.
June 2nd, 2009
02:54 PM ET

AC360° Q&A: A personal perspective on late-term abortion

Editor's Note: Dr. George Tiller, whose Kansas women's clinic frequently took center stage in the U.S. debate over abortion, was shot and killed while serving as an usher at his Wichita church Sunday morning. Since his murder, much attention has been devoted to late-term abortions. AC360° guest Lynda Waddington had a late-term abortion and spoke with Anderson over the phone for an exclusive interview about her experience.

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/art.tiller.kake.jpg caption="Dr. George Tiller was one of the few U.S. physicians that performed late-term abortions. "]

Anderson Cooper: Lynda, first of all, what's your reaction to the murder of Dr. Tiller?

Lynda Waddington: My gut reaction is just sadness. To think that someone who had helped me in such a horrible time in my life, an event that most likely saved my own life could be gunned down and killed for that is just surreal and profound.

Cooper: And the reason we're talking to you on the phone is that you didn't want to appear on camera. You're allowing us to use your name but you're fearful about appearing on camera. Why? Have you received threats in the past?

Waddington: Correct. I have. Nothing recently, but emotions are running very high, I think, on both ends of the spectrum after Dr. Tiller's death. And I have young children at home.

Cooper: As you know, the argument against, you know, late abortions is that it's tantamount to murder of a fetus that could be viable outside the womb. You say it's clearly just not that simple. Explain.

Waddington: I think those who are anti-abortion have been very successful in painting the picture of who I am and who other women are who have late abortions. And it kind of ticks me off because it's not accurate. I mean, supposedly I'm just a person who woke up one day and had a back pain or a leg cramp and decided to have an abortion. And that definitely wasn't the case. This was a pregnancy that was planned. A pregnancy that was wanted and loved. And it was tantamount to having a loved one on life support and making that decision whether to end the life support or not.

Cooper: You wrote a letter last summer to then candidate Barack Obama. And you took issue with his position on late-term abortions which at that time he said that states should be able to restrict or prohibit those procedures as long as there's an exception for the health of the mother. Why do you think he's wrong? Why should it be more than just the health of the mother?

Waddington: No, I don't think that statement is necessarily wrong. As much as I wonder who gets to decide what those health concerns are. I mean, there are some people who believe that pregnancy, if God wills it, should be a death sentence for women. There are other people who believe that defects like I experienced should be allowable to terminate a pregnancy. But there are other people, you know, who want to cut that line off that depression. Women are suicidal. I don't think that's a decision government should ever be making, ever.

Cooper: That is the argument you hear probably most often from even some people who support abortions in general that if it's just the mental health of the mother, the depression of the mother, then that's not legitimate enough reason. And you say that's not true. That's inappropriate.

Waddington: I do believe that's inappropriate. I think that's a decision that the mother and the doctor and the family should be able to make on their own. We wouldn't look at someone suffering from cancer and say that you're too depressed to make your decisions regarding your family and your life. Why do we put that on women?

Read Lynda Waddington's open letter to Barack Obama while he was campaigning for the presidency last year. In it she describes her experience and why she needed a late-term abortion.


Filed under: 360° Interview • 360° Radar • Anderson Cooper
soundoff (349 Responses)
  1. Michelle

    Although I am pro-choice, I am leery of late term abortions. Although it may seem clear cut in cases where the baby has no chance of survival outside of the womb or the woman's life is in danger,
    the problem arises when the child's disability is not life threatening. Where do you draw the line? Someone mentioned spina bifida as a defect that would justify a late term abortion. However, I personally know a couple of wonderful children with spina bifida. who are living a meaningful life. Do you abort just becuase a child would have a disability

    June 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm |
  2. Jane Tierney

    The most inappropriate thing is to judge someone else by what you would do when you haven't been in a position to have to make that decision.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  3. jen

    OK. Linda's story helped me understand. In her case, I agree. What else could have been done? It's a fine, fine line though. There is nothing wrong with debate. Debate is important.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  4. Ron

    This discussion should not be about a womans right to chose. It should be about when a fetus is considered a viable living human being prtected by the laws of this country. That includes being protected from a doctor and mother who want to kill it, no matter the reason or situation. Why should a woman or doctor have the right to kill a child that would otherwise live? Shouldn't that child be protected by the laws of this country just like you and I or a 1 day old child? Doesn't it seem wrong that a doctor can abort a fetus but if that same fetus dies as result of someones action that person could be charged with a crime. Why should the laws of our country protect the child in one instance but not the other, all in the name of a womans right to chose?

