why treat an unborn child any differently? :confused: That's what I have trouble understanding.

[Danustouch]

Phx Blue, To me, that is a flawed argument. Obviosly, couples who have children together, and then break up, have had time to bond with the children, to hold them in their arms, see them through illnesses, first words, first steps, first day of school, etc. For many women, as much as it is a natural instinct to bond with their children, this bonding may not happen until AFTER the child is born. Especially if the child was conceived under less than ideal circumstances, or if the mothers life is in turmoil at the time of conception. We can't assume that every mother OR every father, bonds with a child at the moment of conception. Nor can we even assume that this happened in THIS case. As you mentioned in political pagan, for all we know, this fellow is using it as a way to get back at his ex. In which case, it's not so much that he's bonded with the "baby" but that he's using it as a pawn to inflict emotional pain, and difficulty in the womans life, or to ensure that he still has "Some" bond with the mother.

As much as the Pro Life camp would argue with this fact, many people STILL debate whether or not life truly begins at conception. That a SOUL forms at the moment of conception, and whether or not the DNA present in an embryo truly does form "personality" as much as environmental influence as the child is born and grows (Nature vs. Nurture). So for many of us who are Pro Choice, the argument of Aborting a Fetus being the same as killing ones' three year old child is absolutely rediculous. To us, it is NOT the same thing at all. If you see it differently, than that is your opinion, but you have to realize that equating abortion with murdering your two, three, four year old child, is nothing near the same thing, nor with the same motive, or anything else.

[Myst]

Whether someone loves or has bonded with a 3 year old or not certainly doesn't give them the right to end his/her life, so why should it be different for an unborn baby? Is a life of value only if it's mother wants it?

My children had souls and names; I felt them inside me as new lives, people who were part of me and who should've been safe inside my body. Losing them has been harder then losing any "born" person I have ever known. To me their lives were just as valuable as any child of any age, and certainly more so then my own, despite the fact that they may be thought of by others as "balls of cells". To me, getting rid of an unborn baby is exactly the same thing as killing a born child, because whether some other women sensed it or not, I know I had a child inside me, not just a "ball of cells". You can't convince me that the loss of my girls was any less significant then the loss of any life.

Further, as much as we might say the ex only wanted to keep the baby to get back at the woman, the woman made it clear she chose to have an abortion after they fought - so isn't it as likely she chose to abort to tick him off? It seems to me too likely that either way the choice of keeping this child or not was too wound up in ego's and hurt feelings.

I agree Phoenix, certainly there should be a better answer. It just doesn't make sense; we're left scratching our heads and at a loss. But that is so often the way with life.

[Danustouch]

For many women, as much as it is a natural instinct to bond with their children, this bonding may not happen until AFTER the child is born. Especially if the child was conceived under less than ideal circumstances, or if the mothers life is in turmoil at the time of conception. We can't assume that every mother OR every father, bonds with a child at the moment of conception. Nor can we even assume that this happened in THIS case.

Again, YOU bonded with your baby while you were pregnant. This does not happen in ALL cases. Many women, as I said, in differen't circumstances, may NOT bond with a child while it is invitro. Heck, many women even have difficulty bonding AFTER birth, such as in cases of extreme depression, etc. I would never imply that the loss of your girls was any less significant than the loss of a fully grown life. It is just as significant, to you, because of your attitude toward the pregnancy (i.e wanting children very badly, being in the right 'position' and 'mindset' etc). But this is not so for every woman who finds themselves pregnant. So my point is, for those women who DONT have that bond, at conception, the idea of it being a "life" with a "Soul" within them, and thus coming with all the responsibilities to preserve that life, does not take root.

[Myst]

Originally posted by Danustouch
If you see it differently, than that is your opinion, but you have to realize that equating abortion with murdering your two, three, four year old child, is nothing near the same thing, nor with the same motive, or anything else.

Originally posted by Myst
Whether someone loves or has bonded with a 3 year old or not certainly doesn't give them the right to end his/her life, so why should it be different for an unborn baby? Is a life of value only if it's mother wants it?

