• it’s pretty black and white

    “a life-changing decision such as this is not always black and white”
    How does the Intermission Staff come up with this conclusion when the person interviewed glibly states: “I never considered keeping it [the child]“?

  • just read…

    well you could read the first paragraph and the interviewees reasons for not wanting to keep it…i.e. the view to be pro choice/ pro life is not black and white- it is based on a variety of factors as opposed to how (you) may initially feel on a certain issue.

  • Hmmmmm

    Pretty sure most of the Stanford Students for Life members are women. Check your bias at the door.

    “The pill essentially induces a miscarriage, and viewing all of that blood may be more traumatic than going in for surgery.”

    Well well, let us continue to ignore what an abortion actually does. God forbid someone in this world be confronted with the consequences of their decisions.

  • JL

    yeah, because if someone is smart and self-aware enough to realize that carrying a baby to term would be less responsible than aborting it, they should be punished with as much emotional trauma as possible.

    (if there was a sarcasm font, I would use it)

  • Thank you

    As a Stanford student who had an abortion just a few weeks ago, I want to thank the student who was brave enough to give this interview. My situation was extremely similar to hers and it is very comforting to hear another person’s voice tell my story.

    It is an extremely difficult decision and one that I never thought I would make. I have never taken a strong stance on “pro-choice” vs “pro-life” because I think that they are sides of two different coins. I always agreed that women should have the right to make a choice but I always thought that if I was faced with the decision, I would not have an abortion.

    But an unwanted pregnancy, to me, was just that. It was never going to be more than that. I had been drinking heavily before I found out, I knew I could never support a child (and, unlike the interviewee, had no boyfriend who could assist), and I know that I could never give a child up for adoption. Thankfully, I do not believe that life begins at conception.

    Seeing the roses in the quad only two days was later was tough, but not because I regretted my decision. It is because I knew that if any of the students standing near those roses were aware of what I had just done, they would have contempt toward me and pity for my soul. Having an abortion is difficult but it is made much worse by the fear that people will hate you for it.

  • Let’s not get too feisty.

    Whether pro-choice or pro-life, let’s consider the situation. We don’t know if the pregnancy resulted from a contraception failure or unprotected sex, and the interviewee stated that she had no intention of continuing the pregnancy. With this decision made, she may have gone to any length to terminate the pregnancy, whether with bleach, a hanger, or otherwise. This is the reality for far too many women with undesired pregnancies facing the stigma of being pregnant at an age when it is not necessarily culturally accepted. I’m just happy that she had the support of her family and her boyfriend to help her through this tough situation and had access (legally and financially) to safe abortion options.

  • Anonymous

    The argument that abortion is a very complicated personal issue and that “you don’t know what it’s like until you’ve been there,” assumes that abortion is not killing. If you see abortion as killing a human, then regardless of what kind of situation the potential mother is in (unless it is life-threatening), abortion should not be an option because it is murder. If the fetus is alive, the right of the baby to continue to live trumps any of the rights of the mother (except for her own right to live).

    To argue that abortion is okay, one must argue that the fetus is not yet alive. Although some people may argue that life begins at birth, that is not what is believed to be true by scientists or by the law. Abortions are currently illegal after the second trimester. A somewhat arbitrary cutoff point, far back enough to account for our knowledge that life does not begin at birth, while still leaving as much time as possible for the convenience of the parties involved in the abortion. Shouldn’t there be some more logical way of trying to determine when life begins and where the cutoff should be?

    I posit that abortions should be illegal after 6 weeks past conception, as this is when brain function begins. Before 6 weeks is the only time that we can be sure that the fetus is not alive, as its brain is not functioning. Some argue that this is still not a sign of life, as brain function at this stage is very primitive. But at which point do you decide that brain function is advanced enough to be considered a sign of life? There may be another reasonable way to decide this, but I don’t know of it yet, and I won’t hesitate to reassess my opinion if I come across it.

    You may disagree with me, but your disagreement should be based on some reasonable explanation as to why life begins later on. Not simply “you don’t know what it’s like so don’t tell me what to do with my body.” Otherwise, you’re being illogical.

    Also, while I agree that it is much easier for men to be pro-life, as they are not as deeply impacted by abortion as women are, and that the power dynamics between the sexes do play a significant role in the public’s view of abortion (I’m sure that abortions would be much more common and socially accepted if men were the ones that got pregnant), I disagree with the idea that pro-lifers are mostly men or that anyone who is pro-life is anti-women. This false information simply serves to paint the pro-life argument as the side of the bully attempting to oppress women (or at least being dismissive of their concerns), rather than a valid argument in the discussion of a difficult and very important topic. And I saw quite a few women when I biked past the display in White Plaza.

  • Hmmmmm

    you don’t make any sense

  • Student

    I understand that this is a tremendously complex moral issue for many people, but I would disagree that the question of when life starts is the crux of the matter. Life is incredibly diverse and abundant, ranging from the bacteria on your skin, to flowers and trees, to your friends and family. Technically brain function has very little to do with what constitutes life. At six weeks and throughout most of the pregnancy a fetus is necessarily and entirely dependent on the woman carrying it, and cannot be viewed as a truly independent human life. I would argue that the right of the fetus to continue to live is not equivalent to murder, but rather more similar to taking someone off life-support or signing a Do Not Resuscitate order.

    I appreciate the story shared in the article. As an undergraduate I have often thought of what I would do if I became pregnant. I would love to read another account from a student who chose to carry the pregnancy to term. I think it’s interesting to note the student’s concern about her drinking and drug use after the conception. We live in a culture where people have very strong opinions on what to do and what not to do during pregnancy, where the substances you take in or avoid are something it is acceptable to berate pregnant mothers about, and I wonder how that plays a part in women’s decisions to have abortions.

  • Anon

    True, it isn’t independent, but neither are the babies that are born and are put straight in an incubator. That doesn’t mean that they’re not alive or that it is less wrong to kill them. I would argue that pulling the plug on someone who is on life-support but rapidly recovering and will be in full health within 9 months is murder too. Same with signing a Do Not Resuscitate order for someone who is very likely to survive, without first getting their consent.

Mobile Theme