Abortion Needs Story Telling.

Social change requires story telling.  Stories of personal experience provide a window into lives otherwise hidden.

I have one of the breakthrough story telling masterpieces, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852).  Based on blacks she had known, Stowe cleverly portrays slaves who mock and outsmart white owners.  She also brings to light the heartbreak of couples torn apart by sales of slaves.

Just as daring were the first gay citizens and their parents who came out.  It was, and remains for some, a dangerous thing.

Like race, attitudes toward gays has improved. Gay people have simply told their stories.   Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays (PFLAG) has had a goal of story telling.  Parents with gay children have talked to groups wherever they lived, telling of love for their children.

Story telling continues in the form of our friend ”Mac” who comments here and blogs  on AreaVoices about being a married gay man, The Gay Agenda.  Another man’s story is attached.

There is little public story telling about abortion.  While a celebrity or two has told of their personal abortion experience, it is not common.

It is just as difficult for a women to share her abortion circumstances today as it was for the Stowe story in the 1850′s or gays in the 1950′s.  If the public heard the stories of women and the circumstances they faced when they chose abortion, political opposition would decrease.

I hope the day will come when women can tell their stories.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6633/gay_mormons_tie_the_knot/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Abortion Needs Story Telling.

  1. buzz marick says:

    As long as people let their sex organs dictate their thoughts,actions and deeds we are forced to deal with the consequences of a growing degeneration of our moral fabric. How sad.

    • entech says:

      As long as some people try to control other people by telling them that something that should be a source of pleasure and bonding is somehow intrinsically evil we will have the consequent guilt and fear and distorted ideas; how sad.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        entech 6:01 “…something that should be a source of pleasure and bonding is somehow intrinsically evil we will have consequent guilt and fear and distorted ideas, how say.”

        Well said. Many years ago I knew a woman who operated several abortion clinics and was involved in the national politics of abortion. Someone asked her, “What is the rock bottom reason for all this hatred toward abortion?”

        She said she had become convinced the original source of it is hatred of sex. You expressed that even better.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Jon; After thinking about your quote of the woman who operated several abortion clinics, and reading some quotes of Susan B Anthony, I wouldn’t be surprised the woman you refferenced would be more like nurse Ratchet than Susan B Anthony. Just saying.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Entech; When you were sailing around the world, and you “went ashore” while your wife was at home, I hardly think she or even you would have considered it “a source of pleasure and bonding”. “The consequent guilt and fear,” ( including the dis-loyalty, and not only the pregenancy, but the creepy crawlies.) would be self induced, that is if you had a conscience, or cared for your wife. We are talking about two different things here. Doing sex, and doing abortions. They need not be related. Also, there is within marriage, outside of marriage, and on the sly if married. It used to be said, (and still may be in some instances), that the “good kids” were the ones who got pregenant. Which of these do you think were truly the innocent. The others were prepaired and took precautions. There are just too many factors involved to make flippant claims and statements. But it is much easier to blame someone else for one’s own actions, deserved or not.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Sorry, I should have included Jon in this too. It can be a general observation, and not necessarily aimed at one person only. But since it was brought it up.

          • entech says:

            Presumptuous, borderline personally insulting, you are improving.
            As a senior officer my wife traveled with me a lot of the time, any comments about “when we went ashore” together?
            Comments about when my wife “stayed ashore”?

            But you couldn’t keep it up could you? How do know I have no conscience, that I did not care for my wife?
            A sure sign of a defeated mentality, always finds the need to turn to insult or misrepresentation and distortion.

          • Henry says:

            A lot of whining over no to little offense.

          • entech says:

            No offense?
            The implications are that I was unfaithful to my wife, that I thought nothing of making unknown ladies pregnant and that I knowingly risk all kinds of diseases.

            All because I said that you lot try to control people through sex. That the most nauseating aspect of your system is that a person is born in sin, a sin which they had no part in or no knowledge of, a sin committed by people that may or may not ace existed as punishment for disobeying, as innocent childlike beings, the instruction of a creator being, who also may or may not exist. A doctrine that has it that evil is passed on by genital contact, a doctrine by Augustine who was himself not averse to contact. Any adverse comment based on so much hypocracy is an offense in itself.

