A Friend Stopped By | 07/13/2009 12:00 am
How My Decision About a Late-Term Abortion Affected My Marriage, by Alice Eve Cohen

Janet Charles Photography
Editor’s Note: Alice Eve Cohen is the author of What I Thought I Knew, just published by Viking. A solo theater artist and playwright, she is the recipient of a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, and is a teacher at the New School in New York City.
Ten years ago, Michael and I had an emotional turning point that nearly jeopardized our marriage. I was 44, he was 34, and we were engaged. I was facing the terrifying possibility of a late-term abortion, with one week to decide.
When I was 30, I was diagnosed as infertile. My doctor told me that I could never get pregnant naturally, and strongly cautioned me not to attempt pregnancy with fertility treatment, as I would never be able to carry a baby past six months. So at age 44, when I started to feel sick, my various doctors attributed my ailments to early menopause and other conditions related to aging. Six months, numerous X-rays, CAT scans, prescription hormones and a slew of doctors later, I was raced to an emergency CAT scan for a large abdominal tumor — which turned out not to be a tumor at all. I was six months pregnant.
| I desperately didn't want to have this baby, and I hated myself for not wanting it. |
I’d had no prenatal care, the fetus had been subjected to six months of tests and treatments, which were known to cause birth defects and other injuries, and I had every reason to believe that the baby would suffer further debilitating injury from premature birth. I wanted to terminate the pregnancy, but at 24 weeks, said my doctor, it was too late for an abortion in New York State.
I desperately didn’t want to have this baby, and I hated myself for not wanting it. I had been unhappy before, but I had never thought about killing myself. Now I began to think of suicide as my way out: the only way to end the pregnancy, and the best solution to protect the unborn baby from a life of pain.
Michael came with me to see an abortion specialist. "Since you’re contemplating suicide, you could have an abortion in Kansas, where, if the mother’s life is in danger, an abortion is legal up until the 28th week," he told us. "Seven days from today." At my request, he scheduled an abortion in Wichita for the following Tuesday. "Think about it for the next few days before you decide," he said. Then he turned to Michael. "What do you think about all this?"
"Me? Oh, Jesus … a lot of different things," Michael answered. "I’ve seen Alice in the throes of this terrible unhappiness, and I don’t recognize her. I’ve been politically in favor of choice, but uncommitted on the personal side — it’s been an abstraction. But now that this is suddenly so real, all I can think is that there’s a baby. Our baby. My baby. And I can’t stand the thought of this baby being aborted. So If Alice has an abortion, I won’t go to Wichita with her. And I might not be here when she gets back. I’ll have my own unbearable sorrow about losing this baby, about endorsing this decision. But I don’t want Alice to kill herself. So she should do what she needs to do."
I spent the week wrestling with this impossible decision. On the day before I was scheduled to fly to Wichita, Michael begged me not to have the abortion. "I’ve already decided to have the baby," I said. Michael thanked me and burst into tears.
For the past ten years, this turning point moment in our relationship — Michael acknowledging my right to choose, but telling me he might leave me if I had the abortion — has remained a largely unspoken but crucial shared memory, equal parts rift and bridge between us.























367 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
ooh, and does the rapist have the right to force her to abort the baby?
"That "men’s rights" nonsense has already been tested in the courts by silly teenaged boys trying to force their girlfriends not to abort. No one but the person carrying the fetus has a "right to choose". It’s utter nonsense. The basic human right of security of person cannot by definition extend to a second party. Women are not property, and neither are fetuses. To force ANY woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is called "slavery"
I don’t find it be nonsense at all…I think that a man who has fathered a child, and is involved, SHOULD have just as much right to say what happens to that child as the woman does. I can’t imagine a greater disrespect to someone you claim to love, then to basically say "F&*& Off" when he asks you to consider HIS feelings in regards to a pregnancy. I don’t think arguing for man’s right in regards to a pregnancy is akin to saying that women and children are property. I also don’t think this gentleman was FORCING her to do anything, but was saying that while he would respect her decision, he did not agree with it and probably wouldn’t be there when she got back.
"There are men who will rant and rave and scream that every sperm is sacred and that they have the sole right to control every single one of them, but it’s a lie designed to distract from the fact that they feel they have the right to force a woman to risk health problems and potentially even die for the sake of their whims"
Now THAT is nonsense. Please show me an example of such a man. And if woman did get pregnant by such a man, then I would have to question her judgement in sleeping with him in the first place; a man who prefer you die just so he can have a child to call his own is no man worth waiting around for. What I often see quoted is men taking exes to court, because the woman decided on her own to abort a child for her own reasons, w/o consulting the father. And YES….these men were fathers…not sperm donors. They wanted the child, they participated in the pregnancy, they are the father and should have the right to have a voice in the outcome of the pregnancy. Arguing that men have no rights in regards to a pregnancy because they can’t carry the child is a lazy and fallacious argument…it hardly makes sense to penalize and degrade someone for something they have no control over.
"Please show me an example of such a man. And if woman did get pregnant by such a man, then I would have to question her judgement in sleeping with him in the first place; a man who prefer you die just so he can have a child to call his own is no man worth waiting around for."
