Weekend question #1, 1-2/3-10: Why didn’t conservatives oppose order to punish pregnant combat soldiers?
It was liberals, not conservatives, who became incensed when it was learned 2 weeks ago Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo had issued an order November 4 that “female soldiers [serving in Iraq] will be punished if they get pregnant and male soldiers will be punished if they are the father.”
4 female pro-abort Democrat senators – Barbara Boxer (CA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) – immediately demanded Cucolo retract his order….
We can think of no greater deterrent to women contemplating a military career than the image of a pregnant woman being severely punished simply for conceiving a child. This defies comprehension. As such, we urge you to immediately rescind this policy.
NOW also took up the cause, according to ABC:
[T]he National Organization for Women called the policy “ridiculous.”
“How dare any government say we’re going to impose any kind of punishment on women for getting pregnant,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “This is not the 1800s.”
O’Neill said NOW would turn to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and even President Obama for help.
Planned Parenthood made a bizarre statement, for it anyway:
Kary Jencks, public affairs director for NHPP, called the policy “bizarre.”
“I think it’s unfortunate that once again the natural capacity that a woman’s body has is disciplined,” Jencks said. “It’s always viewed as a handicap, not a normal aspect of being a woman.”
I thought pro-aborts considered preborn babies parasites?
Cucolo’s rationale:
I’ve got a mission to do, I’m given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them. So I’m going to take every measure I can to keep them all strong, fit and with me for the 12 months we are in the combat zone.
When it appeared Cucolo backed off under pressure (which he actually didn’t, he just clarified he could “see absolutely no circumstance where I would punish a female soldier by court-martial for a violation,” but would use “lesser disciplinary action”), NOW took credit:
The obvious recourse for women finding themselves pregnant while serving in Iraq and wanting to avoid punishment would be illegal or self-abortions, since legal abortions would be hard to come by in Iraq, so this really should have been a pro-life cause.
Why wasn’t it?
Why does it appear liberals and conservatives reversed roles in this instance?
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.
Conservatives didn’t support the policy either, so I wouldn’t call it a role reversal, but the liberals were louder and more effective. My theory: pro-lifers were throwing everything they had into the healthcare reform battle, so when we saw that other groups were fighting the unfair anti-pregnancy policy, we just left it to them.
On another note, I’m impressed by the mental gymnastics involved in abortion advocates using the phrase “conceiving a child.” Presumably, said child magically transforms into a clump of cells if the mother doesn’t want him or her.
I am conservative and former Army who served in the Middle East.
The General’s orders concerned females who became pregnant while deployed in theater (a combat zone)
The fact is many female soldiers will convince a male soldier to have sex for the express purpose of getting pregnant because pregnancy is an automatic ticket back to the states.
It is an increasingly common practice that females are exploiting for their own personal comfort at the expense of the Army and its Mission in the War on Terror.
The General was attempting to curtail this blatant intentional dereliction of duty by females wanting to go home early by establishing a punishment for what can be defined as desertion in a time war.
That is my answer to your question.
Because conservatives enjoy punishing women for having sex/being pregnant. The roles didn’t change at all. One of the major tenets of the Pro-Life side is that abortion is a way for women to avoid the consequences/punishments that come from sex. This court-martial was just another punishment that women were supposed to accept for having sex.
There was no change on the sides at all. Pro-Life want women to be punished for their actions, so they supported the court-martial. Pro-Choice do not want women to be punished for sex, so they did not support it.
Well said, Aaron. Thanks for your serivce.
Here’s my half-cent:
At no time did the good general say, “If you get pregnant, we’re going to abort the little bugger.”
The consequence was not execution. So, as harsh as the court-martial threat was (and understandably so), no one’s life was going to be terminated as a result.
Add to the fact that we’re talking about the military: these people were sent on a mission, they’ve got orders, and to engage in activities that would diminish the purpose of their deployment merits a reminder.
The chicks that signed up for the military shouldn’t be shocked.