    June 2, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
  5. Eric in Ayden

    This issue is two things, politics and religion. Politicians on the right have taken this issue in order to pacify a solid base. If Pro-Life people truly believed what they say, that a fetus is a person, then there would be more people react like this loser that killed Tiller. Otherwise they'd have to explain how they held gross signs and wrote their thoughts in an internet forum while they lived down the road from a character who is as much a criminal and mass murderer as Hitler or Saddam Hussein. The lack of violent action is proof that the Pro-Life crowd is simply a political tool to carry votes and grotesque signs and know that their argument is unproven. If they wanted authorization from God about what they should do they only have to read the Bible. This killer believed what he said. People carrying signs are accessories to murder when defined by their beliefs as they allow them to happen.

    I just wish people could see through this Jesus myth and we start to govern this country as the founders wished, with religion sitting in the back of the bus.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:53 pm |
  6. Rick

    As a father of eight, I have seen a few more sonograms than the average dad. I cannot help but believe that the small person that shows up in the image deserves some rights. You can actually see a heart beating at eight weeks. By the end of the first trimester, you can identify all of the body parts, and the child responds to stimuli, such as a probe in a CVS test. This is science, not religion.

    Accordingly, there should be some reasonable balancing between the rights of that child, and the rights of the mother. This is the recognized problem behind the rationale of Roe v. Wade - it admittedly fails to decide whether the child is entitled to Constitutional rights, e.g., the right to not be deprived of life without due process of law. The Court passed on the question as to whether a fetus/child is entitled to such Constitutional protections. Surprisingly, 36 years later, the decision has not yet been made. As a result, the Roe Court (as well as the Casey v. Planned Parenthood Court) had to rely on the State's interest in potential new life to allow restrictions on abortion in the last two trimesters.

    A potential fix would be to affirmatively decide when a fetus/child is entitled to Constitutional rights. At conception? When the heart beats? When there is brain function? At birth? This could be done by the passage of federal and state laws, or by a Constitutional Amendment. I imagine very few would be completely happy with any kind of law that could be passed, but it still may be worth the exercise to give our legal system some legitimacy in this matter. Even retiring Justice Ginsburg criticizes the rationale of Roe - it simply needs to be fixed.

    While my personal belief is that I am a father of eight, only three children made it past the first trimester. One was born normally. Last year we had twins, which we were medically advised to terminate, because one had a distended bladder, and the other had a "strawberry" shaped skull. We had to get that CVS test to see if they would do anything to save our 14 week old (gestational aged) sons. We ultimately did not intervene (besides bedrest), and both were eventially born 5.5 weeks premature. One lived an hour after birth, the other is alive and mostly healthy today, after a short stay in the NICU.

    In our case, the easiest decision for us was not to make a "choice," and let nature take its course. I imagine many, if not all, of Dr. Tiller's patients could have decided to wait as well. Nearly any reputable hospital would (and should) perform an abortion if the mother's life is truly in danger, as this would both meet the Hippocratic Oath, and the "due process of law" required by our Constitution. It is a shame that the women that posted here today had to turn to Dr. Tiller if they had a legitimate medical need for an abortion that outweighed their child's due process right to be born. A hospital should have handled their cases.

    A greater shame is that some killer deprived Dr. Tiller of his due process right to life. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with late term abortion law, murder is not the answer.

    My condolences go to Dr. Tiller's family, and to those who posted their painful stories here today.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  7. Rich

