In Oklahoma, a doctor can now lie to you

[Saya]

HOUSTON — The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor’s vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for **** and incest victims.

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.

Opponents argue that the law will protect doctors who purposely mislead a woman to keep her from choosing an abortion. But the bill’s sponsors maintain that it merely prevents lawsuits by people who wish, in hindsight, that the doctor had counseled them to abort a disabled child.

Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed both bills last week. The ultrasound law, he said, was flawed because it did not exempt **** and incest victims and would allow an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman’s privacy.

Of the other measure, Mr. Henry said, “It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient.”

The Republican majorities in both houses, however, saw things differently. On Monday, the House voted overwhelmingly to override the vetoes, and the Senate followed suit on Tuesday morning, making the two measures law.

“This is a good day for the cause of life,” said State Senator Glenn Coffee, the Republican majority leader. “The voice of the people has spoken twice now this session in the Senate and twice in the House, and I sincerely hope those who would reverse the people’s voice would think twice before acting.”

Both of the laws enacted Tuesday over the governor’s objections were first passed in 2008 in an omnibus bill, along with several other anti-abortion measures. But state courts struck down the measure on a technicality, because it violated a clause in the Oklahoma Constitution requiring bills to deal with a single subject.

This year, Republican leaders broke the omnibus bill into pieces to satisfy the courts’ concerns, passing several separate anti-abortion measures. Mr. Henry has signed two into law: a measure requiring clinics to post signs stating that a woman cannot be forced to have an abortion, and another making it illegal to have an abortion because of the sex of a child.

Two other anti-abortion bills are still working their way through the Legislature and are expected to pass. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion; statistics based on the answers would then be posted online. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedures.

Taken together, the various pieces of legislation would make Oklahoma one of the most prohibitive environments in the United States for women seeking to end a pregnancy, advocates for women and family planning said.

“These laws all have the same goal, and that’s to discourage women from seeking abortions in the first place,” said Anita Fream, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma. “They just throw down one roadblock after another in front of women and hope maybe they will give up.”

Just hours after the vote, the Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization based in New York that advocates for abortion rights, went to state court to challenge the ultrasound law as unconstitutional. It argued that the law violates the doctor’s freedom of speech, the woman’s right to equal protection and the woman’s right to privacy, said the group’s president, Nancy Northup.

Several states have passed laws in recent years requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, and at least three — Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi — require doctors to offer the woman a chance to see the image. But Oklahoma’s new law says that the monitor must be placed where the woman can see it and that she must listen to a detailed description of the fetus.

“The goal of this legislation is just to make a statement for the sanctity of human life,” State Senator Todd Lamb, the majority floor leader, said in an interview after the vote. “Maybe someday these babies will grow up to be police officers and arrest bad people, or will find a cure for cancer.”

Oklahoma also has a bill in motion to require women to disclose information about themselves and their abortions and put that information on a public website.

I know that since abortion was legalized in the States again there has been many many many laws to attempt to make it very difficult for women, but I can't imagine how this does not violate women's constitutional rights, or why anyone could defend a doctor not disclosing that your kid is going to die as soon as its born, or be brain dead all its life, just because he's pro life.

And I think with all the attempts to pass insane abortion laws lately, one more and I'm going to make a single thread for all of them.

[ape descendant]

I know... and it feels like it gets worse and worse every day... either treating women like children who are incapable of making informed decisions for themselves and their family, or treating women like murderers who's depest desire is to kill everything beautiful.. damned anti-choice-pro-coathanger assholes!!

[CptSternn]

I don't see any reference to anything that says a doctor can lie to you. They have to setup the ultrasound so you can see it. How exactly is that lying?

Seriously, your posts are getting as bad as deadmans - your personal (and usually incorrect) titling is making you seem a bit like a nut job.

I'm all for a womans right to choose. The law to 'force' women to view their own ultrasound does not seem like it really interferes with anyones rights to me.

If you think about it, if a woman could be so easily led to not get an abortion just because she saw the results of an ultrasound, it would seem to me that it wasn't really what she wanted to do in the first place. Had she gone though with it and later in life did get pregnant again and got an ultrasound or was with a friend when they had one done, they probably would freak out and have to enter therapy.

