"I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me"

[Tomk80]

Gotta admit that I hadn´t read the article but merely the part that you had quoted (so I was mistaken about a couple of things).

Anyway, from my pov it is a counterproductive approach. Personally, I don´t consider appeals to emotions good arguments. Going about getting this point across by using this very method seems to be acknowledging it as valid rather than demonstrating it´s invalidity.

I disagree. It shows that there is a different side to the "happy happy"-stories the pro-life movement puts out.

Ok, let´s assume this isn´t about her (and wishing for oneself to have been aborted yet exist would be a strange wish anyway, wouldn´t it?).
So from which/whose perspective (if not her own) is she speaking when saying "things would have been better with me being aborted"?
Her mother´s? Her family´s? All the persons´ she has met during her lifetime. The entire world´s? How exactly would she know?

What she's saying in the article is that life would have been better for her mother and future children. And that, while she is happy that she is alive now, no one should have to go through the immense suffering she went through just to lead a normal life, and therefore it would be better if her mother would have aborted her. She would never have existed, and therefore she wouldn't have had to go through hell to now lead a normal life.

In a world of polycausality (in which every event is the result of countless factors and has countless effects) there is no way to determine how things would have gone if one event would have been different, and even less if the outcome would have been better or worse. All we can say with safety is that the outcome would have been different.

We still can determine some outcomes that are more likely or probable. While it is in no ways certain that her mother would have gone to college, not landed into poverty and gotten into abusive relationships if she had performed the abortion, as the writer says, we know from scientific studies that the likelihood of this outcome would have increased drastically. Especially if she came from a highly educated family, as the author suggests.

Yes, but since I am somewhat trying to show that she has no point that wouldn´t be much of a problem for me. Well, half of them did involve a "choice".
For my point that all things "could´ve/would´ve/should´ve" are futile considerations it is irrelevant whether the subject is a choice or a mere event.

True.

Ok, help me, please. What do you think is this point?

Her point is that the picture the anti-choice brigade brings up, namely that of the people who haven't been aborted now all lead happy, happy lives (with cherries on top) is at the least one-sided and misleading.

I find a lot of attitudes understandable, I can empathize with them etc. (and feelings aren´t subject to discussion, anyway) - but I´m not sure they are a good basis for making an argument.

Not sure about the other two but I think it´s safe to say that it´s as unreasonable as it can get.

Why would it be unreasonable? The argument the author makes is that, by not having an abortion, the mother had a high chance of not getting a better education and because of that, ending up in poverty as well as ending up in abusive relationships. That this outcome is likely is something that is borne out every day if you just look at the statistics. The author is saying that it would have been better if her mother had had an abortion, gone to college, become stronger mentally and only than have children.

The argument the author makes, in fact, if not anything else, definitely seems reasonable to me. If not reasonable, at least extremely logical.

 

[quatona]

I disagree. It shows that there is a different side to the "happy happy"-stories the pro-life movement puts out.

Maybe I find this so painfully obvious that I wasn´t aware that it needed pointing out. After all, 100% of all suffering happens to people who have not been aborted.

What she's saying in the article is that life would have been better for her mother and future children. And that, while she is happy that she is alive now, no one should have to go through the immense suffering she went through just to lead a normal life, and therefore it would be better if her mother would have aborted her. She would never have existed, and therefore she wouldn't have had to go through hell to now lead a normal life.

Well, life is suffering and dealing with it. It is drama. For all of us. Whenever we throw children into this world this is what we know, and what we can safely predict to be their fate. It´s the very difference between existing and non-existing.
What is not predictable: Who will be able to manage to handle this, and who will not be able. There are people who are quite happy in even the worst conditions, and there are people who suffer deeply even though living in privileged conditions.
Point: for a to be parent the outcomes for their children are not calculable, and on top we can´t predict what the children will consider "life quality" and how this understanding might change during their lives. Happiness and fulfilment doesn´t tend to follow statistics, and there are many people who will tell you that they´d never had reached the profound happiness they are experiencing now, had they not gone through profound suffering before.

Anyway, if we take this kind of argument to it´s logical conclusion, it´s actually the grandmother who could have prevented the mother as well as the granddaughter from going through all this suffering (and so forth).