    We sure have painted ourselves into a corner, haven't we? We want what we want when we want it, no matter what. (And I am in no way putting myself on a pedestal in this regard - I am no better than any of you.) My sister had a coffee mug that said "Sex is really no big deal. It's just like air and food and other stuff like that." Unfortunately, I don't think most people today understand the humor in this. With sex, evolution has provided us the perfect "carrot and stick" - it hurts when we don't do it and it feels great when we do. And now, with everybody doing it with everybody else in the movies and on TV and on the radio, how can anybody think that sexual urges can acually be resisted? They're like air or food or other stuff like that. The problem with sex is all of those nasty consequences - so let's address the consequences rather than the problem! Let's find cures for the diseases and ways to prevent "unwanted" pregnancies. But what if there is a pregnancy? In January 1973, we found an answer to that, too. (The way people talk, it sometimes sounds like James Madison's notes explicitly mention abortion.)
    I don't know the answer to our situation, but it's a sad truth that we are a very selfish people (myself included). I realize I am not addressing the original issue - late-term abortion of severely deformed children. That is absolutely heart-wrenching, and I don't know where we draw the line in that case, or who should draw it. All I know is that there are 1.5 million abortions in the US every year. If we allowed every woman to have an abortion who was the victim of rape or incest, or had a severely deformed fetus, I expect that the abortion rate would drop by about 1.4 million.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
  8. Arianna

    As an ICU nurse and a pro-life advocate, I have issue with Ms. Waddington stating "it was tantamount to having a loved one on life support and making that decision whether to end the life support or not."

    I have been involved in countless cases of the removal of life support, which may consist of removing a breathing tube, stopping certain medications, etc. People often survive minutes, hours, even days after life support is removed. A more accurate analogy in the case of Ms. Waddington would be a c-section of the baby. It would be the removal of the baby from the womb and cutting the umbilical cord, cutting off the "life support" that the mother gives. The baby may then die immediately, or may live as some do after life support is removed.

    Never have I witnessed a situation in the ICU, nor could imagine it being described as "removing life support" if it were ever to occur, where a person was being given a medication to purposely stop their heart, have their limbs ripped off their body, or have their brains sucked out with a vacuum. That is not removing life support, that is a brutal murder. At best it could be described as euthanasia, which also would never be done so inhumanely.

    Our personal choices and freedoms should not have greater importance than someone's life. Our laws supposedly exist to protect the weak, but unfortuately in the case of abortion, if fails to do exactly that.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
  9. Chris

    This idea of, if we let the gov't make this decision the next thing they'll be forcing on us is what to wear is completly apples and oranges. If you're going to argue this, you might as well be arguing to legalize murder. Why should the government say we can't murder each other, who are they to impose that restriction, after all it's a choice,...and one that's basically the same as late term abortion by the way.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
  10. Eva

    well said, Joe! 100% agree

    June 2, 2009 at 4:49 pm |
  11. Paul

    The saddest thing about modern medical technology is that it is often good enough to identify problems, but not yet good enough to fix them. That leaves people with excruciating moral choices that should be examined with compassion, not condemnation.

    A year ago, my sister and I had to decide whether to take my father off a respirator after a massive stroke had destroyed his brain. We chose to remove the respirator and let him die with some dignity. Does that make me a murderer? I don't think so. Nor do I consider the people that Dr. Tiller helped as wrong or immoral. Given a better choice, any one of them would have leapt at it. They made the best choice they could from what they were given.

    As for the guy who shot Dr. Tiller... he's a murderer!

    June 2, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  12. ST

    I've never heard so much self-righteous, 'I'm better than you' crap in my life. Late term abortions are only performed when there is a serious issue with the baby, people.

    If you are pro-choice, fine, pro-life, fine, but it's not your place or the government's place to tell someone else what they can do with their bodies. Mind your own business. I bet your life would be so much better.

    Judge not lest ye be judge. Remember that?

    June 2, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
  13. Mr. X

    Just as a side note, because it was incorrectly mentioned earlier, there is NO explicit right to privacy in the Bill of Rights nor Constitution. That topic has been debated, especially with the Patriot Act, but we are not explicitly granted privacy as a right. Don't make that argument.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  14. John

    So, let's prevent unwanted pregnancies and increase sex education and access to birth control!!

    June 2, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
  15. Jeremiah

    The comments on abortion in this article are not logical. First, she does nothing to refute that the fetus is not a life. She only states that it is not that simple. The burden of proof is on the one taking the potential life to prove that they are not taking a life at all. If the cannot do this, then the fetus should be protected under the 14th Amendment of our constitution. Second, Dr. Tiller's murder is horrible. Those advocating the death of an abortion Dr. are not pro-life and are not aligned with the pro-life viewpoint. Those depicting people with a pro-life viewpoint as radicals, who murder abortion doctors, are guilty of a staw man argument. Third, if one really wants to become better educated on the abortion debate, they should read "Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion" by Francis J. Beckwith.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
  16. D

    Late term abortions are done for medical necessity. it is not a whim that these women decide to end a pregnancy. These cases are where the baby is severly abnormal or the life of the mother is at risk. There are very legitimate reasons. These cases are heartbreaking. The childrens are usually planned and wanted. This is the most difficult decision these families have to make. They are doing what is best for their family and child. You may not agree with their decision but it is theirs to make. Not yours.