            If you cannot see that then you are either dishonest, senile or both.

          • Henry says:

            More whining: “The implications are that I was unfaithful to my wife, that I thought nothing of making unknown ladies pregnant and that I knowingly risk all kinds of diseases.”

            Nothing of the sort. Your morality was held in the highest regard from the context. Your sensitivity to unassuming comments indicates there may possibly be something there. However, I would like to think not.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech; I should have said “if you went to shore”. That was my intent. Didn’t catch it untill now. My my how offense is taken from an intended hypothetical, when a stronger assumption is implied by you. Must smart. As I said it is much easier to blame someone else for one’s own actions, deserved or not. Sensative to yourself, but not towards others. Then in your 3:58 you indeed do include “you”, meaning me/us/all. The inclusiveness of your position is more awkward than what offends you. Your uninformed statements on what original sin is reveals your inability to comprehend, and it’s result.

          • entech says:

            WBC says @ 3:37 When you were sailing around the world, and you “went ashore” while your wife was at home, I hardly think she or even you would have considered it “a source of pleasure and bonding”. “The consequent guilt and fear,” ( including the dis-loyalty, and not only the pregenancy, but the creepy crawlies.) would be self induced, that is if you had a conscience, or cared for your wife

            Are we reading the same blog? Or are you blind as well as dishonest and senile.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech; a little quick on the trigger finger I see. I have been gone, and am trying to get up to speed on your sensitivities.

          • entech says:

            I do not have a gun or a trigger finger, I do have sensitivity to deliberate slander and stupid innuendo from a person with no basis for the writing, apart, I am forced to conclude you posses the same characteristics as your friend Henry.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I am forced to conclude you apply the broad brush to others, yet you are offended when the reverse happens to you. And again you become what you despise.

          • entech says:

            No brush broad or narrow you main specific insinuations against me personally.

            I should have known better, it is best to ignore people that clearly demonstrate that they do not know any better and do not care.

            Your friend Martin Luther had it right, for once, when he said:
            Reason should be destroyed in all Christians it is nice to see that you are faithful and comply.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            If you don’ like the term “trigger finger”, would you understand booger finger better? Or would “nose finger” be understandable? You may not have a gun, but surely you must have nose holes.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Not surprising that your take on Luther’s problem with reason abused in scholasticism would be reduced to “reason” alone.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            That is the scholasticism of Aquinas and it’s abuse of reason of the time. AKA “Schoolmen”. Some of which continues to this day.

          • entech says:

            When you were sailing around the world, and you “went ashore” while your wife was at home and
            the dis-loyalty, and not only the pregenancy, but the creepy crawlies and
            that is if you had a conscience, or cared for your wife.

            If you can sit there and say that these statements are not deliberately intended to cause offense then you are more idiotic and dishonest that I would ever have imagined a fine Christian fellow would be.

            I should have known better than to try (again) to reason with you, please no answer, but just note from your previous talk about “only responding” you even lie to yourself.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech; Re. your 5:45–See my 5:23. I was gone for a few hours, and couldn’t jump back in to clarify. As you yourself have said in the past, on occasion what we say on this board are not exactly what was intended. By your response, I need not apologize, only explain. The rest is your nickle.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Were all your shipmates a pure as the driven snow as you?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech; Do you stand by all your over broad and inaccurate generalizations stated in the past which can be and were taken equally as personally ? Seems to me we had some of these issues just last week. Fine for you to say.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Which were” deliberately intended”.

          • entech says:

            6:05 OK. Did not see your 5:23. will note the time stamp on my reply to Henry (also 5:23) and his leaping into the attack.
            Your trigger finger remark, came in at a time you appeared to supporting the “Henry” attack. And the consequent “broad brush” was taken also out of context.

            So taking your 6:05 and looking back I see that I was responding to the sought of thing I have come to expect from you (nearest you get to an apology, but more than you would offer), indeed the “IF” can make a difference, for instance IF you could supply a clear demonstration or evidence of this ghost that could unbind my thoughts on why I decide on any given course of action I would join you, all I need is the tiniest spec of evidence.

