'When I Was 21, I Terminated A Pregnancy And Was So Grateful'

[Sun Devil 92]

When she was in her 20s, actress Amy Brenneman decided to terminate a pregnancy. It's been 30 years since, and all these years later she's still woefully dissatisfied with the way abortions are discussed in America.

During a conversation with HuffPost Live on Thursday about her role in HBO's "The Leftovers," Brenneman told host Alyona Minkovski that it's not acceptable for abortion to be continually "demonized" despite being "the law of the land."

The issue is important to Brenneman, who in 2006 signed a Ms. Magazine petition alongside 5,000 women who declared "We Had Abortions." The feature was a reboot of a similar petition that ran in the magazines's 1972 debut issue, and the 2006 update included celebrities like Brenneman, Gloria Steinem and Kathy Najimy alongside thousands of everyday women.

"When I was 21, I terminated a pregnancy and was so grateful, and it was not a bad experience, and I had a sweet boyfriend and a sweet doctor," Brenneman told HuffPost Live.

The shocking lack of progress since then is what prompted her to sign the Ms. petition in 2006. "I thought, 'Oh my god. The fact that 20 years later, it would be worse?'" she said. "Going backwards -- it's insane to me."

It's now been 10 years since she signed the petition, and attacks on Planned Parenthood and women's reproductive rights are still alive and well.

"That kind of gender stuff, it just kills me," Brenneman said, adding that she's among the thousands of people who were moved by a viral Facebook post comparing the difficulty in obtaining an abortion and obtaining a gun.

'The Leftovers' Star Amy Brenneman On Why Abortions Shouldn’t Be 'Demonized'

So much for the right-wing horror stories about abortions.

This is supposed to prove something ?

 

[aris2chat]

WOW! What a major moron!
Go crawl back to your cave and stay there chewing on your feet


Rape Results In More Pregnancies Than Consensual Sex, Not Fewer


Why Are Rape Victims More -- Not Less -- Likely To Get Pregnant?


Even a low ball estimate put the chances at 5% or more. Only 2 out of 100 rapes are reported. Many women use over the counter methods or are already on birth control prevent or end pregnancy.

So then pro-abortion advocates main objective is to allow rape victims have the option to abort. And mothers whose health is in grave danger over pregnancy to abort. Right?

Ok, so let’s agree to allow that and all these others be disallowed. After all, it is you phonies who keep using rape and health of the mother for your impassioned defense of abortion. (so undercover and disingenuous)

Late term is for the life of the mother or serious birth defects
Rape victims should have the option if they choose to have an abortion.
Other women have a right to choose, and pay out of pocket up to the 20 week.

No women should be forced to become a mother. It should be gift of love not in imposition.

Some women don't want the sickness, deformity of their body or pain involved in pregnancy and childbirth. More women are getting surrogates to carry their children. Some have health conditions that would be made worse by a pregnancy. Some women are just not at all maternal.

“No women should be forced to become a mother. It should be gift of love not in imposition.”

“Bah.” In the court of natural moral law, you lose.

To those who know God exists, who would dare tell Him we have the right to kill His children?

And yet wars have long been a major part of civilization.

Most children used to die before their first year and half of those who lived past the first year did not make it to adult hood. War, disease, malnutrition, accidents meant life rare past the 50 yr mark.
Marriage was not really a "think" till the later part of the first millenium. Men could have many wives and mistresses with little care by the church or public. Men of power killed siblings and family to be uncontested in their control of land.
Most of the know world had lost the better part of the population to plagues, war and massacres

Now we suffer from over population that could wipe out our ability to produce food by the end of the millenium if not sooner. No more mankind because of uncontrolled birth rate.

...and you want to force women to become mothers and deny them their freedom?

How is this pattern of over population a moral law? Why shouldn't a family have a right to limit the number of children they can afford to raise? If birth control fail, why should women have a right to choose when it is time, if ever for them to become a mother? Child care is expensive and we don't have large extended families to share expenses and work at home and with the children. We have so many children that are malnourished, living below poverty levels and unwanted already. Raising a child is a major expense of time and money while many people are struggling in more than one job just to meet their own needs as it is.

Killing mankind and the world through over population is not moral or right.

When a woman or a couple are ready, they will be glad to share their love and devote everything to raising their children. They have to be ready, willing and able. Pregnancy is hard on a woman physically as well. She has to be strong and heathy enough to carry and give birth to a healthy child.

Women have to choose when it is the right time for them to devote that much of a commitment.