And again, my point being, I don't give a shit if another woman bonded with her child or not I don't consider bonding with someone a prerequisite for their life being worth something, and thus I and I suspect Phoenix, feeling that way, feel that abortion is the same as murdering a child of any age. I'm just explaining why I think "equating abortion with murdering your two, three, four year old child" is logical from my standpoint.

[Danustouch]

Yep...well...the day that they walk a mile in MY shoes, is the day when anyone has the right to call me a murderer for choosing to terminate a pregnancy.

[Yvonne Belisle]

You know some of us have had to have abortions for medical reasons and the choice made was not easy at all. I was bonded with my son but I had to make a hard choice and I did it and that choice will be with me always. However I know that for me it was the right choice. Everyday we are faced with choices some are easy and everyone agrees on them some are not. Since we do not have a collective mind allowing us to know exactly what each other is feeling and thinking then making judgement calls on them is just plain wrong. Can any of us honestly say we know what was going on in either persons head at the time? No we can not. Also for the selfrightous just so you know that in the united states when a woman misscarries it is called a spontanious abortion. So the word has more than one meaning. There are those out there that would make the assinine comment to a woman who had just misscarried to just get over it. I know of at least one woman who has been hurt by this attitude and I know she is not the only one. It is a painful choice to abort just as it is painful to go threw a misscarriage. As a woman who has been threw both I know that but I had a set of choices and I weighed them and chose what was best for my family. Lets not bash the choices someone else has to make unless we can get inside thier head and see exactly what was going on.

[Myst]

I'm not going to tell people it's ok because I don't think it is. No justification is going to change that.

Since we all have our own brains we are entitled to our own opinions and judgments. *shrugs*

[Yvonne Belisle]

I don't care if you state your opinion about it but if you wish to call me a murderer then Have a bit more respect while you do it, after all you weren't there you have no clue what my choices were just as we don't know on this couple that started this debate.

[Myst]

If you see "Yvonne you're a murderer" in there let me know.

I didn't accuse anyone of anything. Keep in mind folks, someone having a different opinion doesn't equate to them bashing you.

[Sequoia]

Allright. I know I'm not a mod of this forum.

but stop it. Right now. This is getting JUST a bit too heated. Myst, Yvonne, you both disagree, but I really think this is getting out of hand. Let's both take a deep breath, step back, and come back later.

[Yvonne Belisle]

Good idea Puma.

[mol]

Folks, if you cant argue your point and disagree then Im going to close this thread down.

[Semele]

Yeah, this is one of the most emotional, heated topics I think any group of folks can talk about. I usually try to avoid the topic all together because everyone really has their own deep, personal reasons behind the views and beliefs they hold regarding the issue and a lot of times I see only anger and pain come from such discussions.

Personal feelings about pro-life/pro-choice aside, I see this as not a victory but the exact opposite. Now, yes I do agree that it is the woman's body and she will have to carry the child and go through labor etc. Often times she will be left alone to carry the burden of raising a child alone or the heart breaking decision of giving the child up for adoption. Danus you argue that some women don't bond with the child in utero or even after birth, which, tragically is true and there are so many children born everyday in attempts to hold onto the fathers etc, and they suffer because of the lack of bond. Myst argues that all women aren't like that...some bond instantly upon hearing the news of pregnancy and even before and I believe those bonds last a lifetime. You both have very valid points that appear to come from deep personal feelings that you have experienced and you carry that experiecne with you always. You are both right.

I would take this argument one step further though and ask, what of the fathers who bond just as easily with the unborn child as the mother has or even more so? I am at the point in my pregnancy now where everyone, especially Mol and Trey talk to my tummy more than me. They are very bonded with this baby. Sure there are a lot of men who will not share this enthusiasm and may even insist that the woman get an abortion. I don't think they are right, but I almost border on the line of thinking that they have the same right to explore that option for their unborn child as a mother does...not entirely...well that is another discussion. My point is men can be very elated and excited and in love with their child before they hold it in their arms. Do they not have the right to fight for the life of that child? We damn sure expect them to PAY for the child and protect them once they are born, yet we can point fingers at them and call them names and accuse them of using the child as a pawn when they try to protect the child before it is born??