    Please do a little research on the reasons these are performed. It is not because the woman is suicidal or depressed. Extremist use this kind of infamatory reasons. If you read any number of the comments above you will see the sad and heartbreaking stories of pregnacies gone wrong.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
  17. Jorda

    It strikes me that most of the posters here who are unsympathetic to this woman's story seem not to have read it. Whatever one's moral stance may be, there can be no argument that the personal experience of women who have had "late-term abortions" is far more complex and emotional than the term suggests. It seems like people want to classify abortion as "wrong" and be done with it without really seeing the complexity that underlies it... it's much easier to see things as black and white, or clear-cut than to fully engage in trying to decipher some of the real dilemmas involved in making these decisions for the women and families and doctors who look at them more deeply. These aren't simple issues, please, let's try to be respectful of one another's points of view, especially when it is so clear that someone is exposing something very sensitive and tender of their own in order to help us understand better. I think most of us can offer our fellow human beings some kindness when they are hurt, even if we don't agree with their choices.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  18. Elena

    From every post I've seen discussing first-hand experience with Dr. Tiller, it is clear that he was a brave, selfless, compassionate and kind man. This is truly a loss for the women of America.

    I hope that all of you sick people who would force a woman to carry to term a non-viable or severely retarded child have a child like that of your own, and see how you feel about your life then.

    If there is a hell, the monster who shot Dr. Tiller and the people who harassed the desperate parents who came to Dr. Tiller for help are the ones who will spend eternity there, not Dr. Tiller or his patients.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  19. Jay

    What about people who develop "defects" once they are born. Should we abort all handicap people?

    Are we as a society so small hearted and narrow minded, that we cannot take care of our own children because they are "defective"?

    Abortion has become more of an 'industry', it seems. Imagine an assembly line. A worker is inspecting products being produced. He finds a "defect" and throws the product in waste basket. The "product" being thrown in the waste here unfortunately is a human being.

    And we are to blame for this utter lack of respect for life. We do it to animals – treat them like "things" in meat plants, now the natural next step is to do this to fellow humans.....

    June 2, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  20. Marty

    I would accept that the anti-abortionists are pro-life when they
    spend as much time and money opposing state sanctioned
    murder (executions) and needless wars (Iraq). They don't.
    They just shed crocodile tears over fetuses. Abortions are not
    a method of birth control, but the life of the would-be mother is
    worth saving. And the baby-to-be needs to be viable to be born.
    Where is the miracle of life when eggs are fertilized in petri
    dishes? Where is the miracle of life when we have the circus
    of 'octimon'?

    June 2, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
  21. Evelyn Limbaugh,MD

    As a doctor I recognize that there are times when (due to the viability ) of a fetus to live outside the womb that a late term abortion is required. Also, late term abortions are not like the photos you see flashed around by the pro-choice peopleand they are only done when the life of the mother is in danger.
    Lets start by preventing unwanted pregnacies .

    June 2, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
  22. Monica

    The funniest part about this whole thing is that people see the word "abortion" in the title, then move right down to the comments box and spew out their opinions based on their religious beliefs.

    Notice there was no mention of actually reading the article past the title.

    If righties want to give birth to, spend the money on, and eventually have their hearts broken by a child with no head, more power to you. You have the right to that decision just like others have the right to end that same pregnancy. Why should you have more of a choice than anyone else? Because you're religiously sound? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
  23. oldtimer

    " say if they are 10 years old and one day they get tired of putting up with them? "

    they bring them to Omaha Nebraska

    June 2, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  24. Jon

    I have 6 young children. Each one of them have molded and changed my life for the best. I can not imagine not having one of them around. If they were sick and I would give my life for theirs in a second. Abortion is murder no matter how you look at it. Give these unborn children a chance. The technology we have today is amazing. Just look what your $200.00 cell phone can do. Now think of what the millions of dollars of equipment in a hospital can do. If the child dies after birth, at least you tried to save the child. You never gave up on him/her. In 20 years people are going to look at abortion the way people look at what Hitler did. God have mercy on us.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
  25. Andy

    When it comes to the crime of killing Dr. Tiller I don't understand why anyone's views on abortion matter. This simply clouds the more important issue, that someone was murdered in an act of domestic terrorism.