We still can determine some outcomes that are more likely or probable. While it is in no ways certain that her mother would have gone to college, not landed into poverty and gotten into abusive relationships if she had performed the abortion, as the writer says, we know from scientific studies that the likelihood of this outcome would have increased drastically. Especially if she came from a highly educated family, as the author suggests.

Ok. Now what do we make of this? What are we assuming:
- the mother wasn´t aware of these probabilities?
- the mother valued something else higher than all these criteria?
What is the point in telling a mother "You shouldn´t have had a baby, in your own best interest?" (no matter if the baby is me or someone else)?
Isn´t that somewhat overstepping the boundaries of my competences? (Whereas merely pointing out how the mothership was a factor in her later problems would be completely ok)

Her point is that the picture the anti-choice brigade brings up, namely that of the people who haven't been aborted now all lead happy, happy lives (with cherries on top) is at the least one-sided and misleading.

Again, this is so painfully obviously inaccurate that I am wondering how it even needs pointing out. Sorry. We´d just have to point to any randomly picked case of suffering - all people who are suffering have not been aborted.

Why would it be unreasonable? The argument the author makes is that, by not having an abortion, the mother had a high chance of not getting a better education and because of that, ending up in poverty as well as ending up in abusive relationships. That this outcome is likely is something that is borne out every day if you just look at the statistics. The author is saying that it would have been better if her mother had had an abortion, gone to college, become stronger mentally and only than have children.

The argument the author makes, in fact, if not anything else, definitely seems reasonable to me. If not reasonable, at least extremely logical.

I guess what bugs me is the emotional appeal. Had she, just like you are doing, pointed to probabilities and statistics and then arrived at the conclusion: "In certain situations it´s not advisable to become mother (or father or parents, for that matter) if you have certain goals in life, because the parenthood and those goals are hard to reconcile", I would have had no objections.

 

[Paradoxum]

Gotta admit that I hadn´t read the article but merely the part that you had quoted (so I was mistaken about a couple of things).

Have you read it now?

Anyway, from my pov it is a counterproductive approach. Personally, I don´t consider appeals to emotions good arguments. Going about getting this point across by using this very method seems to be acknowledging it as valid rather than demonstrating it´s invalidity.

I guess the point is to show emotional people the other side. Perhaps it is unfair for me t consider some people beyond reason. I don't know.

Ok, let´s assume this isn´t about her (and wishing for oneself to have been aborted yet exist would be a strange wish anyway, wouldn´t it?).
So from which/whose perspective (if not her own) is she speaking when saying "things would have been better with me being aborted"?
Her mother´s? Her family´s? All the persons´ she has met during her lifetime. The entire world´s? How exactly would she know?

Her mothers and the worlds. She says that her mother would have been more likely (statistically) to get a better education, job, and to be able to mature properly. As for the world, she says she has had to take more than she has given to get to this point in life.

She doesn't know it would have worked out that for her mother, but statistically it would work out better for people in a similar situation.

In a world of polycausality (in which every event is the result of countless factors and has countless effects) there is no way to determine how things would have gone if one event would have been different, and even less if the outcome would have been better or worse. All we can say with safety is that the outcome would have been different.

But certain events to incline people to go down one path in life rather than another. That is just a fact.

Yes, but since I am somewhat trying to show that she has no point that wouldn´t be much of a problem for me.

Well it seems that she does. Or at least I took something from it.

Well, half of them did involve a "choice".
For my point that all things "could´ve/would´ve/should´ve" are futile considerations it is irrelevant whether the subject is a choice or a mere event.

I would say the point of 'should haves" is that they prescribe what should be done in the future. The argument is made from the past to what should be done now.

Obviously she isn't saying we should build a time machine to make her mother have an abortion. She is sharing the story for women in a similar situation today.

Not sure about the other two but I think it´s safe to say that it´s as unreasonable as it can get.

It is unreasonable to say it would be better wait until something is mature enough to have a kid before having a kid? Because that would seem to be one point.

 

[quatona]

I guess the point is to show emotional people the other side.

And I guess that´s the very reason why I don´t get much out of it.

Her mothers and the worlds. She says that her mother would have been more likely (statistically) to get a better education, job, and to be able to mature properly.

While I do not disagree that this is statistically supported, I am not a great fan of telling others what they should have done when they obviously weren´t capable of seeing or considering those options. It strikes me as obscene. (And even more so when it´s done to publicly make a political point)

As for the world, she says she has had to take more than she has given to get to this point in life.