To me, it just seems kind of hypocritical to badmouth deadbeat Dad's and say they have no right to this decision since it isn't their body and then get annoyed with them for making a stand? Maybe this particular guy was using the child as a pawn, but seriously I think women have been doing it for years, not just with children but with sex etc. Whether we want to admit it or not women hold the greater bargaining power in winning sympathy from judges etc. We get more in divorce settlements and child support and alimony etc. The father's are often unfairly slammed with high payments and little or no visitation privileges. I know there are many many "bad" dads out there that set these wheels in motion, but for the ones trying to do the right thing...we slap them in the face?? I hope my son never has to stand by and watch helplessly as his girlfriend has an abortion because SHE made the CHOICE not to bring the baby into the world. I hope the women who make these tough decisions can heal, because I have no doubt that it is hard, but even more I hope the fathers with no CHOICE can heal.

These are my thoughts...not directed at anyone or any case in particular, just random ideas. Not all situations are the same. Some women have abortions because it is the only choice they see and they know they make the right choice and I support them. Some say they would/could never do such a thing and I support them as well. Many, maybe even most men who have had their children aborted didn't know or care, but I know there are some who have never gotten over the pain. It is a very scary thing to watch your child hurt and know there is nothing you can do...I equate this with that line of thinking. I hope I haven't offended anyone, I certainly didn't intend to.

[*~*Chary*~*]

i don't think i could have put it any better than that, thanks semele

[Sequoia]

Semele - I agree with a lot of what you've said.

**

For me, personally. . . I don't think that, short of a life-or-death medical reason, I could have an abortion. I really don't think I could. . . To me, that life is very precious, and a gift, and. . . unless I absolutely, positively knew there would be no way I could give that child a good life. . . I don't think I could give up that chance.

That is NOT to say that a woman who's had an abortion was horrible in any way, shape, or form. She knows her life a lot better than me. She knows what she's capable of supporting, if her child would be sentanced to a hell if s/he was born, if it would kill her to birth the child or perhaps if the child would be born horribly deformed and sickly. I don't know if I could do that to a child, either. Now, don't get on me about oh the gods made the child that way so take the child. I know all about that. My cousin julie is in her late twenties. She will ever remain a giant toddler. Now, I don't know what goes on in her mind. For all I know, she's as happy or sad as any six month old is. But also, she could be in a LOT of pain, and could be VERY intelligent, and being tortured by that. It wasn't my choice, and she wasn't my child. They didn't even know until she was born. But cercomstances like this happen, and you really have to ask yourself this - if you knew without a doubt that your child would go through countless surgeries and proceedures, always be in pain, and perhaps even be trapped in their own body, would you really know how to react? Would you honestly know whether to give birth or give that child up?

Because for me, personally. . . I have this belief. I belive that. . . even if one loses their child. . .to miscarrage, to abortion, to stillbirth, to just death as a child in GENERAL. . . . I belive that that mother can have that child again. That if it's meant to be, there is no reason she won't become pregnant again, and that soul will be born into that body. I think that's the truth, to me. I have to belive that. . .

*shakes her head*

At any rate, I don't think people who have abortions are murderers. They made their choice. And yes, there are some sadistic, horrible bitches who use abortion as a control technique or *shudders* even as birth control. But I think that, for the majority, it is as painful (if not moreso, in some cases) than a miscarrage. I mean. . . think about it. . . maybe this woman has been trying for years and years with her husband to have a child. And they finally get pregnant. And then she finds out that she will almost certainly die if she carries to term. Or maybe they find out that the child is so horribly disabled he or she won't ever live a good quality of life. Or that the child will die within months of being born, slowly and painfully. Or a hundred other reasons. Or suppose a teenage girl made a mistake. Or was raped. She's sitting there, fifteen or sixteen, not even out of high school. . . and she's pregnant. Doesn't even know who by. Even just carrying the child would mean losing that year of school, maybe even ruining her life. It woudl certainly change it. And would she be able to give the child up for adoption? How could she just go on with life afterwords?