If their decision is based on trying to keep the idea of what they are doing out of their head, then it is probably a decision that needs more thought anyway, for the sake of their own mental stability later in life.

I know a girl who is in that very predicament. She had an abortion when she was young, in her teens. Now she is older, married, and has a kid that turned 3. She sees a therapist because she feels so guilty about her abortion, she thinks she killed her first child and can't seem to get over it.

If viewing your own ultra sound can prevent this sort of thing, I don't see why it is an issue. I also again have no idea why you would accuse doctors of 'lying' as the truth has nothing to do with this issue.

Furthermore, doctors can be barred from practicing medicine much like lawyers can be banned from practicing law if they violate their code of ethics. Lying is a direct violation of that - to insinuate a doctor, any doctor, would do that is like saying a lawyer will rob a bank because some new law says they can. It is just silly.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I don't see any reference to anything that says a doctor can lie to you. They have to setup the ultrasound so you can see it. How exactly is that lying?

Read the whole article, there are TWO laws that passed, one about the ultrasound and one in which you now cannot sue a doctor if he withholds that your baby is going to be deformed if he does so to deter you from having an abortion.

Seriously, your posts are getting as bad as deadmans - your personal (and usually incorrect) titling is making you seem a bit like a nut job.

I can't be offended by that if you evidently only read the first few sentences of news articles.

I'm all for a womans right to choose. The law to 'force' women to view their own ultrasound does not seem like it really interferes with anyones rights to me.

If you think about it, if a woman could be so easily led to not get an abortion just because she saw the results of an ultrasound, it would seem to me that it wasn't really what she wanted to do in the first place. Had she gone though with it and later in life did get pregnant again and got an ultrasound or was with a friend when they had one done, they probably would freak out and have to enter therapy.

If their decision is based on trying to keep the idea of what they are doing out of their head, then it is probably a decision that needs more thought anyway, for the sake of their own mental stability later in life.

I know a girl who is in that very predicament. She had an abortion when she was young, in her teens. Now she is older, married, and has a kid that turned 3. She sees a therapist because she feels so guilty about her abortion, she thinks she killed her first child and can't seem to get over it.

If viewing your own ultra sound can prevent this sort of thing, I don't see why it is an issue. I also again have no idea why you would accuse doctors of 'lying' as the truth has nothing to do with this issue.

Furthermore, doctors can be barred from practicing medicine much like lawyers can be banned from practicing law if they violate their code of ethics. Lying is a direct violation of that - to insinuate a doctor, any doctor, would do that is like saying a lawyer will rob a bank because some new law says they can. It is just silly.

Vaginal ultrasounds hurt like fuck, there is no leeway for **** or incest victims who might be opposed to someone sticking something up their vaginas, and really it should be a choice whether to have something stuck up your vagina or not, should it not? And why aren't women capable of making their own choices? Why didn't your friend get it done out of her own free will? And her case is extremely rare, most women who get abortions do not regret it later, and most women who get abortions are mothers already.

A strongly pro life doctor would probably love to get away with not telling parents that there children are deformed or disabled, yes.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Saya

Read the whole article, there are TWO laws that passed, one about the ultrasound and one in which you now cannot sue a doctor if he withholds that your baby is going to be deformed if he does so to deter you from having an abortion.

First, the law about the being able to sue the doctor if he/she withholds info about your unborn child being deformed if he/she does so to deter you from having an abortion will be extremely difficult to enforce (or the resulting lawsuits will be extremely difficult to win) because you will have to prove intent. That will be very hard to demonstrate in court.

Second, the thought that a woman should consider aborting her unborn child because it may be born deformed is a step on the slippery slope toward positions like choosing to abort an unborn child because it is going to be born with a specific disease, undersized, mixed race or even female. I for one have been horrified to hear those kinds of choices are being made in other parts of the world.

[Solumina]

I can understand not being able to handle certain conditions. The financial strain is more than most families can afford and that doesn't even begin to compare to the emotional strain. I think there is something wrong with people who would abort because they don't want a child who is "different", but there are some conditions that are so beyond tragic that an abortion may very well be the best option, and that is a decision that only the parents can make.

