Amber Abreu
I just read an article on Boston IMC about a woman named Amber Abreu. She is facing seven years for self-inducing a miscarriage. Her actions resulted in the abortion of a 24-week-old, 11/4 pound fetus that remained alive outside of the womb for four days at Tufts-New England Medical Center. Of course, it died after the four days. The article's summary:On January 6, 2007 18-year-old Amber Abreu went to the hospital in Lawrence, Massachusetts after trying to terminate a pregnancy by taking a drug, misoprostol, which is an ulcer medication as well as a key component of the abortion pill RU-486. Amber was between 23 and 25 weeks pregnant. The result was a miscarriage. The doctors rushed the 1-1/4 pound expelled fetus to the Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, where it remained alive for four days. The police, meanwhile, went after Amber using an archaic law dating back to the 1840s to charge her with “procuring a miscarriage.” Cops dragged Abreu into court in shackles and then held her in the state’s maximum security prison at Framingham for three nights until friends and relatives could come up with $15,000 bail. The young woman, a recent immigrant from the Dominican Republic, faces up to seven years in jail on this outrageous charge.
I initially tried to post the following comment to the Web site, but it seems the commenting system there is broken. So, I'm posting it here. While reading it, please keep in mind that I take a conservative pro-choice stance. I feel that abortions should be legal and safe under certain conditions. I do not think abortions should be the answer to irresponsible behavior. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Terminating life--seen as an “easy out” by some--is not the answer to a one-night stand. I hope this situation sparks much heated discussion among the fervent pro-choice and pro-life communities. I'm sure even the most hard-headed people on the pro-choice side of the fence would agree with me--at least to some extent.What you protesters fail to realize is that women--by the very nature of their purpose in the “circle of life”--are not equal to men. When a woman becomes pregnant, she has an added responsibility to her growing child, as well as herself. Anything that a pregnant woman does to her body is also done to the unborn child growing inside of her. Any woman who does not like this fact simply should not become pregnant or even have sex. It's that simple.
If Amber didn't think she could've supported another child, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. Since she did, she should've given birth to the child and given it up for adoption. The argument that she would have been burdened by this child for 18 years is asinine in a society makes adoption services so widely accessible.
I think it's outrageous that she's only being put away for seven years. She murdered an innocent child. The underdeveloped infant survived outside of its mother for four whole days, then died, as a direct result of her actions. How can anyone say this baby was not alive? How can anyone say this baby did not deserve to live?
The article mentions South and Central America. This has nothing to do with Massachusetts. We have safe, accessible, and legal abortion services here. Within the scope of having an irresponsible abortion, what Amber did was doubly irresponsible, as she could have been within the confines of a professional setting to ensure everything had gone smoothly. Since her family was able to pool together the $15,000 to get her out of prison, I'm sure they could've come up with the money to pay for her to have an abortion performed by a professional. This would have minimized the suffering endured by the unborn child. Instead, this child had to die slowly for four whole days.
If I'm going to be protesting anything, it's going to be the protesters at Salem City Hall. This issue is not one about women's rights. It's about the murder of a defenseless human being. Put her away for life!
I initially tried to post the following comment to the Web site, but it seems the commenting system there is broken. So, I'm posting it here. While reading it, please keep in mind that I take a conservative pro-choice stance. I feel that abortions should be legal and safe under certain conditions. I do not think abortions should be the answer to irresponsible behavior. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Terminating life--seen as an “easy out” by some--is not the answer to a one-night stand. I hope this situation sparks much heated discussion among the fervent pro-choice and pro-life communities. I'm sure even the most hard-headed people on the pro-choice side of the fence would agree with me--at least to some extent.What you protesters fail to realize is that women--by the very nature of their purpose in the “circle of life”--are not equal to men. When a woman becomes pregnant, she has an added responsibility to her growing child, as well as herself. Anything that a pregnant woman does to her body is also done to the unborn child growing inside of her. Any woman who does not like this fact simply should not become pregnant or even have sex. It's that simple.
If Amber didn't think she could've supported another child, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. Since she did, she should've given birth to the child and given it up for adoption. The argument that she would have been burdened by this child for 18 years is asinine in a society makes adoption services so widely accessible.
I think it's outrageous that she's only being put away for seven years. She murdered an innocent child. The underdeveloped infant survived outside of its mother for four whole days, then died, as a direct result of her actions. How can anyone say this baby was not alive? How can anyone say this baby did not deserve to live?
The article mentions South and Central America. This has nothing to do with Massachusetts. We have safe, accessible, and legal abortion services here. Within the scope of having an irresponsible abortion, what Amber did was doubly irresponsible, as she could have been within the confines of a professional setting to ensure everything had gone smoothly. Since her family was able to pool together the $15,000 to get her out of prison, I'm sure they could've come up with the money to pay for her to have an abortion performed by a professional. This would have minimized the suffering endured by the unborn child. Instead, this child had to die slowly for four whole days.
If I'm going to be protesting anything, it's going to be the protesters at Salem City Hall. This issue is not one about women's rights. It's about the murder of a defenseless human being. Put her away for life!