Yet how could she give up this baby, this child, her special little one inside her? Either woman? Any woman?

Whether it's by choice or not, it hurts them. I seriously doubt even the most callous, heartless b*tch could have an abortion for the h*ll of it without a second thought. Even she must have nightmares.

I think life is there from the very beginning. I could never, myself, have an abortion. I really dont' think I could do it. Unless it was one of those "you'd BOTH die, not just you the mother, but you AND the baby" kind of things. . . I don't think I could.

But that doesn't give me the right to call women who had to, 'murderer'. And it doesn't give me the right to tell some other women she doesn't have the choice. Because it is up to her. And she will make the decision that is right for her. Who am I to say what her path is? What her desicion should be?

well. . . that's my two cents. I might toss another penny in the well later, though.

[Flar's Freyja]

Unfortunately, in my profession I've seen many adopted children abused or given back along with thousands of abused and neglected children whose parents are incapable of caring for them. There are over 1400 children in Oklahoma alone right now awaiting adoptive homes. 75 percent will probably never find one.

I also see people daily who fight about issues like this for the pure sake of argument and control and end up walking away and abandoning the child once they win.

I empathize with those who have lost children and I know that this is a sensitive issue. There are many sides to this argument and I'd have to form my opinion based on the individual case.

[Semele]

Originally posted by Puma Hime
And then she finds out that she will almost certainly die if she carries to term. Or maybe they find out that the child is so horribly disabled he or she won't ever live a good quality of life. Or that the child will die within months of being born, slowly and painfully.

Even though this strays somewhat from the original topic, I wanted to comment on this statement. I am assuming the one giving the information here would be a doctor...well, they can and do make mistakes- often. It would have to be a hell of a lot more than a doctor making guesses to alter my decision much at all.

Also, where do we draw the line on deciding the quality of life a child could lead? Do we start aborting for Diabetes or perhaps Cystic Fibrosis? I venture a guess that Freyja's life would be very different today if a certain someone's parents decided that a life with CF would be too hard for their children.

[Yvonne Belisle]

It is a no win situation because there are no perfect answers. Sometimes we are in a position that we know there is no win and we have no choice. Also remember too that when low income people give birth to kids in severe medical straits that if they put them up for adoption they don't get adopted as often as we would like. It isn't a perfect world and there are no perfect answers in a perfect world the question of an unwanted pregnancy or children that won't have a good quality of life wouldn't even be there. All children would be wanted and healthy and there would be plenty for everyone to take care of all of thier needs. We don't live in that world thus we will have problems with questions like this. I don't think there is a right or a wrong persay I do think it is wrong to use abortion as a form of birthcontrol but I don't think any of us have the right to look down on those that have had them since we can't know all of what was going on that made them make that choice.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Semele


Even though this strays somewhat from the original topic, I wanted to comment on this statement. I am assuming the one giving the information here would be a doctor...well, they can and do make mistakes- often. It would have to be a hell of a lot more than a doctor making guesses to alter my decision much at all.

Also, where do we draw the line on deciding the quality of life a child could lead? Do we start aborting for Diabetes or perhaps Cystic Fibrosis? I venture a guess that Freyja's life would be very different today if a certain someone's parents decided that a life with CF would be too hard for their children.

What I meant was more in the realm of the theoretical - because I know there are many, many special cases. I was more giving an exaple than an ultimatum ruling. And I'm quite aware doctors can make mistakes - if my mother hadn't second-guessed her doctor, I either would have been born with a severly deformed heart, or not at all. The idiot was trying to give her a painkiller in umm I think the third trimester. . . well, sometime important. She was in the hospital for her back. And they were like "here you go" and she said "wait, can you check with the doctor again to make sure it's safe?" and the doctor couldn't belive he'd given it to her, because if she'd taken it, it would have seriously f*cked up my heart.