[Ben Lahnger]

There are many decisions we don't allow parents to make. Society and the rule of law intervene on the behalf of children all the time to prevent parents from making bad choices. While the distinction that the child is unborn is relevant, saying that it is a decision only the parents can make is not strictly accurate nor morally defensible. And frankly, I think that accepting whether a couple can afford a child or not as a good reason for choosing an abortion is also on that slippery slope. I know the law now allows that choice, and I don't want to be in the business of reversing any of a woman's right to privacy that Roe v. Wade represents, but I do think these kind of criteria do give one pause for thought.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

First, the law about the being able to sue the doctor if he/she withholds info about your unborn child being deformed if he/she does so to deter you from having an abortion will be extremely difficult to enforce (or the resulting lawsuits will be extremely difficult to win) because you will have to prove intent. That will be very hard to demonstrate in court.

From the sound of it you just can't sue at all, its meant to protect pro life doctors but you can't sue at all for not being informed of medical problems with the baby.

Second, the thought that a woman should consider aborting her unborn child because it may be born deformed is a step on the slippery slope toward positions like choosing to abort an unborn child because it is going to be born with a specific disease, undersized, mixed race or even female. I for one have been horrified to hear those kinds of choices are being made in other parts of the world.

Its really up to the woman to abort for her own choices, if she doesn't want a child who's going to be born with serious medical problems thats her own choice. There's no reason to judge someone on what to do with their body or how they see fit.

Parents chose to abort rather than have their children suffer, thats true, but thats between them and their doctor and no one else. If their doctor has a problem with their reasons for abortion, they are trained to deal with it and make sure the woman is under no pressure. In China where you're only allowed one child, girls get aborted, but the problem with that is that their reproductive choices are severely limited, you can only have one and since men have far greater privileged there, its no wonder they abort by gender. Its the society itself that devalues female fetuses.

And you know, birth defects are not easy to deal with, and being afraid that the parents will abort because their kid will be born diseased or disabled is still very cruel to the child once its born, they will not be prepared at all to take care of it, and not to mention the shock of discovering it after giving birth. All that grief just because your doctor thought you couldn't be treated like an adult and refused to warn you.

You know, everyone seems to think that "if you allow abortions under these circumstances then women will get abortions on demand and go nuts." Here in Canada there is no limitation on abortion, you can in theory at least get an abortion at any time, but most abortions are still done very early. Infact, only 0.4% of abortions here are after 20 weeks, which is generally around the time when things like gender are found out.

[korinna5555]

Vaginal ultrasounds aren't performed routinely, and amniocentesis can determine gender well before 20 weeks gestation.

[Saya]

Its being reported that they must use a vaginal ultrasound to get a clearer picture:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...robe-abortion/
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...Their-Patients

And amniocentesis is usually considered risky before 16 weeks, and isn't common before then at all. Its more common to test for Downs Syndrome and other such problems, no one I know with a pregnancy that was expected to be healthy then got it done at all.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Second, the thought that a woman should consider aborting her unborn child because it may be born deformed is a step on the slippery slope toward positions like choosing to abort an unborn child because it is going to be born with a specific disease, undersized, mixed race or even female. I for one have been horrified to hear those kinds of choices are being made in other parts of the world.

I can't empathize with that at all. Parents feel without ease for a certain deformity of the baby, and latter on even just a benign but undesirable quality, and they are so uncomfortable about it that they cannot imagine raising it; and you want the child to be raised in this type of family?
The only scenario in which this could possibly happen is one in which personal aesthetics trump the loving link between a mother and her child. It's clear that you're a guy by positing such a ridiculous scenario to defend your arbitrary position on when it's right and when it's wrong to have an abortion.
What really IS a slippery slope is saying that if people can abort because they are aware of specific qualities in a baby which they weren't expecting, that they would simply start aborting until they 'get it right.'

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

And frankly, I think that accepting whether a couple can afford a child or not as a good reason for choosing an abortion is also on that slippery slope.