    The dictionary definition of terrorism is 'the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes'.

    That fits the description of what has happened perfectly. This killing was an act of terror to deliberately designed to frighten doctors and women seeking medical treatment.

    People who support this murderer are no better than Al Quaeda or other extremists. Using fear and violence to restrict the rights and freedoms of women is not something to be admired or supported, it is something to be despised.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  26. Courtney

    I know several people that were told their children would be disabled or have no quality of life whatsoever. Those children are now toddlers and children that are perfectly normal and healthy. I wish you wouldn't have trusted doctors so implicitly Beth, maybe you would have had a normal baby after all.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  27. Mr. Anonymous

    This is the worst piece of "reporting" I've ever seen. The article / interview snippet does not make clear the reasons why the interviewee had a late term abortion. She references depression, but the nature of her individual circumstances are not clear. How are we to determine her credibility without the underlying background information?

    June 2, 2009 at 4:41 pm |
  28. Benjamin

    Lynda's situation is very difficult, but statistics show that less than 4% of all abortions are done due to rape, incest, or the health of the unborn person (U.S Department of Health and Hyman Services, Centers for Disease Control. Abortion Surveillance Report, May 1983). There are 1.3 million abortions/year in the U.S. Nearly one million abortions/year are peformed for other reasons, primarily as a form of birth control.

    Unborn human beings, even those who are not healthy, share the same human nature a the rest of humanity. It is from our dignified human nature that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are inalienable rights, or rights that no one else can take possession of.

    Legalized abortion contradicts the very purpose of the U.S., that all people are created equal and will be granted their inalienable rights. No one begins their existence at birth. We begin our lives at conception.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  29. Jman

    Ultimately it's not just the choice of an individual. I'm sorry to say this to those of you pushing the "freedom" issue, but it's a lot more complicated. What it comes down to is what qualifies as a person. There's really no middle ground there. You can argue that this is a religious issue, but a society and a government have a vested interest in caring for its most vulnerable members and you can't get much more vulnerable than being captive in a womb. Unless the mother's life is in imminent danger, there is no excuse for a late term abortion.

    The simple truth of the matter is that abortions, in most cases, are just easier than caring for the child/pregnancy/etc. Sure it's easier to not be depressed. Because you can't see the child, you can rationalize an excuse to kill it for your convenience. Would you do that to a misbehaving child or wayward teen? Of course not. Like I said, it comes down to what you consider a person. People like myself consider an embryo human from the moment of conception. That's something I really can't meet you halfway with. Abortion is murder. Plane and simple.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  30. lmwilker

    "The question is when is a fetus a person and when is killing it murder. If it is murder, we already know what the law says."

    No. The question is whether any other person has the right to use another person's body without that person's ongoing consent.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  31. Kelly

    My problem with creating any law banning abortions is simply this – no matter how carefully crafted, there is no possibility that every potential situation can and will be dealt with in the legislation. Since the only recourse is those cases not covered would be the court system and the court system can and does take longer than 9 months in many situations, those cases not dealt with in the legislation would have no hope of getting an exception to the law granted.

    It is heartbreaking, but there absolutely are situations where the only merciful solution is an abortion. As just one example – Do you really want to force someone to give birth if the child will be in excruciating agony for every second until it dies – perhaps days, weeks or months after birth?

    Are we so bound to the idea of life that no thought of mercy for the child is allowed? There are many horrifying medical scenarios that happen that put women who want their baby very much in situations where they have to make a terrible decision and only the woman (and her partner) can possibly make that decision taking all things into consideration.

    I personally would not turn to abortion except in the most extreme circumstances (and by that I mean extreme medical circumstances), but the option needs to be available for those who are facing those extreme situations.

    This truly does need to be a personal decision and not one dictated by the state.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:40 pm |
  32. Bellasmom

    I doubt people who think late term abortions is a bad thing really know the facts. I would say just about all doctors who perform these are not doing them because a woman wants one because she doesn't want the child, but rather, there is an issue with the mother or the child.