And that's a very good point you bring up. Where do we draw the line? is there a line? Or, again, would it be more up to the parents? I know that that, too, is a very sensitive and close-to-home subject for a lot of people here. I did not mean what I said in any sort of callous manner. It was more as an example. . . I have not been in that situation. I don't know what I would do. Who is to really say what the outcome of anything is? Yes, miracles happen every day. . . wishing on a star does not always bring about the things you wished for, though. It can go both ways. I'm not advocating aborting children if they have a disease that can be controlled or healed, even if it is scary and dangerous. But I'm saying that I have no right to tell a family they don't have that option. I mean. . . there's this family around here. I don't know them. But I see them around town every once in a while. And they have a child, who cannot breathe on (his?) own, doesn't seem to see or hear or react. . . yet they take this child everywhere. Everywhere. Tubes and tanks and IVs and everything. And. . . that they have such devotion to their child is admirable. But I really do wonder about the poor child's life. What is he or she thinking? IS he or she even aware? Has it more become not the idea of keeping the child alive for the child's sake, but keeping the child alive for the parents' sake?

It's a very, very sensitive issue. I meant no insults or harm by mentioning it, and I apologize if I've hurt any feelings. That wasn't my intent. There are always exceptions to the 'rules' in this world. . . I suppose sometimes, when you get down to it, it might be about what's mean to be. Fate if you will. I honestly can't tell you why two children with the same diagnosis would end up completly different. Can you tell me? I think it's one of those mysteries. But. . . . hooray for those who survived and thrived. . . what am I to say to those who didn't?

[Flar's Freyja]

Originally posted by Semele


Even though this strays somewhat from the original topic, I wanted to comment on this statement. I am assuming the one giving the information here would be a doctor...well, they can and do make mistakes- often. It would have to be a hell of a lot more than a doctor making guesses to alter my decision much at all.

Also, where do we draw the line on deciding the quality of life a child could lead? Do we start aborting for Diabetes or perhaps Cystic Fibrosis? I venture a guess that Freyja's life would be very different today if a certain someone's parents decided that a life with CF would be too hard for their children.

...Or themselves. I have a relative with Downs' syndrome that wasn't picked up on an amnio, and she is also a blessing.

I'd still have to say that I'd have to know everything about a specific case before I had an opinion. I believe that you are talking about the personal decisions that you would make. I've also worked with some moms who would not be able to take care of a disabled child but could also not deal emotionally with carrying the baby to term and have the strength to give it up.

Where do we draw the line for any of these issues?

[Danustouch]

That was a point I was going to make, too, (made a post, and computer booted me before I could submit). There are also situations where a mother is not emotionally stable, and the hormones during pregnancy, changing as rapidly as they do, could put her into a tailspin of depression. And then there's post partum, and if she DID give the baby up for adoption, severe emotional issues, there, too, that must be taken into account in individual circumstances. Women in SOME circumstances may just not be able to handle all of the emotional issues which come to head in a pregnancy, and after. That is a redflag in my opinion. If a woman is already mentally, or emotionally unbalanced, and becomes pregnant, it isn't fair to say that she WOULDNT be at an increased risk for severe depression, or should be "able to handle it". Every woman is differen't. Every womans LIFE is differen't. Every womans' choice must be differen't too. Where do we draw the line? It is up to the individual making the decision in my opinion.

For instance, what if a woman is severely addicted to drugs at the time of conception. The baby could either be formed severely deformed, or severely addicted to drugs AT BIRTH. Life long physical, mental, or emotional problems may be the legacy that this mother passes on to her child. So should we force her to keep this child, knowing that when the child is born, it is already put at a major disadvantage, and may go through horrible pain, and problems during their lives? Some may say yes, that we are all born with our crosses to bear in life. But the simple fact is, if a woman chooses to have an abortion because of a situation like this, or a situation where there is real emotional imbalance, or a life threaghtening situation, or a possible handicap for the child, how can we equate her with a murderer? She is making a decision at the time, which she feels she must make to be fair to herself, or fair to the fetus.