Which is why I said how that is pretty insubstantial when compared to the emotional costs.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

While the distinction that the child is unborn is relevant, saying that it is a decision only the parents can make is not strictly accurate nor morally defensible.

A) It isn't a child yet and at that stage it is the mother's call. Sure the father, the doctor, and morality should all play a part but that is her call.
B) People shouldn't be blindsided by what comes out of them.

I know how everyone here hates anecdotes but well in this case they are pretty appropriate. I know a woman who trusted her doctor, after all she had no reason not to. There were some complications with her pregnancy she was in and out of the hospital but he assured her that the baby was fine. He knew the stress than the pregnancy was having on her body (after all she did have a preexisting condition that made pregnancy risky) and he didn't tell her everything and she gave birth to a deformed child, that died hours later. At least the law was on her side and she was able to sue him, as his defense that he was "protecting the life of the child" didn't really hold up and in addition to getting enough money to pay for all of those trips to the hospital and all of the therapy she went through (as well as a small funeral for the baby), and of course his medical license was taken away.

If you think that women shouldn't be able to abort because they don't want or can't handle such a child then that is a whole different argument. A doctor should not withhold medical information from a patient and that is what this law protects.

[gothicusmaximus]

"Well ma'am, your unborn daughter has ten adorable little fingers, ten adorable little toes, and baby blue eyes full of wonder and promise. We were able to detect a heartbeat, some slight movement-- oh, and she asked 'what's an abortion mommy?'"

[vindicatedxjin]

T_Tthat's sad

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Alan

I can't empathize with that at all. Parents feel without ease for a certain deformity of the baby, and latter on even just a benign but undesirable quality, and they are so uncomfortable about it that they cannot imagine raising it; and you want the child to be raised in this type of family?
The only scenario in which this could possibly happen is one in which personal aesthetics trump the loving link between a mother and her child. It's clear that you're a guy by positing such a ridiculous scenario to defend your arbitrary position on when it's right and when it's wrong to have an abortion.
What really IS a slippery slope is saying that if people can abort because they are aware of specific qualities in a baby which they weren't expecting, that they would simply start aborting until they 'get it right.'

You know, I was ready to leave this be, because in my last statement I thought I summed up my reservations but also my desire not to impair or impinge on a woman's rights to privacy afforded by Roe v. Wade. But you made the statement in bold above. So let me address that and the assertion that I came to this "arbitrary position" and presented this "ridiculous scenario" because I'm a "guy".

My scenario was not arbitrary (the idea of couples possible choosing to abort because a child might be born disabled was presented in the conversation prior to my remarks.) And to expand and show the relevancy of my position, would the same couple you describe above that cannot imagine raising a child with a deformity feel the same way about raising a child of diminished intelligence? It IS a slippery slope and I'm just saying it's worth considering. I NEVER said I wanted to dictate to anyone when they should or shouldn't choose to have an abortion.

Finally, regarding whether I would want a child raised by that family; it sure would not be ideal. However, I do know many people (both personally and by second-hand knowledge) who are survivors of abusive childhoods at the hands of bad parents who chose to have them, and none of them wish they were never born. I'm sure there are some who have come to that conclusion, but the world is a better place for the thousands and thousands of people who rose above such origins to become better people. So I don't have the same view of this that you do.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Finally, regarding whether I would want a child raised by that family; it sure would not be ideal. However, I do know many people (both personally and by second-hand knowledge) who are survivors of abusive childhoods at the hands of bad parents who chose to have them, and none of them wish they were never born. I'm sure there are some who have come to that conclusion, but the world is a better place for the thousands and thousands of people who rose above such origins to become better people. So I don't have the same view of this that you do.

Saying that people have the right to abort because they do not feel they can raise a child with a bad deformity or disability does not mean that people with disabilities should never have been born. I know a guy who has a severe mental disability, his mother just sits him at the table, gives him safety scissors and he cuts up catalogs all day. He's in his twenties now, and thats been his whole life. There's a family in the town where I'm from, their parents were first cousins and they all have disabilities, the worst one only left the house since he left high school after his mother died, he must be in his forties or fifties. While I can't say at all that it would have been better that he wasn't born at all, for many parents they would rather not have children than subject them to that sort of thing. I know people who never want to have children because they know they have genetic disorders that will more than likely be carried down, they don't wish they weren't born but they don't wish it on anyone else. Its not a slippery slope keeping in mind that often when people abort because of disabilities they do badly want a baby and probably consider the fetus a person, I have never heard of anyone who did so and not feel sad about it. They aren't types who would abort until they get it right, as Alan said.

[Ben Lahnger]

Saya, nice job distorting what I said. And naming the worst case scenarios is only pointing out the obvious, easily defended shallow end of the slope. I was talking about the variations of disability and the factors people focus on to make those decisions.

But I'll make you a deal. if you know all humans to be altruistic beings who always try to do the right thing, never abuse power and don't make choices for vain or selfish reasons, then I'll agree it's not a slippery slope and isn't worth considering.

I may ask if I can come live where you do, because you know a different breed of people than I'm familiar with, but I'll agree with you.

And again, I'm not arguing to change anything, or to take away anyone's rights. I'm just saying these are the kind of things I contemplate when I think about this.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Saya, nice job distorting what I said. And naming the worst case scenarios is only pointing out the obvious, easily defended shallow end of the slope. I was talking about the variations of disability and the factors people focus on to make those decisions.

I didn't distort, you implied through "no disabled people I know wish they were never born" that that was the stance of people who abort because of disability or disease. Alright, it is legal for a woman to abort for reasons like the baby will be missing a pinky, even in the states, provided she does it before a certain time. How many cases of this have you heard?

But I'll make you a deal. if you know all humans to be altruistic beings who always try to do the right thing, never abuse power and don't make choices for vain or selfish reasons, then I'll agree it's not a slippery slope and isn't worth considering.

I may ask if I can come live where you do, because you know a different breed of people than I'm familiar with, but I'll agree with you.

And again, I'm not arguing to change anything, or to take away anyone's rights. I'm just saying these are the kind of things I contemplate when I think about this.

How are parents who are deciding what is in the best interest for their families selfish or vain? What proof do you have that it is a slippery slope, that women would abort without a second thought if their child was missing half a finger? And I'm sorry, you don't have any idea how hard it is to raise a disabled child. Its easy to judge when you'll never be pregnant knowing that your child will have a very difficult life if you chose to go through with the pregnancy, to carry to term all those months knowing that you won't be able to raise it, and have people judge you for deciding you don't want to do that to a child. It may make you squeamish to think that women are getting abortions for reasons that you deem selfish, but by arguing that its vain and selfish and wrong for women to do so even though you don't really want to take any rights away is just painful to hear.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Saya

How are parents who are deciding what is in the best interest for their families selfish or vain? What proof do you have that it is a slippery slope, that women would abort without a second thought if their child was missing half a finger? And I'm sorry, you don't have any idea how hard it is to raise a disabled child. Its easy to judge when you'll never be pregnant knowing that your child will have a very difficult life if you chose to go through with the pregnancy, to carry to term all those months knowing that you won't be able to raise it, and have people judge you for deciding you don't want to do that to a child. It may make you squeamish to think that women are getting abortions for reasons that you deem selfish, but by arguing that its vain and selfish and wrong for women to do so even though you don't really want to take any rights away is just painful to hear.

He is right, and your rant above furthers his point and mine.

It is a child we are talking about. If you don't want a child, do not get pregnant. If you do, then take at least some responsibility. Saying oh, well I am not equipped for this because tests show he might have some special needs and I don't want to deal with that, so get rid of it - is not acceptable in a civilized society.

IF a woman chooses to have an abortion it should be on better grounds than 'well that one is not perfect, lets try again'.

I mean, getting rid of a fetus merely because you don't want it to impose on your persona life, or your private home time, or do not want to invest any of your own money in special schools or classes is nothing more than selfish.

And again, this has nothing about doctors lying. Doctors are often wrong. Thousands die every year because of misdiagnoses - not because the doctors intentionally lied to anyone, nor did their lack of training cause the death - just because thy are human and like everyone else make mistakes. To make that a crime is to say it is criminal to be imperfect.