No one has a right to force a women to become a mother. That is the same as enslavement. Suicide and chemical abuse is often a result in women to could not get an abortion and do not care about the fetus. Some women cannot afford to take the time because of there job or other conditions, such as caring for a family member that is disable, suffering mental issue or the potential of infection or injury.

Women are the equal of men not their body slaves. Most people if they can afford to have children usually don't want more than two or three. Women are not herd animals to be bred yearly.

Go back to your time machine and set it for the stone age where you belong.

 

[Katzndogz]

WOW! What a major moron!
Go crawl back to your cave and stay there chewing on your feet


Rape Results In More Pregnancies Than Consensual Sex, Not Fewer


Why Are Rape Victims More -- Not Less -- Likely To Get Pregnant?


Even a low ball estimate put the chances at 5% or more. Only 2 out of 100 rapes are reported. Many women use over the counter methods or are already on birth control prevent or end pregnancy.

So then pro-abortion advocates main objective is to allow rape victims have the option to abort. And mothers whose health is in grave danger over pregnancy to abort. Right?

Ok, so let’s agree to allow that and all these others be disallowed. After all, it is you phonies who keep using rape and health of the mother for your impassioned defense of abortion. (so undercover and disingenuous)

Late term is for the life of the mother or serious birth defects
Rape victims should have the option if they choose to have an abortion.
Other women have a right to choose, and pay out of pocket up to the 20 week.

No women should be forced to become a mother. It should be gift of love not in imposition.

Some women don't want the sickness, deformity of their body or pain involved in pregnancy and childbirth. More women are getting surrogates to carry their children. Some have health conditions that would be made worse by a pregnancy. Some women are just not at all maternal.

“No women should be forced to become a mother. It should be gift of love not in imposition.”

“Bah.” In the court of natural moral law, you lose.

To those who know God exists, who would dare tell Him we have the right to kill His children?

And yet wars have long been a major part of civilization.

Most children used to die before their first year and half of those who lived past the first year did not make it to adult hood. War, disease, malnutrition, accidents meant life rare past the 50 yr mark.
Marriage was not really a "think" till the later part of the first millenium. Men could have many wives and mistresses with little care by the church or public. Men of power killed siblings and family to be uncontested in their control of land.
Most of the know world had lost the better part of the population to plagues, war and massacres

Now we suffer from over population that could wipe out our ability to produce food by the end of the millenium if not sooner. No more mankind because of uncontrolled birth rate.

...and you want to force women to become mothers and deny them their freedom?

How is this pattern of over population a moral law? Why shouldn't a family have a right to limit the number of children they can afford to raise? If birth control fail, why should women have a right to choose when it is time, if ever for them to become a mother? Child care is expensive and we don't have large extended families to share expenses and work at home and with the children. We have so many children that are malnourished, living below poverty levels and unwanted already. Raising a child is a major expense of time and money while many people are struggling in more than one job just to meet their own needs as it is.

Killing mankind and the world through over population is not moral or right.

When a woman or a couple are ready, they will be glad to share their love and devote everything to raising their children. They have to be ready, willing and able. Pregnancy is hard on a woman physically as well. She has to be strong and heathy enough to carry and give birth to a healthy child.

Women have to choose when it is the right time for them to devote that much of a commitment.

No one has a right to force a women to become a mother. That is the same as enslavement. Suicide and chemical abuse is often a result in women to could not get an abortion and do not care about the fetus. Some women cannot afford to take the time because of there job or other conditions, such as caring for a family member that is disable, suffering mental issue or the potential of infection or injury.

Women are the equal of men not their body slaves. Most people if they can afford to have children usually don't want more than two or three. Women are not herd animals to be bred yearly.

Go back to your time machine and set it for the stone age where you belong.

So. The poor have lots of children. Stop them. Stop the third world from over populating. Take those mosquito nets away from those children. Malaria has a place.

 

[Katzndogz]

For every woman that is happy with her decision to have an abortion, there is at least one that regrets it.

 

[aris2chat]

WOW! What a major moron!
Go crawl back to your cave and stay there chewing on your feet


Rape Results In More Pregnancies Than Consensual Sex, Not Fewer


Why Are Rape Victims More -- Not Less -- Likely To Get Pregnant?


Even a low ball estimate put the chances at 5% or more. Only 2 out of 100 rapes are reported. Many women use over the counter methods or are already on birth control prevent or end pregnancy.

So then pro-abortion advocates main objective is to allow rape victims have the option to abort. And mothers whose health is in grave danger over pregnancy to abort. Right?