And here’s another little far-out theory: All these groups feigning horror at the thought of court-martialing pregnant soldiers are by nature liberal. Liberals tend not to support war. Instead of looking at it from the general’s and Aaron’s point of view, they narrow it down to the “injustice” of court-martial, even though that very same pregnant woman who would have strolled into one of their clinics on a sunny day would have been gladly given an abortion.
Also…
The Abortion Sisterhood have been silent on so many other issues regarding the dignity of women, they pretty shot themselves in the feet when it comes to credibility.
You’re right Summer.
Pro-Choice women don’t want to be personally punished; they want someone else to be punished instead.
Summer,
Suppose you are correct and that the motivation for all pro-lifers being against abortion is to punish women for having sex. How does it follow that abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being?
The military operates under different rules than we do. Getting pregnant can severely impact their mission. These women serve important roles, and have been trained specifically for them. They know this when they sign up.
In fact, how does a supposed “motivation” address a single legitimate argument put forth by pro-lifers?
I think it’s because Conservatives, in general, seem to “get it” better that war requires sacrifices that would otherwise be unfair. Also, liberals–in general, again–have a very schizophrenic view of pregnancy.
For most people on the left, if the pregnancy is unwanted, then a women is “supposed to be” scared, desperate, and physically debilitated. On the other hand, if you intend to get pregnant, a woman can fight wars, naked, because they have bulletproof skin. Seriously. Nothing you can’t do pregnant. Any woman can do anything. Pregnancy never slows you down or hinders you at all if its a wanted one. So it makes no sense to punish people for getting pregnant because pregnant women can do anything!
Then you come to conservatives on the right. Interestingly, the majority of the military is also conservative. So, the conservative view of pregnancy is occasionally a bit schizophrenic as well. Children are always a blessing, and everyone should always be happy about them. Anyone can deal with parenthood and, if not, adoption is always easy and simple. But, conversely, pregnant women must be protected from everything! So it makes no sense to punish women for getting pregnant because everyone should be bouncing off the walls over the pregnancy and cheerfully lay down their lives to help this woman out!
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Every child is a blessing, yes, but not every woman is prepared for one. And pregnant women are not automatically incapacitated, but pregnancy can lay some women out pretty effectively. Furthermore, a war zone is no place for a pregnant woman, which I think is a statement nobody will argue with.
So we come to the Iraq situation. The general has a limited number of soldiers, and he’s going to have even fewer in a few months. He needs them all. Pregnancy, when it’s the result of voluntary sex, deprives him of trained soldiers who are experienced in the field right when he needs them. Swapping out the pregnant women for fresh folks from the States just means more newbies who have to learn what they’re doing, rather than the women who would have been out there who were already up to speed. This rule makes sense; it preserves combat effectiveness for the units in Iraq. Furthermore, it treats the women in Iraq as if they are too valuable to loose by being sent home. It’s pretty much the opposite of anti-woman, but all the NOW sees, apparently, is the army telling women they can’t get pregnant in a war zone. That the fathers were punished, too clearly didn’t register, any more than the fact that women are not prohibited from being pregnant in the military. Just in war zones.
Summer, I am a proudly pro-life woman and there are many others like me. It has never been about punishing women. While our pro-abortion president has commented that a baby is a “punishment,” pro-lifers do not view pregnancy in this way. When we look at pregnancy, we see two people whose rights to exist deserve respect- but only one’s right is threatened.
I don’t feel that abortion is a way to avoid consequences, either. Sure, abortion businesses sell it as an easy solution, and some women undoubtedly perceive it that way. But the truth is that abortion has serious consequences for a woman’s physical, mental, and emotional health.
By the way, the military’s policy goes after fathers too. Are you also suggesting that we like to punish men?
My initial thoughts were along the same line as Aaron’s. Our forces are stretched to the breaking point, and every soldier counts in a deployment. If female soldiers are getting pregnant in order to go home, that becomes the equivalent of soldiers shooting themselves in the foot as a ticket to the rear.
If women want to enjoy equality with men in service, then it becomes destructive of morale when the men must bear the disproportionate burden of risk as they see their female counterparts being flown home with the stork.
During World War II, when troop strength was stretched to the breaking point in the last year of the war, it became a Courts Martial offense to get trenchfoot. Soldiers were expected to care for their bodies in such a manner as to be ready to fight. It seems that with females in the ranks, pregnancy can legitimately fall under such a rubric.
Perhaps this is why conservatives were so silent on this one.
As a staunch pro-lifer, my preference is not to see our daughters train in the art and science of war. Pregnancy as a ticket home creates violent cross-currents with pro-life, feminism and force readiness in the military.
I believe that every soldier going off to war has the obligation to be ready to fight for those in his/her unit. If women are to have the added burden of preventing pregnancy, then that’s a sacrifice they need to know about and agree to when they enter the service.
Maintaining troop strength in order to defend one’s fellow troops is also pro-life, especially in the face of our current enemy.
This article explains the importance of expecting the same commitment from both men and women:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/26/national_organization_for_irresponsible_women_99690.html
Please keep in mind it was the liberals, mainly the women’s movement, who wanted female soldiers mixing with male soldiers in combat situations and on ships.
Even in societies in ancient times and the world over where women were warriors, they did not train or fight alongside men.
Women, such as Queen Boudica, commanded and led men.
Its precisely because of human biology the sexes were kept seperate. Our ancestors undertood this basic concept which modern day liberals do not.
Absolutely women are a vital part of our military and should do any job they qualify for. But military life does demand sacrifice. For instance, the military has strict rules as to who fraternizes with who, and for a reason. At one time seperation of the sexes was part of that.
Women using pregnancy to get what they want? Sorry folks, some things never change. Its an old ploy that has been used time and again. Maybe this ruling will increase the likelihood of some soldier keeping his pants zipped, as they female soldiers don’t get pregnant by themselves.
I’m prior service and was in a unit where I was the only female officer. I arrived at the unit 8 weeks pregnant and trust me, the guys were a tad different in their treatment of me. But as soon as I gave birth, I do recall all of them treating me with respect. When I was physically able (within 3 months) of “pulling my own weight”, I made sure I was capable.
I have seen people writing that women should be given the Depo shot to prevent pregnancy. So what happens when that fails? And last I checked, it takes two to tango, so why won’t the men get something to temporarily sterilize them?
Anyway, unless the woman is raped while overseas in a combat zone (it does happen), she shouldn’t get pregnant (with or without the use of artifical birth control) simply because if she and the man are obeying GO1, then hey… sex shouldn’t be happening. No one is Mary, so no one is going to get pregnant unexpectedly, so if they engage in sex, they shouldn’t be surprised if they get pregnant. I’m glad the General came out with this “threat” and if it deters some people, good.
Conservatives were silent because there’s not much to protest here. The General is absolutely correct and within his rights to expect his soldiers in-theatre to be physically capable of fighting. It’s WAR.
I know I’ll get shot for saying this, but that’s why women don’t belong in front-line combat in the first place. Out of respect for life and a woman’s unique and natural ability to co-create life, they do not belong in an environment that threatens new life.
It’s incredibly hypocritical for the liberal pro-aborts to suddenly be crying foul because women are being “punished” for their “natural capacity” and “conceiving a child.” Suddenly it’s a CHILD?!? I thought it was just a zygote! Just tissue that can be sucked out and eliminated! I thought it was just a CHOICE! Nice to hear them admit they really are killing children.
Indeed, the General is being pro-life in demanding that his soldiers – men and women- take their jobs seriously enough not to create a new life in a war zone. It’s called being a professional soldier. Abortions are not the answer. Responsibility is. That’s pro-life, pro-soldier, pro-country, pro-peace.
I think it’s quite simple. Conservatives believe in keeping committments and dealing with consequences; liberals don’t.
If a woman makes a committment to serve in the military, she should serve it just like a guy does. If getting pregnant makes her incapable of fulfilling the committment she should be punished because she broke her word. That’s called equality; everyone keeps their word and has self-control; everyone is treated equally.
Remember how feminists cried foul when air force(?) pilot Kelly Flynn, correct me if I have her name wrong, was thrown out of the military because of her adulterous relationship with the civilian husband of one of the airwomen?
Excuse me, but haven’t men also been thrown out of the military for the same thing? Why should she be treated differently?
A former military man told me that adultery is not uncommon and must be brought to the attention of superior officers by a complaint. The accused is then given a direct order to end the relationship or face court martial or discharge.
If the accused follows the direct order, the matter is dropped, if they disobey they face court martial.
This was the case with Flynn. The airwoman complained, Flynn was called in and given a direct order to get the guy out of her house and end the relationship. She not only continued to live with him but even took a trip with him! Can we say “stupid”. Flynn whined that since her lawyer was out of town and her commanding officer ordered no more direct contact, what could she do?? She was just so bewildered. So of course keep living with the guy and take a trip with him.
Lady, tell your CO the situation with your lawyer and have him handle it or as my military friend said, call the MPs and have them boot him out!
Not surprisingly she was courtmartialed and booted, much to the chagrin of feminists and liberals who felt she was being singled out and so what if she committed adultery?
Folks, she was courtmartialed for disobeying a direct order, not adultery. Had she obeyed her CO she’d be flying today. As an officer she should certainly know the consequences of defying a direct order. One can understand the military’s concern over an officer who so blatantly flaunts a direct order, then whines about their victimhood.
BTW if this was Ken Flynn, no one would give a hoot.
Isn’t it ironic how the feminists have been screaming for years that women will not be equal to men until they can control their ability to be pregnant? Meaning, to be like men (and serve in capacities such as the military), they need to be able to not get pregnant. But when a commander tells them to not get pregnant, they are up in arms about it.
I have a much simpler solution: send all the women home. My husband serves in the military and has done several combat tours in Iraq. I absolutely do not want women serving next to him. They should not be in combat areas. Simple as that.
And Aaron is absolutely correct. Not only do many women get pregnant to come home, but they get pregnant before they leave so they can get out of a deployment.
The military has been used as a social experiment, to “prove” a point. Ironically it has been mostly by liberals and feminists, who don’t have a clue about military protocol or rules or why they exist.
So what if Kelly Flynn was living with the husband of an enlisted woman? Stop and think hard liberals, just why do you suppose the military has strict fraternization rules? Maybe because this airwoman could be under Flynn’s command some day? What if this airwoman is responsible for the maintenance of Flynn’s plane?
So what if she virtually thumbed her nose to her superiors? What happens to military discipline and morale when officers can choose what orders they will obey?
Can you wonder why the military might, just might, have concerns about this woman’s judgment?
Yes she was just a victim of sexism and the military has such silly rules concerning adultery.
#prochoice – choosing what is right for oneself without fear of government punishment
Not to mention these women I assume are having immoral sex, that is, extramarital sex. Not that liberal and some conservatives would care, let’s not forget that it’s just plain wrong to have sex outside of marriage. However, that’s not why they are being penalized. They are being penalized since they are basically deserting or trying to run from their commitments in a dishonest fashion.
This is amazing though and clearly demonstrates how some women will go to such great lengths to preserve their lives, i.e., convenience abortions and now convenience pregnancies. In both instances choices are being made to escape from a perceived future consequence without stopping for a moment to think about what the right thing to do is, i.e., no insertion of faith or morality into the equation, just, “how can I escape?” and not, “what would God want me to do?”.
This is how someone like Hal who does not believe in God can so cavalierly express his view that abortion is not wrong and it’s just a choice. These types totally miss the spiritual and physical principle that every action causes an equal but opposite reaction. “We are without excuse”.
Brings to mind a scripture:
Luke 17:33
Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
What the military authorities are doing is absolutely right in attaching consequences to bad behavior. After all, isn’t this the mission of the military, dealing consequences to evildoers?
I’ll admit that if there was a draft I would think about getting pregnant, as I could never deal with the pressures of military service. The difference between me and the women who get pregnant now to avoid deployment is that they signed up for it and are going back on their commitment.
Republican conservatives have defended the military against frivolous critiques so much that they have become ludicrously deferent to military leaders.
Also, Republicans are afraid of accusations of sexism, so they have redoubled their commitment to feminism.
The GOP has always been a big backer of “equality in the workforce,” to the point that it backed the destruction of customary workplace privileges and greater pay for married *men* with children who needed to support their wives and kids. So their silence on destructive equality is an old habit.
The real conservatives would say that most women soldiers have no business being in a war zone in the first place and call for a repeal of our social engineering attempts. These same people, who are mostly pro-life as well, are marginalized already. So their criticisms were not publicized.
As a Catholic, I want to know where the archbishop of the military ordinariate is. The ban on marital relations between husband and wife intrudes on sacred ground.
Michelle 1:10PM
The military is a seperate world that plays by its own rules and regulations. You will play by the military’s rules and obey orders, including those issued by the gov’t, and it won’t be a choice.
One also has the choice not to enter the military if one does not want to live by the rules of the military and does not want to be punished for doing what is “right” for oneself.
I love your carefully chosen phrase “finds herself pregnant”. Hilarious. One doesn’t find oneself pregnant. As you know, becoming pregnant is the result of conscious choice or irresponsible negligence. When one becomes a soldier, one pledges to make conscious choices in line with one’s military responsibilities and to avoid negligent behavior that jeopardizes said responsibilities. Your position is absolutely ridiculous.
“The ban on marital relations between husband and wife intrudes on sacred ground.”
Can you expand on that one?
mary,
by that reasoning, if you choose to enlist in time of war – voluntary sterilization should be required. unless you plan on there not being intimate relationships in a marriage, that is truly the only way to prevent pregnancy.
“#prochoice – choosing what is right for oneself without fear of government punishment
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 1:10 PM”
You’ve got that wrong and evidences a complete lack of understanding of the truth. Government is instituted by God (as long as they are following godly principles of love, mercy, and justice). Abortion is murder and therefore deserves consequences.
“Romans 13:3-5
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.”
You’ve heard the Word and now are responsible for it. Therefore, choose this day whom you will serve.
michelle,
Hardly. I’m not required to enter the military at time of war or any other time. Also, in times of combat, its more about staying alive and performing your duty than having sex.
If I’m pregnant and want to engage in combat, does the military have the right to say I can’t?
“Not to mention these women I assume are having immoral sex, that is, extramarital sex. Not that liberal and some conservatives would care, let’s not forget that it’s just plain wrong to have sex outside of marriage. However, that’s not why they are being penalized. They are being penalized since they are basically deserting or trying to run from their commitments in a dishonest fashion.”
“This is amazing though and clearly demonstrates how some women will go to such great lengths to preserve their lives, i.e., convenience abortions and now convenience pregnancies. In both instances choices are being made to escape from a perceived future consequence without stopping for a moment to think about what the right thing to do is, i.e., no insertion of faith or morality into the equation, just, “how can I escape?” and not, “what would God want me to do?”.”
Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at January 2, 2010 1:11 PM
So many great comments, Hisman’s and several of Mary’s comments especially ring true to me. Perhaps conservatives weren’t as vocal as liberals on this issue because women serving in the army was primarily a feminist liberal issue at its onset. (Was it the Clinton administration who first allowed women to go into combat?) Quiet conservatives may have been consciously (or subconsciously) waiting for the liberal response.
* * * *
“mary,
by that reasoning, if you choose to enlist in time of war – voluntary sterilization should be required. unless you plan on there not being intimate relationships in a marriage, that is truly the only way to prevent pregnancy.”