    Many years ago, women did not have decent pre-natal care and many women died during childbirth or becaues of pregnancy.

    Fortunately, we as a society see's that was wrong and try to make available every possible thing that can help a mother and unborn child. However there are things that happen that are beyond our control.

    I personally know of someone who died in the mid 70's from carrying a child that had severe issues. She left behind 3 other children and a husband. Eventually all 3 children went to foster homes and did not contact each other for 20 years. Very sad.

    But anyhoos, the parents found out that there was an issue with the fetus. It was bad and it could cause the mother's demise. They struggled with a decision. No doctor in the area would peform a late term abortion and the parents were told to travel 8 hours to someone that would.

    The parents were told that by aborting the fetus was the only way the mother would survive. Well the parents discussed it. With family and friends. One day a friend of the family came over unannounced with about 30 people begging the mother not to abort her fetus. Armed with graphic pictures.

    The mother and her 3 other children got very scared. They did not tell the 3 other children that there was something wrong with the baby. But they were teling the children that the baby was going to live with a family friend who could not have children (yes a lie).

    So now all 3 chldren under the age of 7 saw graphic pictures. I did too! There were shouts and etc. So now the mother was very scared.

    The parents decided not to go through with the abortion. Several weeks later into the pregnancy the mother became very ill, as what the doctors said would happen. They tried inducing labor but it was too late.

    The mother died in the hospital trying to give birth to apparently was a child with 1 limb, a missshabed body and head, no brain and very small.

    A few weeks later the father was left on his own to care for 3 children, having seen a baby that barely looked human. He was extremely distraught. Losing his wife and baby. Mad at the world and the people who scared his wife.

    He started drinking and doing drugs. CPS got involved and the children were initially placed into 3 seperate foster homes. The father lost his job and got busted for drugs. He went to jail. CPS told him that if he signed a form, when he got out he would get his kids back. And there were issues with that.

    So when finally the father got out of jail and went to cps to get his children, 2 of them were adopted and since he signed his rights away apparently and only had like 3 months to appeal and that was long gone, there wasn't much he could do. He was told that the children were placed in seperate homes and to disrupt their lives would be harmfull to them.

    Fast forward to 2005, the children are finally reunited. One child was never adopted and ran away constantly and had issues with drugs because of abuse. Another child had a great life, but barely remembered his original parents and suffered from depression, but is fine. The third remembers her siblings, parents and family and contacted them as a teenager, got to know them and had some issues with abondonment and has problems with relationships.

    So the moral of the story is, that although this is a disgusting, sad event, there is much more to look at before anyone makes a judgment call. And abortion is a hard thing to deal with, even if it is for a medical reason or because of an accident. Families have to live with the end result and no one else but them can talk about it.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:38 pm |
  33. Mr. Enevitability

    So its come to us all bickering about who lives and who dies. Frankly this whole Blue team vs. Red team senario plays itself out by both sides never winning and both sides losing. How about leaving the ultimate Judgement up to whom ever your religious higher power may be. True we may lose the one sole that cures cancer or the one little one that could have grown up to find the cure for everything. But Women will do what women want and Dr. Money will do what he does best and everyone has to answer for it in the end. Why waste any more time, energy, hate, guilt, retoric banter on this and leave that to the mothers of the aborted to deal with. We are not Gods we shall not judge those whom make there own descisions. There fate will be there own doing, never by our hands. Wake up weve got to stop fighting amoungst ourselves. Grow up and quit fighting over whos pie it is and how they are to use it. It is enevetable we create our own outcomes in life by the free decisions we make. Stop trying to control eveyone elses lives and enjoy and live your own.

    Have a nice day,
    Mr. Enevitability

    June 2, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  34. Mike

    2 things:

    ~I keep reading pro-choice posts claiming that the government should keep out of people's decisions. While I totally agree, it's my hunch that these are the same people who cheer the gov't on each time they decide where people can and cannot smoke. (If you argue that smoking effects the and safety of others...than it's fair to say partial birth abortion is neither healthy or safe for a baby)

    ~Also previously stated: Some women become depressed and suicidal in the third term and therefore require a partial birth abortion. If that's the rational then we should should allow women with severe postpartum depression to terminate their infant or someone severely depressed because they hate their job to murder a coworker or boss.

