Saturday, January 03, 2009


After reading this article by the Bastardette, I really wonder if legislators think that a woman can make up her mind on issues concerning her body and her life. Women are intelligent human beings. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin both ran for high offices in our country. Obviously people thought that these women were qualified to make decisions for our country. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is another example. I hope she runs against Rick Perry and wins the Governor's position. I really wish someone somewhere would do a study on why women have abortions. So maybe we can finally clear all of this nonsense up once and for all. Two of my heros, Ann Richards and Molly Ivans, were very intelligent and delightfully snarky women.

Both of my children were accidental pregnancies. Were they unwanted? Hell no. Would I have ever in my life ever consider relinquishing any child? No. I have also never had an abortion either.

This article is a clue into how women basically view adoption vs. abortion.

Abortion, not adoption - Two women tell how they would prefer termination to giving up the child

Published: Saturday | January 3, 2009

Athaliah Reynolds, Staff Reporter

At least two women who have had abortions say they would rather terminate a pregnancy than give the child up for adoption.

The women were responding to a call recently made by several members of the church community and other anti-abortion advocates for expectant mothers contemplating abortion to take the babies to them instead.

Father Gregory Ramkissoon, executive director of Mustard Seed, threw out the lifeline during a press conference recently, saying his organisation and other churches would be willing to care for children whose mothers believed they could not keep them.

However, the two young professionals who spoke with The Gleaner said they would feel guiltier if they were to carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption, than they would if they terminated the pregnancy.

"I would feel like I neglected my child," said 22-year-old Cecile Lyn.

Lyn explained that the idea of carrying a child to full term and then turning it over to an adoption agency or the church would be more traumatic than having an abortion.

"I don't really see the sense in that," she said. "Why bond with a child for nine months and then give it away?"

She said her decision to have an abortion three years ago was based on the fact that she had just started university and had no money or support.

Lyn explained that after she told the father of the child that she was pregnant, he broke off the relationship, leaving her to deal with the situation on her own.

"I don't regret having an abortion. It was the best thing for me to do at that time because I wasn't ready to be a mother," she said.

Twenty-six-year-old Karice Sinclairshared Lyn's sentiments. "I couldn't sleep at night knowing that my child was alive in one of those homes and is probably suffering and just leave it like that," she said. Sinclair said she believed that this was a worse fate than abortion.

Sinclair admitted that her decision to have an abortion at 21 years old was a matter of convenience. "I was just starting out, just finished school and I made the silly mistake of getting pregnant," she told The Gleaner.

Reverend Donovan Cole, a member of the Coalition for the Defense of Life, said it was unfortunate that some persons saw it necessary to put convenience over life. "It shows a real deterioration in values," he said.

Cole said the Church would be willing to care for the child until the mother was in a position to do so herself.

Debate on abortion intensified in September 2008, when a joint select committee of Parliament began hearing submissions from the public on the controversial issue.

The committee has been set up to consider the recommendations of the Abortion Policy Review Group.

Names changed on request.

No comments: