Jivin J’s Life Links 10-16-09
by JivinJ
I don’t doubt many women die as a result of unsafe abortion, but no one can possibly have any idea of the real figure, especially as so much of it goes on it countries where there are virtually no statistics for anything.
In its 2007 report, Unsafe Abortion, the World Health Organization admitted: “Where induced abortion is restricted and largely inaccessible, or legal but difficult to obtain, little information is available on abortion practice. In such circumstances, it is difficult to quantify and classify abortion. What information is available is inevitably not completely reliable.” The United Nations Population Division calls the estimates “quite speculative since hard data are missing for the large majority of countries.”…
In other words: politically-motivated guesswork.
That doesn’t stop people trying. The Guttmacher Institute also claims there are up to 800k illegal abortions a year in the Philippines, which would make its rate three times that of the UK, where abortion is on demand and subsidized by the taxpayer. Does anyone believe that figure?
My point in raising these cases is not to argue for criminal penalties for women who have abortions – no one in the pro-life movement seeks that – but to show the irony in our law, and the striking quotes from those in the legal system as they recognize and defend the humanity of the youngest of babies. They sound so much like pro-lifers. One day, God willing, everyone will speak this way about children, even before birth.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
From abortionfacts.com:
On June 18, 1989, CNN World Report, in an hour-long documentary, stated that in Brazil there are 6 million illegal abortions each year and 400,000 women die. But the U.N. Demographic Yearbook of 1988 lists only 40,000 women, age 15-44, dying each year of all causes. Pop. Research Inst. Review, Jan. 1991, p. 12
In Portugal the claimed figure was 2,000 deaths. The actual number of deaths of females between the ages of 15-46 was 2,106 in the same year from all natural causes, accidents and illness. There were only 97 listed in the “complications of pregnancy” of which 12 were due to abortion, including spontaneous and induced, legal and illegal. Portuguese Anuario Estatistico, Tables 11, 16, 111 221
In Italy, the claimed figure before their abortion referendum was 20,000. In the age group 15-45, there were actually only 11,500 female deaths from all causes. Primum Non Nocere, vol. IV, no. 1, 1983
In Germany the claim was that 15,000 women died annually. In fact, only 13,000 women of reproductive age died annually in West Germany, and less than 100 died of complications of abortion, legal and illegal. Kurchoff, Deutches Arzteblatt, vol. 69, no. 27, Oct. 26, 1972
At the United Nations Habitat meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, in June 1996, the following “fact” was given wide publicity: The UNICEF suddenly claimed that 585,000 women die each year from causes related to pregnancy and birth.
The pro-life NGO’s for the family immediately answered, “This is wild. According to the U.N. Demographic Year Book for 1990, the total known maternal deaths worldwide for 1986 and 1987 numbered 11,924 (around 6,000 per year). This figure encompasses countries covering 35% of the world’s population.” U.N. Conference, Istanbul, June 1996
“My point in raising these cases is not to argue for criminal penalties for women who have abortions – no one in the pro-life movement seeks that…”
Actually, I would.
“My point in raising these cases is not to argue for criminal penalties for women who have abortions – no one in the pro-life movement seeks that…”
Actually, I would.
Posted by: xalisae at October 16, 2009 11:46 AM
Thank you for being honest.
The question of penalties for women in the pro-life movement is a very difficult one to answer, mostly due to the fact that there’s always, in pro-choice sentiment, a right or wrong answer. If we say, yes, I do believe that women ought to be punished, pro-choicers cry, “You think that women are criminals and you’re all just misogynistic Nazis!” Likewise, if we say that women ought not to be punished, they say, “So, you don’t think that the law ought to apply to women? That we’re too weak? You’re all just misogynistic Nazis!”
So, no matter what we say, we can’t win with pro-choicers.
I’m personally of the opinion that if it’s illegal, then that applies to women- HOWEVER: the law ought to take into account her motives. If she did it because she had no other option (which, I think makes up most of the time around the world), then the law ought to reason it not her fault, as in, it’s the equivalent, as brave women of the past have stated, of stealing bread because you can’t afford to eat. How could you punish that?
Carla has done wonders for my opinion on post-abortive women, I must say. She’s completely changed my perspective on them. I never though of them as psycho-murderer-scum or anything, but I never considered the effects of it on women. So now I think that the law ought to exist to help them.
That’s just me.
What’s you opinion, Xalisae?
:)
Vannah, I’ve been poor and pregnant. Abortion is never a necessity. Ever. Just as, in this day and age, with minimum government aid (which is a great thing for those who want to get on their feet, but it should be better supplemented with perhaps government agencies helping people get in better touch with private charities), when was the last time you heard about someone stealing food to feed their family?
This would be a case, biologically, of a woman paying another person to kill her child. In any other circumstance, this would be prosecuted. Abortion should be no different, because it’s the same thing. If we want to talk about the humanity of the unborn, we should treat them as we would any other human. That means prosecuting those responsible for their deaths. Granted, if a woman sought to do so by herself, to herself, that would be a hard thing to prove, and I would think the evidentiary requirements to take such a thing to trial would reflect that, lest many a mourning mother who miscarriages would be unjustifiably accused. But to treat a woman as blameless in the process of abortion, unless physically coerced into doing so against her will, would be disingenuous at the least. I’m sorry I don’t have more compassion in this instance, but my past circumstances just will not allow it.
Xalisae I also agree with you. I have been poor and pregnant. I am no longer pregnant, now I’m just poor! lol. But in all seriousness I am torn when it comes to post-abortive women.
On one hand I have a lot of friends who have had abortions. Most of them deny that it was wrong but yet the grief still comes out at odd moments. They cry over their babies and then sniff “But I guess it was the best choice at that time.” So I feel a lot of compassion towards those women AND YET at the same time I see pictures of aborted babies especially the late term ones and think “What kind of selfish b**** would do that? How could you feel your baby kick and then go kill it? Why wouldn’t you exhaust every option to give your baby life?” so I am very torn…compassion and anger. Its a weird way to feel. I know the Lord Jesus has nothing but compassion for these women so I should too…my human nature gets in the way sometimes.
Thank you for being honest.
Posted by: Danielle at October 16, 2009 12:08 PM
You expected something else from me by now? Now…if only we could get you to admit that fetal humans are people…
Many of my post abortive friends would NEVER have had an abortion if it had been illegal. Me included!!
Hugs, Vannah!!
Sydney,
Thank you for your comment. I do know exactly what you are saying! I have friends that sigh and tell me they are so glad their abortions never affected them the way mine affected me. ::eyeroll::
Our constitution forbids retroactive punishment, but other than that each state is free to set and impose criminal penalties as it sees fit, more or less. That is also the case with illegal abortion.
To say that an illegal elective abortion is a “victimless crime” would be a whopper of a lie. And since there IS a victim, there ought to be a consequence to all those who caused that death.
Further, DIY abortions may be the “wave of the future”, especially when elective abortion is once again illegal. So we’d better get used to the fact that without some kind of punishment, a DIY abortion cannot be discouraged.
You expected something else from me by now? Now…if only we could get you to admit that fetal humans are people…
Posted by: xalisae at October 16, 2009 2:06 PM
Nope, I’m just glad someone from your side said it first before I or someone else PC was accused of fearmongering.
As for the last bit:
Human? Yes.
Person like me? No.
Would I still support abortion if personhood was proven? Until you can be fully created and formed to birth outside of someone else’s body…yes.
Danielle,
I am praying that your eyes and your heart will be opened when you see your first baby on the ultrasound and feel those first kicks.
PS My 3 1/2 year old isn’t like me. Can I kill him?
there’s been alot of talk on this blog and in the US about how socialized medicine will fund abortion and how women might be coerced into abortions.
Well, apparently this happens in private insured health care too:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09101601.html
The problem is NOT the type of health care, it’s the mentality that exists in health care today:
some lives are worth saving and some are NOT.
In both systems it CAN be about the almighty $$
Every elective abortion produces at least two victims.
The pregnant woman consents, though not always fully informed, but the prenatal child, though never consulted and never consenting, is fully informed of the violent act of abortion.
yor bro ken
I appreciate consistency.
Why should any person, male or female, who commits a murder, be treated any differently because the victim happens to be his/her own child?
There was a case where two sons were convicted of brutally murdering both their parents and then pleaded for leniency from the court because they were orphans.
If justice is supposed to be blind in regard to the social status of the victim as well as the assailant, then how do we reconcile showing leniency to formerly pregant woman and/or her accomplices when they conspire together and murder her prenatal child?
Now the only possible reason there maybe for leniency for someone like me, who facilitated the murder of his own son, may be the fact that it was ‘legal’ at the time.
But recent history as shown us that ‘legal’ is no certain refuge for those who commit crimes against humanity.
If rape were legal I wonder if all these ‘compassionate’ Dead Babies R Us folks would be willing to show the same leniency to the rapist.
The answer is not speculative.
Look at Roman Polanki. He confessed to drugging, binding and forcibly sodomizing a 13 year old girl, then fled the country when he feared the sentencing judge might not honor the plea bargain to which he and the prosecution had agreed.
But the liberal progressive humanists want to excuse his crime because Polanski is such a magnificent artist and it was so long ago and he is so old.
They argue that Polanski has paid his debt to society by suffering all these years in self imposed exile on the French Riviera.
Let it go they say. Refuse to live in the past. Put it behind you and move on.
It wasn’t rape RAPE. Roman did not use the threat of murder to get his victim to comply.
It was consenting sex. Polanski consented and the young lady would have consented if she were mature enough to know how special and priveleged she was to have man like Roman share his ‘seed’ with her.
You progressive liberal humanists are pathetic excuses for human beings. There is nothing beneath your touchy feely convoluted perverted twisted psyche.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Danielle at October 16, 2009 4:14 PM
So you maintain that not all human beings deserve the same rights, and that simply anyone should decide lethally who is superior? You admit this—that rights should be based on looks and ability, not DNA?
Then I’ll make one demand and ask one question.
I demand you prove your personhood without using your physical body in any way.
You can’t.
Personhood is inherently tied to the physical body—which means this is not an intangible matter (as you are maintaining), it’s a biological one, unchangeable in every way, from zygote to senior citizen. You cannot be a person without a human body—all matters of personhood are directly tied to this. And a fetus contains a human body, regardless of cell count. Thus, a fetus has all the captaincies for being a person, indistinguishable from you or I in the 4th stage of sleep (a time during which we do not lose our rights, but according to you, we lose our “personhood”).
Now explain to me, if being a person is inevitably tied to being human, and being human does not count for anything, why should everyday murder be illegal?
The obvious person to prosecute when abortion was illegal was the abortionist. The woman was legally considered a victim. Anyway, one can make the case of the mental state or mitigating circumstances for the motivation of the woman, but not for the abortionist. It is not his problem. He is just an opportunist profiting from her unfortunate situation.
Abortion is a business.
50 million abortions X $500 average cost = $25 billion
A profitable business even with a very low balled estimate like this.
Danielle,
I am praying that your eyes and your heart will be opened when you see your first baby on the ultrasound and feel those first kicks.
PS My 3 1/2 year old isn’t like me. Can I kill him?
Posted by: carla at October 16, 2009 4:20 PM
Carla, I have no idea how or if my viewpoints will change if I ever have a biological child. I certainly acknowledge that huge life experiences can shift our perspectives. I have a brand new baby cousin who I held in the hospital 2 weeks ago. So lovely. I’m happy her parents chose to have her. I acknowledge her as a person, as I do your toddler. So we disagree there – your 3.5 year old is exactly like you and I.
I acknowledge her as a person, as I do your toddler. So we disagree there – your 3.5 year old is exactly like you and I.
Posted by: Danielle at October 16, 2009 8:42 PM
How exactly do you figure, Danielle? Her son doesn’t have a job, drive a car, write coherent thoughts, or care for himself. Is he just like you and carla because you choose to think of him as such only, or is there some other circumstance which makes you value him over others?
Danielle,
So you maintain that even if personhood were established, that the unborn child should have no legal protection simply because he or she is fully dependent upon the mother?
What separates this from child abuse? I know no 2 year old who would be able to survive if their parents left them alone for days on end. The parents would be prosecuted for criminal negligence. If the parents decided they simply didn’t want that child, as he/she is wholly dependent upon them for life, would those parents be justified in killing the child?
‘Ah, but by then they can put the child up for adoption and be physically independent,’ you may say. Yet, I ask you, could they simply leave the child in adoption without advance preparation? Finding new parents for your child is a time-consuming process, during which time that child is entirely dependent upon you. Would it be acceptable to kill the child during that time?
Of course, it would not.
And please don’t try to argue that the child is somehow less dependent after they’re born. My son required little attention while I was pregnant. I altered my life ever so slightly (no alcohol, no sushi, etc). Now that he is born, I spend my entire day with him. I change diapers, I feed him, I discipline him, I quell tantrums, I teach him… He is more completely demanding of my time than he was as an unborn child. He is certainly no less work than he was in utero. I’d say most parents would agree.
You maintain that birth confers personhood. In that, we disagree. But I pray for your heart if you truly believe that if personhood were established pre-birth, the child would still not deserve protection simply because their existence is perceived to be burdensome on the mother.
I just wanted to let you guys know that PP is so afraid of 40 Days for Life they are calling for special volunteers just for those 40 days.
Sadly, I found this from the serve.gov website which lists Planned Parenthood volunteer opportunities.
http://www.examiner.com/x-25187-Houston-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m10d16-Obama-promotes-servegov
Danielle–my friends have a son with Down Syndrome. He is not EXACTLY like you and I. Should he be killed? He is utterly dependent on his parents and probably always will be. Should he die? Is he not a person? Especially the first year of his life his parents had to take turns holding him upright all through the night because he would stop breathing otherwise and his heart would stop beating. So he was still dependent on his parent’s bodies hodling him upright for life. Could they then kill him when he was 9 months old because of this?
Because of ultrasound technology today pro-choicers can no longer deny the humanity of the unborn but then they go on to try to deny personhood. That kind of attitude was what allowed white slave owners to sell and trade their black slaves with no moral qualms. Obviously the black man was HUMAN but he wasn’t a PERSON. That kind of attitude drove Hitler to exterminate millions of Jews whom he called “useless eaters”. That attitude will at first deny personhood to fetuses and then spread to us all. Eventually my personhood may be denied by those who can use force over me. Danielle, eventually someone may deny YOU as a person. When you deny personhood to some members of the human family you jeopardize personhood for the WHOLE human family.
Sydney M, wonderful, wonderful post.
milehimama,
How frustrating!! When we see that kind of governmental support for Planned Parenthood, it’s no wonder that Mayor Daley of Chicago is supporting an ordinance to keep pro-life counselors away from women outside of clinics.
* * * * *
Anyone who values the right to free speech should contact Mayor Daley’s office to voice their opposition to this ordinance which will go into effect in early November unless the mayor vetoes it.
So many deaths from abortion go unreported even in countries which would collect such statistics. It is a stigmatized death, so a larger percentage are hidden. Also Reporting is Work. Health care professionals have enough to do, without that paperwork. Tip toeing around HIPAA regs has discouraged the effort also.
For example, I have not yet reported adverse events or deaths related to use of the Pill. (DVT or VTE, strokes, emboli…..ladies. ) There are quite a few cases coming into my place of employment. I also encountered cases in community pharmacy.
I expect that similarly, the complications and deaths from abortion (cases of which I have also seen) are vastly under-reported.
Operation counterstrike has publicly acknowledged that the morning after pill, which is illegal in Philippines, is an abortifacient drug.
Yes, there are some black market sales of the morning after pill, as well as misoprostil in the Philippines.
Both of those drugs are available in U.S. pharmacies legally. Morning after pill is OVER THE COUNTER, and misoprostil requires a prescription.
I have refused each type (for abortive use) while practicing retail pharmacy.
Speaking of Morning after pills…….. click on the Pharmer, scroll down one or two, for a primer, and then some, on that form of abortive birth control.