Mom writes "goodbye" letter to baby she is about to abort

[GFR7]

Not only her letter, but the responses she got from posters, makes me think it has to be that they've been taught to believe a fetus is not real yet.

More disturbing :
The bias toward science, the obvious references to reincarnation and multiple universes, (and hence, a new metaphysics, a new world view and new gods) plus having been thrown into a world where they are supposed to be sexually active before marriage, seem to be the ingredients which conspired to make them believe this is the right thing to do:

A pregnant mother wrote an open letter to her unborn baby explaining why she has to terminate her pregnancy. She writes in the beginning of the letter that she is “both sorry and not sorry.”

Reddit user scaredthrowingaway writes to her unborn baby, “I am sorry that this is goodbye.”

“I want the best things for the future. That’s why I can’t be your mother right now. I am still growing myself. It wouldn’t be fair to bring a new life into a world where I am still haunted by ghosts of the life I’ve lived.”

Many of the comments were sympathetic to the situation like this one:

“That was beautiful. I’m sorry that this is a decision you have to make and I know it must have been extremely difficult to do so, but I commend you for your grace and honesty with yourself.

“Take care of yourself, love. Know that there are some internet strangers who are wishing the best for you right now.
And this one:

“I had an abortion at 17, which was 26 years ago. Now I have two beautiful children, and can totally relate to your sentiments. I could never have provided for a child at 17, and I don’t regret my decision.

“Like you, I feel like I put motherhood on hold so that I could later be better equipped to be a good parent and provider.
Here is the letter in its entirety:

Little Thing:

I can feel you in there. I’ve got twice the appetite and half the energy. It breaks my heart that I don’t feel the enchantment that I’m supposed to feel. I am both sorry and not sorry.

I am sorry that this is goodbye. I’m sad that I’ll never get to meet you. You could have your father’s eyes and my nose and we could make our own traditions, be a family. But, Little Thing, we will meet again. I promise that the next time I see that little plus, the next time you are in the same reality as me, I will be ready for you.

Little Thing, I want you to be happy. More than I want good things for myself, I want the best things for the future. That’s why I can’t be your mother right now. I am still growing myself. It wouldn’t be fair to bring a new life into a world where I am still haunted by ghosts of the life I’ve lived.

I want you to to have all the things I didn’t have when I was a child. I want you to be better than I ever was and more magnificent than I ever could be. I can’t do to you what was done to me: Plant a seed made of love and spontaneity into a garden, and hope that it will grow on only dreams.

Love and spontaneity are beautiful, but they have little merit. And while I have plenty of dreams to go around, dreams are not an effective enough tool for you to build a better tomorrow. I can’t bring you here. Not like this.

I love you, Little Thing, and I wish the circumstances were different. I promise I will see you again, and next time, you can call me Mom

http://www.westernjournalism.com/abortion-letter-will-make-cry/

 

[musterion]

Lake of Fire, lest she repent.

 

[IMJerusha]

Not only her letter, but the responses she got from posters, makes me think it has to be that they've been taught to believe a fetus is not real yet.

More disturbing :
The bias toward science, the obvious references to reincarnation and multiple universes, (and hence, a new metaphysics, a new world view and new gods) plus having been thrown into a world where they are supposed to be sexually active before marriage, seem to be the ingredients which conspired to make them believe this is the right thing to do:


http://www.westernjournalism.com/abortion-letter-will-make-cry/

Of course, she could have adopted out and given the child a chance at life but abortion clinics and pregnancy crisis centers refuse to counsel that option for the sake of the child. That is what an unselfish woman would do; a woman who cared about being a good parent. Parenthood begins at conception. Abortion clinics and pregnancy crisis centers feed selfish human desire and they absolutely don't care about the welfare of child or mother-to-be.

 

[GFR7]

I agree with both comments, but I also think this woman rationalized what she was doing due to her New Age beliefs: She keeps saying that "next time around" the baby can call her Mom. Such a belief system is blinding her as to the gravity of her decision.

I agree that abortion clinics take the attitude of the pregnancy as a "problem with a fix" - horrendously callous.

 

[IMJerusha]

I agree with both comments, but I also think this woman rationalized what she was doing due to her New Age beliefs: She keeps saying that "next time around" the baby can call her Mom. Such a belief system is blinding her as to the gravity of her decision.

I agree that abortion clinics take the attitude of the pregnancy as a "problem with a fix" - horrendously callous.

Won't get any argument from me on either score.

 

[alwight]

I'm pro-choice but if the woman actually regarded the "Little Thing" as a person or a soul/entity to communicate with then imo that choice should clearly have been no abortion.

 

[IMJerusha]

I'm pro-choice but if the woman actually regarded the "Little Thing" as a person or a soul/entity to communicate with then imo that choice should clearly have been no abortion.

Don't know anyone who would write a letter to "no-thing" but I suppose if one is mentally ill...

 

[musterion]

Originally Posted by alwight
I'm pro-choice but if the woman actually regarded the "Little Thing" as a person or a soul/entity to communicate with then imo that choice should clearly have been no abortion.

Why? It's still not a person at all, no matter what she does or doesn't call it. What difference does it make?