Some may argue, that a woman in one of these decisions simply shouldn't be having sex. Well, if a woman has severe emotional problems, or a drug addiction, or mental issues, do you really think they are at a point in their lives, where they can necessarily have the presence of mind to properly evaluate their situation and say "maybe I shouldn't have sex" ?

Condoms do fail. The pill does fail. Not every woman who has an abortion, is one who failed to try to take precautions before getting pregnant. Not every woman who has an abortion, does so with willfull disregard for human life. I'd hazard to guess that MANY people having an abortion (not all, admittedly, and sadly) do try to put as much thought into the option as possible, and when they do make the choice, it is done with all possible factors taken into account, and she is simply doing, what she feels is the best, and the right thing to do for her particular circumstance.

As for children born with severe handicaps. If a woman DOES give birth to a severely handicapped child, but due to her own mental/emotional or whatever other issues, cannot personally raise that child, the alternative is putting it up for adoption. Does anyone have statistics on how many children with downs syndrome, or born without lower limbs, or born with some other serious physical problem are actually adopted each year?

Handicapped children take an enormous amount of time, energy, and resources. More so than "healthy" children, for sure. How many adoptive parents, or even Foster Parents, are chomping at the bit ready to take this child into their homes?

My friend in college was a Missionary to Romania. In Romania, during the communist rule, abortion was not allowed, and if it WAS done, it was done in back alleys, under severely horrible circumstances. Because of that, their orphaneges, are absolutely PACKED with unwanted children. Worse than that, they are packed with children who have severe physical handicaps and illnesses. Romania's government used to hide all of it's ill, and infirm in hospitals, believing that illness or handicap was a sign of weakness of the country (at least, this is how matt explained it to me.). The sheer number of children with micro/macro encephalitis, downsyndrome, etc, etc, etc, in those hospitals and orphanages, is absolutely amazing. Luckily, here in America, we have more financial resources to provide medical care for couples in dire circumstances such as this. Here in America, we don't shove them into hospitals and orphanages all of the time. And we ALSO have abortion as a CHOICE. This means, that thankfully, with any luck, America will never have the situation that they have in their country. I could tell you horror stories about these orphanages, which Matt told me, that would leave you weeping for months. I thank GODDESS that I live in America, a place where a woman has options during pregnancy, and a society which backs up those decisions either with legal statutes, financial aide, a good medical system, or whatever else.

[Flar's Freyja]

Something I wanted to add to my last post:

Although we have opinions and may think that we know what we might do if we were in this situation ourselves - what we would actually do might be totally different if we were actually faced with it in our lives.

Just something to ponder........

[Semele]

I am a little confused on the topic here. Are we discussing whether abortion is right ot wrong point blank?? Because if that is the case then I have nothing to add or no desire to read further. What I am seeing in some of the posts are long defensive rants about why it is good that women have a choice...I agree, but is that what we are discussing?

I thought the topic was whether or not it is considered a victory that in one case a judge squashed a father's right to protest the murder, (or abortion if you will) of HIS child. I noticed there is another thread going on about this...maybe this one got split here to chnge the direction. If so, I apologize and I will go check out the other one.

[Yvonne Belisle]

They were placed in both forums at the same time this one wandered in this direction and since it is an important issue to many I for one didn't try to move the topic to just what it began as. There is a lot of hurt and anger within many members of the board this thread though difficult at times seems to be providing a chance to voice pain which is theriputic so it has been left alone the other thread I believe stayed fully on topic

[Semele]

Ah, I see. Well, If this is therapeutic, carry on. It seems quite the contrary to me, but I have been wrong before. I just hate to see anyone get hurt or have old wounds re-opened. I love you all and I know you have all had tough times in this area. Your pain, although different from Mysts, is just as deep.