I was sixteen when Roe v. Wade became federal law in 1973. As a naive teenager with modest life experience, I understood little about sex and relationships. As a teenager, I supported a woman’s right to choose. I still do.
After Roe v. Wade in 1973, private hospitals sprung up in major cities, often near Catholic hospitals. I served as director of public relations for a private women’s hospital in Florida in the 1980s. Unlike the hospital across the street founded by a religious order, the hospital offered late-term abortions as well as infertility services.
In spring 1987, I learned that I was pregnant. Our baby was due in early December, weeks before my husband would complete graduate school. Although this was unplanned, we were thrilled.
One morning at work, I started bleeding vaginally. As a hospital manager, I had access to services right away. My physician sent me to Ultrasound for a check. With new vaginal ultrasound technology, I didn’t need a full bladder and fortunately didn’t have to wait for the test.
The black and white ultrasound screen showed a perfectly shaped peanut-size fetus. Yet one critical detail was missing: a heartbeat. This caught me completely off guard. I had not called my husband before the test.
When I told him the news, he implored me to leave work and come home. I ignored his advice; the hospital had a special event that afternoon I didn’t feel I could miss.
They were—we were hosting a press conference to introduce a couple who had successfully conceived triplet boys through In Vitro Fertilization. I was the hospital spokesperson. How could I not do my job?
The Florida IVF program was the second such program in America and attracted much media attention. A local newspaper printed a graphic of a giant test tube with a baby inside, suggesting an almost Frankenstein view of this new technology.
Staff physicians recognized the urgent need to explain the program; but their first priority was to their patients’ privacy. Reluctantly, they dealt with the media through me.
Our goal was to educate the public about how in vitro works; since conception takes place in a Petri dish, even the term “test tube babies” is misleading.
That afternoon, the proud parents and the physicians talked about their experiences. The 3 six-week-old infants weren’t there; instead, the press was shown several videos. One was an ultrasound test at five week’s post conception. The images revealed three tiny fetuses, twins in one sack, another singleton.
Strikingly different from my own ultrasound that morning, the three little heartbeats nearly jumped off the video screen.
These dual moments within hours– viewing my own dead fetus and seeing the three little heartbeats of the triplets – still haunt me. The margin between life and death is slim.
After work, I went home and bled until I passed my own “products of conception,” the medical term for fetal remains. Losing this tissue is also called a spontaneous abortion. The following day I had a D and C.
Intellectually, I know a zygote or even an early fetus cannot live outside the uterus. In three failed pregnancies, I can’t say for certain what I lost. I believe in the soul, yet I’m not sure when a soul enters a body. Is there any scientific evidence that life begins at conception?
I was never comfortable in the early pregnancy loss support group community and my opinion about choice has not changed over the years. Yet emotionally, having one healthy baby made me grieve for the idea of the others. When I saw those three heartbeats on the screen in 1987, my own heart jumped with wonder.
What or who is a fetus at five weeks post-conception? I still wonder about the beginnings of life; and I have no answers only questions.My ambiguity does not change my belief in a women’s right to choose in a complicated world.
I stay in the middle, not able to offer a cogent argument either way about when life begins. I’m not ready to light a candle for those I lost, although I still have questions about the time of quickening. For those who object to a woman’s right to choose, I ask them to focus on hungry, impoverished, and homeless children, and adolescents in desperate need of a steady hand.
First published at doesthismakessense.com, February 2011.


Salon.com
Comments
Rated with hugs
- Thanks for this, Bea...
As to the question of the soul..don't know if you saw an earlier post of mine. The question was answered --to some extent--for me ( http://open.salon.com/blog/satori1/2011/02/18/a_leap_of_faithand_proof_of_the_soulpart_3_of_3 )
Definitely food for thought!
http://open.salon.com/blog/satori1/2011/02/18/a_leap_of_faithand_proof_of_the_soulpart_3_of_3
I support choice. I would not take that right away from any woman. Make your choice and answer to your own god, if you have one, yourself. / R
On the entire issue, I'm too old to have strong opinions on it anymore, and too young to leave it alone. I pray someday I have the wisdom to know what is right, and give thanks that I've never had to deal with it personally.
Bless you for writing this though.
NO WOMAN SHOULD EVER HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT TORTURE EVER!!!!!!
No one is pro-abortion, we just realize that in some cases it is the only answer. Saving the life of the mother needs no further explanation. I have been known to ask rabid pro-life folks how many neglected, abandoned, addicted or otherwise ill babies they have fostered or adopted. Some times they tell me and I thank them.
And on that note, I am sorry for your loss; an intentional pregnancy that goes wrong is a dream denied.
Congratulations on the EP from me as well. Rated.
The issue reminds me of a philosophy paper I read as an undergrad. I forget lots of it but one question was if you start dropping grains of sand one-by-one on a clean floor, at what stage do you have a pile?
The point was that's it's somewhat arbitrary to state that after x number of grains, hey presto there's your pile. And different people can have different opinions on when the pile comes into existence.
That is part of the reason why I think it's best to leave it to the woman contemplating an abortion. I doubt there can be any definitive moment where most people would agree that now, this is indubitably a life.
Science has a hard enough time defining "life," and I believe there will never be a responsible scientific study to determine the beginning of human life. All scientists and doctors can study is viability, and that is what is used in some legal situations as marking independent life. Viability is a useful concept, although it's slippery, too, as technology makes it possible for more and more prematurely born infants with no possibility of independent life to live in glass boxes that simulate the protection of the uterus.
I think the easiest concept to grasp is whether a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term or not. If she does not, it's best that she terminate.