Elizabeth, I’m going to have to play devil’s advocate here, as I generally support your point. But I actually know a guy like that (he told his pregnant 16 year old girlfriend, in my hearing, that he would choose the baby’s life over hers because she had "already lived a nice life!" [because, of course, there could be nothing better than playing baby maker for some selfish bag of turds, right?] ). They had the kid, they’re married and she’s planning on having more. Now, this girl comes with some baggage…she was abused (physically and sexually) as a child, so we can theorize as to what sort of complex keeps her with this guy, etc., etc. … the fact of the matter, though, is that there are men who will let the woman die in favor of the baby (heck, history is chock full of examples of this), and there are women who will stick by these losers.
No matter what, there always, always, ALWAYS has to be legal protection for women — her life comes first when it’s either her or the baby! This the same kind of thing as the marriage rape laws…there are men who will force their wives. Just because most modern, educated men won’t, we need the legal protection against the ones who will.
I do, however, agree that a father’s feelings (as opposed to sperm donor’s), in a committed relationship where two people are planning to have children and she changes her mind, should be taken into consideration (when medical concerns are not involved). It isn’t right to agree to have kids with someone, and then kill their (and your) child after your change your mind. Just like I’m not in favor of abortion as retroactive birth control. There are consequences for our actions. If you do something, you deal with the results. That goes for the girl and the guy…just because a dad figures out too late that he doesn’t want the baby, he doesn’t have the right to tell her to get an abortion — or, later on, to stop paying child support for the kid. That’s just the way it works.
I’d be willing to bet this guy wouldn’t necessarily feel that way if he was actually placed in the situation. My brother in law, and sister actually, have both espoused the view that they would rather her die than a new baby, because the baby hasn’t had the chance to live yet, and she has. She has said this with much more force and vigor, and the only reason I say the BIL has said it is because he said he’d support her view. However, I think it’d be terribly hard for him to choose if he were actually on the spot "your wife or your baby".
It’s true there are men who will force their wives into not only sex but pregnancy, and that’s a terribly sad occurrence. I’m afraid I’m one of these women who does believe "every sperm is sacred" in that I’m not in favor of abortion (not fond of the terms pro-life or pro-choice) and I do think men should have a say in what happens, but if all he’s been is a sperm donor, why bother seeking his opinion. It’s such a prickly path, and I don’t think the thorns will ever be removed.
You could be right, Jamie, but, knowing the guy, I’m not terribly convinced. I suspect he’d just move on to another needy, vulnerable girl who could take care of his kids for him, and make more while doing it.
I’m not in favor of abortion either, but I am also a student of history and reality. The fact of the matter is that, throughout history, many men have chosen the baby’s life over the mother’s when there was a choice between the two. Furthermore, the church fathers and patriarchal society in general hated the idea of contraceptives — knowing full well that every pregnancy was a substantial risk to the woman. I was recently reading about women of the Elizabethan era…it’s horrifying how many of them died during childbirth or because of resulting complications. Yet patriarchal society and religion forbade contraceptives, and also removed the option of abstaining from sexual relations from the wife (she was his property, and that was her "duty"); why? Because women were worth less than their ability to produce children, even if — as it often did — it killed them. After all, if one wife died during childbirth, her husband could (and did) just move on to another.
Now, I don’t mean to imply that everyone held that attitude, but enough did. Power leads to abuse; that’s why we need legal protection.
Well sure, in those days the sign of virility was the amount of children you sired…in particular, male children. It is interesting to see what develops out of older ideas though. In the days of landed gentry and aristocracy, many men abstained from affairs just so an illegitimate heir couldn’t be produced to threaten the family fortune with a claim. Property rights ruled the day in those times, sad to be sure, but no less true. And I think that the attitude you describe was probably held more by those "in power" than the lowly masses. They had children so they could have a labor force. Sad, but true.
And you may very well be right about this fellow. I know guys like that, and to be honest I’m glad none of them have bred yet. I’m also glad my sister has a husband who respects her own wishes yet cares about her too. Obviously I hope he’s never put in that position, either way it’d haunt him for the rest of his life.
Ah Jamie, you stated,
"It is interesting to see what develops out of older ideas though. In the days of landed gentry and aristocracy, many men abstained from affairs just so an illegitimate heir couldn’t be produced to threaten the family fortune with a claim. Property rights ruled the day in those times, sad to be sure, but no less true"
That same landed gentry and artistocracy did not abstain from raping their enslaved women of color over and over again creating numerous offspring. This lead to the "one drop" law. One drop of black blood made you Black and of course our ever thinking gentlemen wrote a law that blacks could not own property. Thus their non legal offspring were legally defined as black (no matter how white they may look ) and thus could never lay claim to daddy’s property. By the way they had slaves so they could have a labor force, and didn’t seem to haunt them one bit to sell their enslaved children to other slave owners. What a legacy…to sell your own blood. I have often wondered about these men whose wives looked the other way as they created parallel families with enslaved women on their plantations. Clearly they were all powerful. The bi-racial slave children were often given the same christian names as the slave owners’ white children. The utter arrogance and shame of it is stunning.