    I don't agree with alot of the pro choice arguments but I do agree with the self defense one. The only time it's acceptable to kill in our society is in self defense. Logically it should also apply to abortion (regardless of pregnancy stage). If the pregancy threatens to kill the mother (not to be confused with the mother killing herself) than it's ok by me to abort.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:34 pm |
  35. J Brown

    Government mandates morality in many, many areas. Theft, for instance. Don't we want the gov't to tell Enron execs they can't steal our money? Or that restaurants can't discriminate on the basis of race? Moral laws are essential – especially when one party has no voice of its own, as here.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:33 pm |
  36. Ray

    Chew on this sickness....or selfishness.....

    71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
    48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
    33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
    24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
    8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
    8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
    6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
    6% Woman didn't know timing is important
    5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
    2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
    11% Other

    June 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  37. Michigan Joe

    This is a touchy subject to everyone. The greater question is who should decide moral issues? Should it be government? That is what noone seems clear upon. If we elect government interference, then we should allow government to interfer with our religous beliefs as well. I say no to both, no government intervention in moral and ethical issues.Tthe time will come when population control will be an issue and if that happens and we allow intervention now it only further supports governmental inclusion in who can deliver a child and who can't. Tese are personal and most often difficult positions that women have to face daily and when we decide to legislate personal decisions then we open up a can of worms that is better not opened.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  38. June

    While I believe that choice is a woman's right, I'm certain that most abortions aren't flippant decisions... especially those in later months... most of those procedures are done to fetuses that would likely die wtihin days of birth, even at term.
    Frankly, someone calling himself 'right to life' should respect ALL life... Dr. Tiller had a life too... and this 'right to life' advocate took his... something is wrong with the terminology, I think...

    June 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  39. Dave

    I do not support the murder of anyone. That includes a 20 week old fetus. What happens is that people do not want to take personal responsibility. And please do not give me any of this "you do not understand what goes on in peoples body" because I have 12 years of post graduate studies on human anatomy and physiology and I am a medical practitioner. BUt still I believe that if the state has given the right to choose we should respect that and try to avoid abortions by reason and not force. What I do not like about this interview and many of the interviews in CNN is that it is all staged without another point of view.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm |
  40. NYDoc

    To blaine lavergne, m.d.,

    You are obviously not really a doctor (I am calling you out). If you were, you would have a better understanding of medical necessity. You are also obviously not very bright or you would have read and understood the point Lynda was trying to make. The vast majority of late term abortions occur because the mother's life is in danger (usually a very serious medical condition, like CHF, Renal Failure or Eclampsia) or the fetus is deemed to have severe deformity or genetic abnormality that is in conducive to sustained life after delivery (example Trisomy 18).

    Understanding this, then you would hopefully understand that late term abortions at times are necessary. I believe the decision as to when that necessity is deemed appropriate is up to the pregnant woman, her family and the doctors treating her.

    Sincerely,
    Real MD

    June 2, 2009 at 4:31 pm |
  41. Enrique

    It is interesting how some people who obviously hate religion rant about religious interference with woman's right to choose. I did not read them all, but I did not believe that the people opposing late term abortion on this board are citing any religious reason. Belief that a viable fetus is a human being does not require any faith on a supernatural being. You just have to see the Ultrasound, watch him move, react to sounds, etc.

    Whoever believes that an unborn baby is human is right to believe that abortion is murder. The right to choose of the mother is countered by the even bigger right to life of the baby.

    If the mother's life is at danger you could argue that the abortion, while still manslaughter, is justified, like self defense or war. Very regrettable though.

    I acknowledge that if a woman sincerely believes that the baby in uterus is not human, then all their arguments are perfectly reasonable. I do not see how you can believe that without closing your eyes very tight, but that is up to each one's conscience.

    In any case, the divide is unsurpassable. Have a good week everyone.

    E.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
  42. nora h, md

    shame on all of you who are making such hurtful comments about what this women had to go through. many of you did not even take the time to read her letter, because if you did, you would not make such ignorant comments. and especially shame on you blaine. as an doctor you should know that a baby with anencephaly is not viable.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  43. Patrick

    Moms, do not kill your babies!!!!