Besides, if a doctor did act in an egregious violation of his own ethics it would be a crime even with this law in place.

Finally, your assertion that 'Its being reported that they must use a vaginal ultrasound to get a clearer picture' is just untrue. I have never seen a doctor refuse a patient a medical procedure, one that would be needed, one that is not some test procedure but a standard procedure that is preformed hundreds if not thousands of times a day across America and the rest of the world merely because they are trying to force women to use the results of only one test. Faux news and the other right-wing rag 'DailyKAOS' are not the best sources to cite in my book, plus it goes against common sense.

If a pregnant woman went into a doctors office and asked for an amniocentesis and it was denied, then that could be a lawsuit there. Doctors perform them at all stages of pregnancy if there is a known history of defects OR the woman chooses. To argue the procedure wouldn't be done because faux news says so is daft.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

If you don't want a child, do not get pregnant.

Get fucked, you reactionary idiot.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by JCC

Get fucked, you reactionary idiot.

So you support aborting a child because their wheelchair clashes with your handbag?

You're a real winner.

[ape descendant]

Who owns a woman's body?

[Ben Lahnger]

I want to point out that Saya did overreact to me, that I wasn't saying all parents who choose to abort are selfish, etc ... I was just asking if she believed they ALL did it for selfless, altruistic reasons contrary to what I know to be human nature ... which means in any group of people there ARE going to be some people who make bad choices and there ARE going to be some people who are selfish and irresponsible. I wasn't even talking about how many ... it might be in this particular area a very small percentage, because I do believe most people do give it great consideration before making such a decision.

I think you are over-sensitized to this issue for having had too many battles over it trying to protect your rights, which I am not contesting.

I also wasn't saying anything like "If you don't want a child, do not get pregnant." So Sternn, when you make a statement supporting my position, please do not misrepresent what I am saying by adding your own differing opinion on to your supporting statement. I do not agree with you on this.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

If you don't want a child, do not get pregnant.

Obviously the goal is for abortions to not need to be legal or illegal, because in an ideal world, birth control would work 100% of the time.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, but it seems you're envisioning women who get abortions as irresponsible women who have sex without thought or self-control.

What about chicks who have one partner, take doctor prescribed birth control, AND use condoms--and still get pregnant. It's rare, of course, but it's completely within the realm of possibility.

Of course, there is also the question of **** victims.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

I want to point out that Saya did overreact to me, that I wasn't saying all parents who choose to abort are selfish, etc ... I was just asking if she believed they ALL did it for selfless, altruistic reasons contrary to what I know to be human nature ... which means in any group of people there ARE going to be some people who make bad choices and there ARE going to be some people who are selfish and irresponsible. I wasn't even talking about how many ... it might be in this particular area a very small percentage, because I do believe most people do give it great consideration before making such a decision.

How can it be selfish and irresponsible to not to choose to have a baby? We can't judge this. Unlike what Sternn is saying (and I know you don't agree with him, but just bear with me, I'm not going to address his full post so I'm just going to address two points he made in my answer to you), its is NOT a child we are talking about, and it is perfectly acceptable in civilized society (as far as I know Canada is pretty fucking civilized) to abort for whatever reasons you will. Thing is, women don't have to give reasons, its their bodies and the rest of their lives that they are having to worry about. I do think that the anti-choice movement likes to paint women as sluts who will abort just to avoid stretch marks, and that does make even pro choice people wonder. Honestly I used to be pro-life, and even when I changed my mind and became pro-choice I thought I would never be able to have an abortion, and I would've been quick to judge anyone who did it for reasons I didn't agree with.

Thing is, aborting so you can still have money to give your existing children their needs (and most women who abort are already mothers), aborting because you are not in a stable relationship or fear your partner will leave you and cannot raise a child on your own, or wanting to go to college and not have to live in poverty the rest of your life, or being unable to care for a disabled child, or simply never want to have children are not selfish reasons. Selfish against what? Who's business is it to judge on what they are not going to have to deal with, once the baby is born? Its going to affect the mother for the rest of her life if she chooses to carry, and change it dramatically and utterly. How is it selfish to not want that change?