Well, I don´t know how reliable her view is in this matter (actually, I´d like to get at least a second opinion ), but - no matter whether it´s accurate or not, or whether such things are quantifiable or not - this sure is a depressing outlook on oneself.
Good advice from a poor expert:
- Don´t worry, people are happy to give. There´s hardly anything more fulfilling than adding to the wellbeing of another person.
- Anyway, if you can´t help thinking of human interaction in terms of trade, just try to catch up from now on.

You know, what bugs me a little is this attitude of "I haven´t had a chance to do better", and at the sime time telling her mother how she could have done better in a situation that she herself describes as a state of immaturity.

I would say the point of 'should haves" is that they prescribe what should be done in the future. The argument is made from the past to what should be done now.

To be precise, it´s an argument made from an anecdote in the past what others should do now.

It is unreasonable to say it would be better wait until something is mature enough to have a kid before having a kid?

No, that´s not unreasonable (although I doubt that it has much effect on an immature person in the situation in question; people don´t tend to rely on other person´s experiences). It´s always reasonable to think ahead, and thoroughly so.

Because that would seem to be one point.

Why then not just say it (and possibly reference the statistics)?

 

[Amber Bird]

Blayz, do you frequently point out the obvious?

Obvious to everyone but the OP author.
Obviously.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Reading this story caused me to wonder why she is focused on abortion rather than the cycle of abuse and breaking it. It states that there was domestic abuse in her house and to her and she also had a traumatic brain injury. I do wonder how that happened. Then the author experience abuse and such growing up. We also must remember that in the 60's, women who got pregnant and didn't finish school were looked upon in a much more negative way than today which would have contributed to the cycle of poverty for her mother too.

Then I think back to that era of debate over abortion and abuse. We were hearing "every child a wanted child" and "abortion will eliminate/reduce child abuse." Hmm, can't see that has happened.

So, as I said, maybe instead of bemoaning the fact that she thinks it would have been better if she were aborted that she become a spokesman on breaking the cycle of abuse.

 

[Tomk80]

Reading this story caused me to wonder why she is focused on abortion rather than the cycle of abuse and breaking it. It states that there was domestic abuse in her house and to her and she also had a traumatic brain injury. I do wonder how that happened. Then the author experience abuse and such growing up. We also must remember that in the 60's, women who got pregnant and didn't finish school were looked upon in a much more negative way than today which would have contributed to the cycle of poverty for her mother too.

Then I think back to that era of debate over abortion and abuse. We were hearing "every child a wanted child" and "abortion will eliminate/reduce child abuse." Hmm, can't see that has happened.

So, as I said, maybe instead of bemoaning the fact that she thinks it would have been better if she were aborted that she become a spokesman on breaking the cycle of abuse.

Maybe she thinks one helps in the other?

One of the assertions she makes in the article, was that if her mother would have aborted her, gone to college, become more mature and then had kids, those kids would probably not have gone through the poverty and abuse she went through.

She doesn't state that if abortions are allowed, there will never be abuse. She does implicitly make the case that allowing abortions can reduce abuse cases.

 

[Paradoxum]

And I guess that´s the very reason why I don´t get much out of it.

It is interesting though, in my opinion to see that other side to it like that.

While I do not disagree that this is statistically supported, I am not a great fan of telling others what they should have done when they obviously weren´t capable of seeing or considering those options. It strikes me as obscene. (And even more so when it´s done to publicly make a political point)

It is wrong to say you should have done X not Y? I don't think the point to condemn the mother.

Well, I don´t know how reliable her view is in this matter (actually, I´d like to get at least a second opinion ), but - no matter whether it´s accurate or not, or whether such things are quantifiable or not - this sure is a depressing outlook on oneself.
Good advice from a poor expert:
- Don´t worry, people are happy to give. There´s hardly anything more fulfilling than adding to the wellbeing of another person.
- Anyway, if you can´t help thinking of human interaction in terms of trade, just try to catch up from now on.

Well yeah, most people don't mind taxes going to help well less off people (I think) and it probably isn't a great state of mind to have.

You know, what bugs me a little is this attitude of "I haven´t had a chance to do better", and at the sime time telling her mother how she could have done better in a situation that she herself describes as a state of immaturity.