Ok, so let’s agree to allow that and all these others be disallowed. After all, it is you phonies who keep using rape and health of the mother for your impassioned defense of abortion. (so undercover and disingenuous)

Late term is for the life of the mother or serious birth defects
Rape victims should have the option if they choose to have an abortion.
Other women have a right to choose, and pay out of pocket up to the 20 week.

No women should be forced to become a mother. It should be gift of love not in imposition.

Some women don't want the sickness, deformity of their body or pain involved in pregnancy and childbirth. More women are getting surrogates to carry their children. Some have health conditions that would be made worse by a pregnancy. Some women are just not at all maternal.

“No women should be forced to become a mother. It should be gift of love not in imposition.”

“Bah.” In the court of natural moral law, you lose.

To those who know God exists, who would dare tell Him we have the right to kill His children?

And yet wars have long been a major part of civilization.

Most children used to die before their first year and half of those who lived past the first year did not make it to adult hood. War, disease, malnutrition, accidents meant life rare past the 50 yr mark.
Marriage was not really a "think" till the later part of the first millenium. Men could have many wives and mistresses with little care by the church or public. Men of power killed siblings and family to be uncontested in their control of land.
Most of the know world had lost the better part of the population to plagues, war and massacres

Now we suffer from over population that could wipe out our ability to produce food by the end of the millenium if not sooner. No more mankind because of uncontrolled birth rate.

...and you want to force women to become mothers and deny them their freedom?

How is this pattern of over population a moral law? Why shouldn't a family have a right to limit the number of children they can afford to raise? If birth control fail, why should women have a right to choose when it is time, if ever for them to become a mother? Child care is expensive and we don't have large extended families to share expenses and work at home and with the children. We have so many children that are malnourished, living below poverty levels and unwanted already. Raising a child is a major expense of time and money while many people are struggling in more than one job just to meet their own needs as it is.

Killing mankind and the world through over population is not moral or right.

When a woman or a couple are ready, they will be glad to share their love and devote everything to raising their children. They have to be ready, willing and able. Pregnancy is hard on a woman physically as well. She has to be strong and heathy enough to carry and give birth to a healthy child.

Women have to choose when it is the right time for them to devote that much of a commitment.

No one has a right to force a women to become a mother. That is the same as enslavement. Suicide and chemical abuse is often a result in women to could not get an abortion and do not care about the fetus. Some women cannot afford to take the time because of there job or other conditions, such as caring for a family member that is disable, suffering mental issue or the potential of infection or injury.

Women are the equal of men not their body slaves. Most people if they can afford to have children usually don't want more than two or three. Women are not herd animals to be bred yearly.

Go back to your time machine and set it for the stone age where you belong.

So. The poor have lots of children. Stop them. Stop the third world from over populating. Take those mosquito nets away from those children. Malaria has a place.

Best to let women choose when they want children. To end the pregnancy before it moves or by church standards, has a soul. Before she becomes emotionally invested it the fetus. Before the fetus is able to feel pain. Before the body changes dramatically and the size of the fetus makes it harder to remove.

Women should decide when they want to bring new life into the world and devote herself to nurturing it till it become an adult.

Pregnancy for most is more than just a 9 month commitment, it is a lifetime one. The women has to be ready to take that big step.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you can sell the body parts for a profit, so much the better.

 

[aris2chat]

For every woman that is happy with her decision to have an abortion, there is at least one that regrets it.

Most women don't make the choice lightly, not should they, but it is their choice

 

[aris2chat]

If you can sell the body parts for a profit, so much the better.

Donate. Women and clinics donate.
People donate their organs, but the recipient usually pays for the cost of tests and removal.
Hair might be then only part that we can really sell, in some places.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have known many women that have had abortions. I will equivocate. I don't want to say all. Most, the largest percentage, the vast majority, gave more thought to which shoes go best with that outfit. There's a reason for that. Women already know. Before they ever drop their pants they know that when needed, they will have an abortion. They don't even need to think about it.

 

[aris2chat]

I have known many women that have had abortions. I will equivocate. I don't want to say all. Most, the largest percentage, the vast majority, gave more thought to which shoes go best with that outfit. There's a reason for that. Women already know. Before they ever drop their pants they know that when needed, they will have an abortion. They don't even need to think about it.

At $1500 for an abortion, it is not something they would casually spend money on. It is in most cases and invasion of the body.

No not something women would take lightly. There is also a waiting period for them to consider the consequences and change their mind.