            Your funny little snippets:
            pure as the driven snow, no. I could tell you stories of double standards that would make Clinton appear pure, but this is a family show.
            Before today I have not made any statements which could be seen as directed to you personally. By definition a “broad brush” is not personal. You seem to take anything which is against your beliefs as personal.
            I try to stick to the ideas you frequently turn the attack actually personal:
            Now our friend questions friendship. Have we ever heard much of anything positive coming from his posts? Very little. Mister negativity strikes again. I rather doubt he has “best friends”, for if he did, he would understand what the description entailed. Tolerated aquaintences would probably be a better term for him.
            No friends only tolerated acquaintances, how personal is that?

            Now our friend is looking through the lens of a racist. Oh well, being against a race has the same qualities as being against faith. Now I understand.

            Do you remember any of this? It started off as friendly dig at your dropping into the fallacy of inconsistency, when you said:
            The Catholic Church might accept me, but they have a way to go yet, but it may happen yet. In the meantime, I have my list of compliance issues at hand. Some of my best friends are Catholic.
            Who you number amongst your friends is irrelevant to the argument that says in effect, “I am not anti-Catholic , but they have some compliance issues with my idea of Christianity.

            As a result of pointing to these minor (and actually fairly humorous) inconsistencies, from this we get a personal attack on my ability for friendship and when I point out the joke by an exageration Personally I have nothing against Christianity, some of my best friends are Jews. the evil face should be an indicator, even for you. You immediately leapt in and said racist, to compound this you said that I introduced racism.

            I can only conclude that for you offensive and insulting mean a failure to accept the obvious truth and superior knowledge of YOU.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Sounds like ranting to me. It that too personal? Do you mean that all Seamen are like you? Do all Christians continue to fit into your little box of dullards, even with the ever so seldom qualification? Are you getting angry now? Are you still generalizing now? Do you like being on the end of being generalized about? Is generalizing fun? Did your mommie teach you to generalize? Will you continue to generalize?

          • entech says:

            You ask questions. I should know better, but here are the answers.

            Sounds like ranting – so? A&E and talking snakes sounds like truth to you – wrong on two counts.
            Personal? – Don’t understand the question, you are talking of your own failings (see above).
            All Seamen? – haven’t met them all, but I guess they come in all varieties – not all like me.
            All Christians dullards? – haven’t met them all, but I guess they come in all varieties – not all like you.
            Angry? – not now that I know you are not to be taken seriously.
            Generalising – 5 sentences that say more about you than me.

            You still refuse to recognise that you are frequently personally very insulting, to both me and to Jon. You counter by talking about personally offended, nobody says anything about your personal life or morality or makes inferences about them.
            When have I ever said all Christians were dullards, I will say that much of the belief system is silly when taken literally. But not all believers are dumb, of my Christian friends they are the same as any other, except for the beliefs. You could not call the likes of Francis Crick a dullard.

            To repeat my last sentence in 7:07 “I can only conclude that for you offensive and insulting mean a failure to accept the obvious truth and superior knowledge of YOU.”

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            You clearly don’t get the point, and blame others for the very thing you do. Nice attempt at deflection, but no gold ring. If you can’t see or understand how utterly personal and insulting some of your comments are when you broad-brush/generalize Christianity, and yet appear to act so offended now reveals the self centered behavior of a child and spoiled brat; a bound spoiled brat. If that is a “name”, or if you take that personally, I could care less.

          • Henry says:

            entech, your 5:30 about me is without basis, therefore a personal attack against me in itself.

          • entech says:

            I still consider direct personal insults to be of a different level to general comments about a belief system. That you cannot see the difference is a sure sign of the Bondage of the Mind.

            Goodnight. The end.

          • entech says:

            Henry, just comparing two Christians, if you don’t like being compared to WBS so be it.