    June 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  44. M. Chavez

    If a child is born alive with deformities and is killed after birth its considered murder but if the child is killed inside the womb it’s “just an abortion” Murder is murder no matter where it happens.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
  45. Lee

    Lame "interview". She didn't say anything. I guess she didn't need to. You guys only need to mention this subject and your readers will say it for you.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  46. Katie

    Everyone has a right to their opinion, but nobody has a right to force their opinion on others. Being pro-choice recognizes that while one may not personally choose to have an abortion, there are many women who may need one or choose to have one for a variety of reasons. Forcing a woman with a fetus who has severe genetic defects to give birth doesn't only negatively affect the mother, but the father and any siblings as well. It takes a toll on the entire family. While a family may decide that they are willing to take on the challenge, that decision should not be forced upon them. Nobody has all the answers, and the most humane and gracious thing to do is give people leeway to make their own decisions while staying true to our own beliefs.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  47. Ashe Charlotte NC

    I'm sorry but I can't see the argument for pro-lifers. In my life time I have known many people who have had abortions. The reasons I knew about varied between being a victim of a sexual assault to their admitted inability to care for a child. It was their choice and I never judged them for it. Simply because it was their life. I can't say what I would do if put in that situation but I'm glad I live in a country where we still retain certain personal freedoms. The idea that we should dictate peoples personal life choices because of certain religious beliefs or personal ideas of what is right and wrong is despicable and shows a severe lack of enlightenment. I remember preachers and their followers on my college campus with pictures of mutilated fetus's spouting their propaganda. Screaming at women that they would burn in hell if they chose to murder an unborn child. Really? Is that really the way you win the masses over if your a pro-lifer? Then we as a nation sit in awe at the news reports of a man shot to death in a church for being an abortion doctor. Trust me when I say intelligence will always triumph over the ignorant masses. Every time an incident like this arises it just hurts the validity of the pro-life movement and makes all you pro-lifers out their that picket abortion clinics look like raging fanatical nut jobs. Keep picketing. Every time you make the news with some half witted sign screaming senselessly more people decide to make the logical decision and not be caught dead on your side.

    Agnostic, Pro-Choice and Proud to say I've never murdered anyone for a cause.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  48. Colt Hunter

    Women, having a baby is inherently risk-fraught. Before you marry and have sexual relations, consider the consequences. Once you have sexual intercourse, the die is cast, the choice is made. From that point on, there is no more choice, only duty and responsibility to bare that life within you to the limit of life itself. You would certainly give your life freely and willingly for your eight-year-old; you must be prepared to do the same for your eight-month-old. This is not Eden. This is the world we live in. And it's difficult, hard, tough, and painful. But we do not kill our babies (and we don't play games with words and start calling them fetuses either). The idea that people have rights seems sensible, but it is a flawed idea. When rights conflict, only conflict results. The truth is, none of us in this world have any lawful claim or right to or for anything, but we all have many duties and responsibilities to God and to each other. If we fulfill these responsibilities, the question of someone's "rights" will take care of itself. We need to focus on our duties and responsibilites, no matter the cost, be it life itself.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  49. Loren

    "Nobody ‘likes’ abortion, early or late. Most women who have one do it because they are in a particularly difficult circumstance, not because they don’t care."

    If this were true then why are there 105 induced abortions in Eastern Europe for every 100 live births. There are also 33 induced abortions for every 100 live births in the U.S. and Canada. This isn't some kind of right-wing propaganda. These are published facts by the WHO.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
  50. More Hypocrisy

    In regards to abortion, I get so sick of the sanctimonious comments like @cypressgreen makes: "Did you adopt one? Would you adopt a baby with half a brain for the few months it may survive, spend all your time at the hospital, quit work and pay millions in medical bills?"

    What does me adopting a special needs child have to do with the killing of an innocent baby? That makes about as much sense as me asking, "Do you care about poverty? How many homeless people have you taken into your home?"

    We don't snuff out a life just because it inconveniences us or it's going to be costly. Or at least, we shouldn't. But with that rationale, why not just start purging our society of all the dregs. I mean, let's get rid of every criminal ... somebody is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to take care of them and watch over them? Why not just end their drain on society and our pocketbooks?

    These "pro-choice" arguments are tired and flawed with holes the size of Texas. But, this response probably just makes too much sense to get posted by CNN.

    June 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7