What? The point isn't condemn the mother. Saying that there was a better path doesn't mean you are criticising someone for not taking that path.

To be precise, it´s an argument made from an anecdote in the past what others should do now.

But it isn't just that, though that is part of what was written.

Why then not just say it (and possibly reference the statistics)?

There alot of such things. It seems to be giving a different perspective as well. Although reason should be enough it seems that it helps for people to emotionally care about what reason says is good.

Obvious to everyone but the OP author.
Obviously.

Is that aimed at me? Because I am pretty sure I replied to you, but you didn't reply to me.

 

[quatona]

Hey Paradoxum,

it´s not that big a deal, as far as I am concerned. Everyone has their way to get their points across, and the way she approaches that task simply doesn´t appeal to me and partly rubs me the wrong way. But that´s probably just me.

I do agree that it´s a good idea to consider the possible outcomes of your decisions to the best of your abilities, based on as much information as possible, and to possibly become aware of all options available - and if I am not missing anything this is exactly what you feel is her point.

Would it be ok for you to leave it at that, or would you like me to respond to your post in detail?

 

[Paradoxum]

Hey Paradoxum,

it´s not that big a deal, as far as I am concerned. Everyone has their way to get their points across, and the way she approaches that task simply doesn´t appeal to me and partly rubs me the wrong way. But that´s probably just me.

I do agree that it´s a good idea to consider the possible outcomes of your decisions to the best of your abilities, based on as much information as possible, and to possibly become aware of all options available - and if I am not missing anything this is exactly what you feel is her point.

Would it be ok for you to leave it at that, or would you like me to respond to your post in detail?

Nope, that is fine. I know it isn't a big deal.

I've felt stressed today, and I hope that hasn't come across in talking to you. It probably has with other replies on here.

 

[quatona]

I've felt stressed today, and I hope that hasn't come across in talking to you.

No, not at all. It´s been a pleasure.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Maybe she thinks one helps in the other?

One of the assertions she makes in the article, was that if her mother would have aborted her, gone to college, become more mature and then had kids, those kids would probably not have gone through the poverty and abuse she went through.

She doesn't state that if abortions are allowed, there will never be abuse. She does implicitly make the case that allowing abortions can reduce abuse cases.

I reading the article, it comes across as this happening in the 60's. Abortions were not legal then and you had 3 choice. Go to a home for unwed mothers and put the baby up for adoption, have the baby and do what you could do, or to have a back alley abortion. It is easy to look from the eyes of 2012 and say what should have happened in the 60's. Most people looked upon unwed mothers as a disgrace. In this day and age, there is so much more available to help women who find that they are single and pregnant that don't involve abortion. Many families support the unwed mother these days. Maybe if that had been the situation in this story, things would have turned out different.

Why does abortion have to be the answer?

 

[Tomk80]

I reading the article, it comes across as this happening in the 60's. Abortions were not legal then and you had 3 choice. Go to a home for unwed mothers and put the baby up for adoption, have the baby and do what you could do, or to have a back alley abortion. It is easy to look from the eyes of 2012 and say what should have happened in the 60's. Most people looked upon unwed mothers as a disgrace. In this day and age, there is so much more available to help women who find that they are single and pregnant that don't involve abortion. Many families support the unwed mother these days. Maybe if that had been the situation in this story, things would have turned out different.

Why does abortion have to be the answer?

Nobody is saying it has to be the answer. It is one possible answer, and people are saying that it should be one of the choices.

 

[Jade Margery]

I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the pro-lifers who have responded to this did not actually read the article.

 

[vortigen84]

A very interesting piece by a woman who says her mother should have aborted her:

I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me



I have to agree that stories saying, "I could have been aborted, but look at me now, happy and glad to be alive" are just wishy-washy, emotional, and without substance. The product of a small mind, unable to think far further than its own experience, without depth of thought beyond "It would be sad and bad if someone said I should be murdered".

She's free to take her own life now, rather than having it taken from her.

Respect property rights.

 

[Tomk80]

She's free to take her own life now, rather than having it taken from her.

I see you suddenly reacting to a lot of OP's now, without actually reading the thread. It might be wise to do so.

Also, if the OP contains a link, you might like to read it. It would help you actually reacting to the OP, instead of missing the point.

Respect property rights.

Are you a troll?

 

[vortigen84]

I was commenting on statements made in the OP, actually.