          • entech says:

            Henry, if you had been offended by my 5:23 I could understand. WBS seems to think it was aimed at him. but no it was you I was calling.
            I had not seen the wbc post at the time.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I think we already took care of bondage of the mind “in the”" garden”", (“and what it represents”). As verses the bondage of the will; A possible awareness of , but not the ability to accept. This is wher you get off and stay off.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Probably should have said “jump ship” instead of simply “get off”. More understandable to a seaman. Don’t want to be misunderstood—–again, by omission, or comission. There isn’t enough screen for another diatribe?

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            I am actually surprised that Jon ,(the other member of the tag team) hasn’t jumped in on this. Of the two, he is even more visable in the use of personally insulting broad over-generalizations.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 2:13 “I am actually surprised that Jon..hasn’t jumped in..he is even more visable in the use of personsl insulting broad over-generalizations.”

            I have never accused you, or, anyone else of infidelity with your spouse. I, especially, have not made such a reference to a beloved spouse that is now dead. You, however, did that to entech. Then, you refused to apologize.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            No need to apologize. That wasn’t my intent. I thought I made that clear. Please keep up. Now then. your introduction of this is not the content of what I accuse you of, and that is untruthfull generalization, with false information, resulting in personal, and I mean personal and insulting inuendo. Slick attempt of diversion though. I see the tag team effort is still intact.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; I must say that the inadvertant omission of the word “if” was not intended, and the lapse in timelines due to my absense to make clear the intent did prolong the unintended insult to Entech. That I regret, but again, that wasn’t my intent. I refuse to apologize for something that wasn’t my intent. As I said earlier, and agreed to by Entech even earlier, that there are things said on this board, along with spelling, syntax, etc. which in normal conversation would/could be avoided by simply begging the question, clarification, and moving on. I have many times given you the credit of the doubt in your posts of the same. Somethings just aren’t worth arguing about, even if worthy of questioning.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 3:56 We all toss things on the board here without a lot of reflection on how they might appear to others–I do it also. I hope we can all improve on this with experience. Carry on.

          • Henry says:

            Wanna: “I must say that the inadvertant omission of the word “if” was not intended,”

            The “if” was clearly implied as one can clearly read and pull from the context. Clearly a hypothetical. The feigned outcry from team Lin/tech is getting a little old.

            Again, a lot of whining over no to little offense.

          • entech says:

            WBS. Now it is clearly understood that character assassination is not the same as a physical murder, but in either case “it wasn’t intentional” is not much of an excuse. In fact it is no excuse at all when it is a serial offense, one time very recently, you even said something about a “little English mother” was that also unintentional? Whenever you are unable to sustain an argument, more and more frequently sad to say, you revert to direct personal attack, or, obscure theological expressions which have no meaning to a non-theist.

            An example of what you consider a personal insult that has been rendered would be appreciated, although I expect it will cover such a broad range that I will be unable to speak. Perhaps silencing the opposition is the intent, there is a history of that in religion.

            Henry, continuing with efforts at causing dissension I see, and interpreting things in your own way. The world according to Henry is a very different place.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            “serial offense”. Interesting application of the same practice presented by you. Never thought of that, but thank you for the application. That may come in handy in the future.. You are offended, and the others should not be. There is a clinical definition for that. A couple gills of 20% something might prove to be a temporary aid to get past it. If it amplifies your emotions, seek profesional help.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Wanna 3:37 “There are just too many factors involved to make flippant claim and statements.”

          Here we get into deciding what is a flippant claim and statement. I’ll give you what I think it is.

          It is deciding “when life begins” and declaring that all laws apply to the “life” beginning at that moment. I remember a man prominent in “right to life” politics in Fargo came in to see me as Mayor. He said his mission that day was to “close the sale”. As a business man, he said, you had to provide the customer what he wanted. So, he asked, “What information you need that would prove “life” began at conception? I’ll provide it for you.”

          Of course, what he meant was there was a heartbeat after such and such, or pain was felt, or there was a soal etc. etc. Today, he would have said there is separate DNA. All of these are “flippant claims and statements.” If I trim off my live fingernail, it becomes dead as a stone soon after. If a fetus is removed from a woman in the early months, its dead as a stone soon after as well. It was a part of that woman’s body just as the piece of fingernail.