 

[GFR7]

I'm pro-choice but if the woman actually regarded the "Little Thing" as a person or a soul/entity to communicate with then imo that choice should clearly have been no abortion.

It is very strange that this woman could both abort and yet address the fetus as though it were a person. One would think abortion would preclude viewing the fetus as a sentient being.

As I have pointed out, she tells the child that "next time around" he/she will get to call her "Mom". Either she is drawing on reincarnation/multiverse new age beliefs, or actually believes the "little thing" will return in a later pregnancy? Very odd.....

 

[GFR7]

Unsurprisingly, this liberal perspective views the young woman in question as incredibly brave and selfless, and as breaking the stereotype of the selfish seeker of abortion for expediency's sake:

http://bluenationreview.com/im-getting-abortion-next-friday-reddit-user-writes/

 

[quip]

It is very strange that this woman could both abort and yet address the fetus as though it were a person. One would think abortion would preclude viewing the fetus as a sentient being.

As I have pointed out, she tells the child that "next time around" he/she will get to call her "Mom". Either she is drawing on reincarnation/multiverse new age beliefs, or actually believes the "little thing" will return in a later pregnancy? Very odd.....

Or perhaps she's simply referring to the next "little thing" via the physical nature of pregnancy.

 

[alwight]

Why? It's still not a person at all, no matter what she does or doesn't call it. What difference does it make?

Why? :think:
On what basis have you decided, perhaps facetiously here, that it's not a person?

An abortion afaic is a choice for the woman to make, who needs to consider all of her specific circumstances, including if there is any other "person" even able to exist within her particular "Little Thing".

 

[alwight]

Unsurprisingly, this liberal perspective views the young woman in question as incredibly brave and selfless, and as breaking the stereotype of the selfish seeker of abortion for expediency's sake:

http://bluenationreview.com/im-getting-abortion-next-friday-reddit-user-writes/

Choices are routinely made, for practical and indeed personal convenience reasons, to not have unwanted babies even if abstinence is the preferred method .
There just isn't the room or resources available on Earth to indulge every potential or possible "person" while extant people have their own lives and limitations to cope with. Right wingers imo often seem to give scant regard to such pragmatism, and even sometimes seem to get rather annoyed because other people do. :think:

 

[musterion]

Why? :think:
On what basis have you decided, perhaps facetiously here, that it's not a person?

Yes, facetiously, but only to make the point that it's either always a person without exception, or it's never a person at all. Choosing to selectively label the baby a person, or not, on a case by case basis according to situational preferences is dishonest and wicked.

You'll reject that out of hand, of course.

 

[quip]

I'm pro-choice but if the woman actually regarded the "Little Thing" as a person or a soul/entity to communicate with then imo that choice should clearly have been no abortion.

The "Little Thing" is an abstraction of what might have been.... under different circumstances.

"Little Thing, I want you to be happy.That’s why I can’t be your mother right now. I am still growing myself.

I want you to to have all the things I didn’t have when I was a child...........I can’t do to you what was done to me: Plant a seed made of love and spontaneity into a garden, and hope that it will grow on only dreams.dreams are not an effective enough tool for you to build a better tomorrow. I can’t bring you here. Not like this."

 

[GFR7]

Or perhaps she's simply referring to the next "little thing" via the physical nature of pregnancy.

Yes, I am seeing this now, but it makes no sense, as it would be a wholly different fetus, a younger sibling or half-sibling of the present one which will be cut off from life.

 

[heir]

More disturbing :
The bias toward science, the obvious references to reincarnation and multiple universes, (and hence, a new metaphysics, a new world view and new gods) plus having been thrown into a world where they are supposed to be sexually active before marriage, seem to be the ingredients which conspired to make them believe this is the right thing to do:

I hope an ambassador takes the time to share with her the word of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

[Rusha]

Her letter is a sham ... done to ease her own guilt while gaining sympathy.

Too bad that some idiots participated instead of telling her to step off of her soapbox and just admit she is selfish and felt that her innocent, unborn child would put a crimp in her lifestyle.

 

[alwight]

Yes, facetiously, but only to make the point that it's either always a person without exception, or it's never a person at all. .

The real question here of course is just at what point could a "person" be believed to exist?
We may each have our own opinion on that, or simply follow a doctrine or dogma, but I can see no reason to impose one person's opinion over another's. If a pregnant woman believes as I do then there is usually time to make a reasonably comfortable choice before a human "person" might reasonably be thought to exist.
I presume here that you would say conception is that point while I think a person has to first develop in the central nervous system.

Choosing to selectively label the baby a person, or not, on a case by case basis according to situational preferences is dishonest and wicked.

You'll reject that out of hand, of course

Yes I do, in fact what would actually be dishonest, wicked and cruel would be to force, say a raped woman to gestate a rapist's foetus purely for the sake of your kind of dogmatism.
If conception is the defining point of a "person" then the fact that, if true, far more "persons" have been naturally aborted as zygotes than were ever born as new babies doesn't seem worry you any about being "wicked", only the relatively tiny few that happen by choice.

 

[musterion]

The real question here of course is just at what point could a "person" be believed to exist?

No. Since no one has the authority to say dogmatically at what point of gestation "it" becomes a "he" or a "she" - mere choice, timing and convenience won't cut it - it's either a person from conception onward or it is not.