          Now, compare that piece of dead tissue with the woman’s own goals, aspirations, complications or simply health challenges presented by a pregnancy. Whether she should have had sex or why she did is, like the abortion, no one else’s business but her own.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“If I trim off my live fingernail, it becomes dead as a stone soon after. If a fetus is removed from a woman in the early months, its dead as a stone soon after as well.”

            Let’s examine Jon’s argument in a couple of other situations.

            Let’s take the example of a live newborn, a legal human being entitled to most rights. If the newborn is removed from the mother or father in the early months, “its dead as a stone soon after as well.” “It was a part of that woman’s body”, but cannot sustain its own life in the early months, yet we convey most of the rights of a human being to the newborn.

            Let’s take the example of an ICU patient on life support. If the plug is pulled, “its dead as a stone soon after as well”, yet we convey most of the rights of a human being to the ICU patient.

            Jon, your distribution of rights based on your “logic” and example of viability does not make sense and is very inconsistent.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 7:09 The newborn and the ICU are dependent on others, but are not part of the mother’s body.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Off topic and irrelevent from your 1;19, which I responded to.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; And by association, Entech’s 6;01

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “The newborn and the ICU are dependent on others, but are not part of the mother’s body.”

            The newborn was part of the mother’s body, as was the aborted fetus. Both are dependent on others.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 10:04 The early aborted fetus cannot live without the mother’s body, period. The new born can.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            It is my understanding that the unborn is NOT part of the mother or visa versa. Both have different DNA from the time of fertilization. The placenta an umbilical cord act as an interface for exchange of nutrients, oxygen, waste, etc. There is then no direct exchange of blood, etc. The unborn is however completely dependant on the mother for life support diffused via placenta/ umbilical. The post-birth baby remains completely dependent, but not necessarily on the mother.

          • Henry says:

            Dependency was Jon’s basis for arguing a little one could be thrown away like his dirty fingernail.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; Your ” The early aborted fetus cannot live without the mother’s body, period”. Are you saying that any interuption of that connection between the fetus/unborn and the mother would be creating a situation so that it can not live? Would that not be called “stopping life”? Apart of course from going in there with a Mix Master, stirring it up, and sucking it out.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; The operative worde here is “live”,( your word.)

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            When I was 25 , my childhood dog was old, deaf, nearly blind, and skinny. He could not come to eat in the winter before the food froze. When I got home, I called the vet, and asked him to come out and put him down. The vet was too busy to do that and he asked if I had a 30.06 rifle. I said that I did, and hunted dear with it at the time. The vet told me that a well placed shot with it was more instant, and just as humane as a shot in the shoulder. At Christmas break, My dog and I went for a walk out to the rock pile. I “stopped his life”. He had no future, or prospects, and he was a dog. I would not do that again, and he was a dog. Did I say he was a dog?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 11:20 I shot a pet dog on the farm once–maybe I was ten or twelve. Still remember it clearly. Yuk.

  2. buzz marick says:

    entech 6:01 am. the guilt and fear that you think is outside driven controlling is your own consience trying to guide you.it’s a possibility yours hasn’t been awakened.i couldn’t care less about controlling you. i got my own bucket list good and bad to deal with.

    • entech says:

      My comment was intended to imply that much of the attempts at control involve attempts to smart feelings of guilt and fear.
      Threats of hell and promises of paradise, I often wonder which is the most disgusting.

      Alike for those who for To-day prepare,
      And those that after some To-morrow stare,
      A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
      “Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There.”

  3. Henry says:

    Jon: “Just as daring were the first gay citizens and their parents who came out. It was, and remains for some, a dangerous thing. Like race, attitudes toward gays has improved.”

    I’ll be a little daring and tell a story. I recently had a friend who changed branches of service. 18 years after he went through basic training, he did it again in order for the new branch of service to accept him. Now, the gay recruits are very overt in the training. They get the run of the place everywhere including the gang showers where they get to view the naked bodies of their male recruits whom they have a sexual attraction towards. They are not separated like men and women are in a shower situation. They get special rights. Eighteen years ago, this would not have been tolerated. I miss Bill Clinton (don’t ask, don’t tell).

    • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      There are plenty of opportunities to hang out with guys in a shower short of signing up for 4 years of active duty in the military. Those alarmist statements are nearly as stupid as the people that make them.

      • Henry says:

        Didn’t say they signed for 4 years just to hang out with guys in the shower. They are indeed in the showers with men they are attracted to with no provisions for modesty. That is not alarmist to say someone’s 17 year-old boy shares a shower in basic training with gays. That is in fact the case.

    • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      There are plenty of opportunities to hang out with guys in a shower short of signing up for 4 years of active duty in the military.

      • Henry says:

        Didn’t say they signed for 4 years just to hang out with guys in the shower. They are indeed in the showers with men they are attracted to with no provisions for modesty. That is not alarmist to say someone’s 17 year-old boy shares a shower in basic training with gays. That is in fact the case.

        • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

          I’m pretty sure that same 17 year old boy did not make it through high school without sharing the shower with a homo or two on various athletic teams. He just may not have known they were there.

          I’d venture that a soldier who is nervous about a homo seeing his wee-wee probably wouldn’t have a very successful military career anyway.

          Please believe me when I say this remark is not directed at you, but the whole shower argument is just plain dumb. And it makes the people who use it look like idiots.

          Now back on topic: Story telling. I go on endlessly and ad nauseam on my blog page about the fact that if everyone were gay they could have just as much fun as Ricky and I do! I suspect I’ve turned hundreds of straight men gay in the past couple of years.

          • Henry says:

            You’ve made great effort, but sodomy is a difficult sell.

            If the “shower argument” is dumb, then let’s streamline and mix men and women in the same barracks and showers. Shouldn’t be a problem with the men and women of the military both striving for “successful careers.”

            I just don’t see why modesty doesn’t count when gay men are milling around non-gay boys in a gang shower. I vote for modesty when there is potential sexual attraction possible.

          • Henry says:

            Another statistic. 70% of active duty service members objected to sharing showers with homosexuals. No one listened.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 12:54 I heard “horror stories” about gay men in showers in the military when I was growing up. Apparently, the same stories are still being passed around. I never hear the same stories about lesbians showering with straight women. It seems just men get all upset by this.

          “That is in fact the case.” There is another fact: The gay men have a right to be there. It’s time for the 17 year old men, their parents and aunts and uncles to get over it.

          • Henry says:

            Here is a female service member,
            ““I do not have to shower or sleep in a room with men so I do not want to shower or sleep in the same room as a woman who is homosexual,” said a female service member. “I would feel uncomfortable changing and sleeping as I would if it was a man in the room. I should not have to accept this.””

          • Henry says:

            Again, no one listened. Jon is insensitive to this woman and others.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “It’s time for the 17 year old men, their parents and aunts and uncles to get over it.”

            How insensitive. A 17 year-old non-gay male being forced to shower with a gay male is the equivalent of a 17 year-old female being forced to shower with non-gay males. We wouldn’t stand for that.

  4. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    Jon, thanks for your kind remarks. Since you know who Ricky and I are in the real world, you know that I can say what I do because we have nothing to fear except maybe some vandalism or crazy protesters in front of our house I suppose, which is why I use the fake names.
    Not all gay people have the luxury of being secure in their professional and social lives at the level Ricky and I are. Even Ricky’s somewhat conservative employment treats us just like any other couple at every corporate function, and my former industry probably wouldn’t exist without gay people. :)
    I don’t know if we’ll ever get to the point where women can ‘tell their story’. I’ve often said, abortion is not the problem; unplanned pregnancy is the problem. Fix that and abortion goes away. It’s figuring out how to do that that’s such a challenge.
    And speaking of stupid comments, please; nobody talk like women use abortion as a form of birth control, or that they take the procedure lightly. Can you imagine being in such a place that this would be the only viable option you’d have? It’s got to be awful.

    • Henry says:

      Mac: “please; nobody talk like women use abortion as a form of birth control, or that they take the procedure lightly.”

      Well, getting down to brass tacks, abortion does control birth, generally 100% of the time the procedure is tried.

      Mac: “It’s got to be awful.”

      I would agree. Very gory.

  5. Using abortion as birth control is the saddest thing of all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>