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 1:44 PM
If a military woman is married and having sexual relations with her husband when she’s back home for a time, she is risking a pregnancy. Perhaps sterilization (which I don’t agree with) or abstinence is the only answer to 100% avoidance of pregnancy. Personally I don’t think women should be fighting in the military.
phil,
you are under the presumption that you and the version of the bible you hold speak for all people of faith.
that is not what the United States of America was built upon. contrary to your opinion, there is nothing in the United States Constitution that says ALL citizens must hold to the faith and practices of phil shchembri.
you have no idea of my Faith or what is in my heart, and i would be a fool to make the assumption that i know you. i am asking you practice tolerance.
i am against abortion, yet it is not my decision to make for another unless i am willing to adopt the child to save that life.
my husband and i have fostered many children through our thirty year marriage. that is how i feel we could best benefit those children that were not aborted.
this cannot be decided by a blog panel. a female that is dedicated to service and her batallion would not get pregnant intentionally anyway.
and for the person who would? they are of no use to the team. PERIOD
now, i have grandchilden to play with.
Why are you against abortion, Michelle?
michelle, 2:14PM
Thank you to you and your husband for the foster care you have given over the years.
BTW, there are people desperate to adopt.
michelle, 2:25PM
I would agree. But as was pointed out earlier there are women who will use pregnancy to avoid or change their deployment.
Michelle:
Here is what “my” version of the Bible as well as 99.99999% of all hermeneutically correct versions of the Bible say:
“Christ was born, Christ was crucified, Christ was risen, Christ will come again”.
Any questions?
And this too Michelle, the vast majority of writers of the Constitution were Christ fearing Christians and that’s a historical fact.
I suggest that you abandon your cliche based faith and seek the Lord with all your whole heart, soul and mind as He promises that you will find Him if you do so.
So now they’ve been reduced to just driving by and dropping a slogan. Killing another innocent human just is not debatable.
And Michelle:
“Phil Schembri’s” Bible also says this:
“2 Corinthians 10:4-6
4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.”
Note the use of the word “demolish”. It’s does not connote political correctness or politeness or really any sort of nicety towards the arguments of people that would distort God’s clear message. I mean couldn’t Paul say that we should “tolerate” heretical teaching?
This passage comes to mind as well:
“Galatians 1:6-9 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”
Wow, not too nice St. Paul.
The word “tolerance” is just another word for “lukewarmness” which Jesus says this about:
“Revelation 3:16
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
I think Paul is saying love the heretic but do not accept their teaching as it could lead you to hell. Therefore, I tolerate people that are clearly on the wrong road but, I strongly oppose their heretical message.
Perhaps our Lord is asking you to get back on the road to life?
i am against abortion b/c in my Faith it is wrong.
just as i feel celebrating the Nativity at the time of sol invictus is wrong; or celebrating the Resurrection at the time celebrations for the return of eostre are occuring.
it is my Faith.
i am not asking that you remove your pagan tree from your home during the holidays. or that you stop hiding eostre eggs in the spring.
that is for your Creator to judge you upon when your time of this existence has ceased.
i prefer not to use the terms “god” or any names that most use to denote the entity they worship. god is many things to many people. god can be money, sex, power, oil… it all depends on your perspective. thou my Saviour was crucified, i do not wear a cross, i view it as an icon, therefore an idol.
all i ask is that you do not judge me unless i worship you as my god… i do not foresee happening in this lifetime.
as for children and people that are willing to adopt. yes, there are children that have no home… most of them are not adorable babies but teenagers that need more love and understanding than any infant. those are the one’s that my husband and i choose to fight for… those that most find unacceptable …
phil,
concerning your comment “January 2, 2010 3:07 PM” … you and i are in complete agreement concerning the next paragraph where you give your interpretation.
So you don’t think there is any possible non-faith-based reason to be against abortion?
phil,
concerning your comment “January 2, 2010 3:07 PM” … you and i are in complete agreement concerning the next paragraph where you give your interpretation of Rev 3:16
Michelle:
Who said one thing about Christmas or Easter?
Oh yes, my wandering friend who lacks any real knowledge of the Word, Paul says this about those who would judge one based on the holidays they celebrated:
“Colossians 2:15-17 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”
bobby your question was why am i against it…
there can be any number of reasons why one is for or against any idea, practice, principle … and i can’t speak for another, just me.
i can tell you one reason i DO support the right to choose …
in 1970, before roe v wade, i had a babysitter that i later learned died from a botched, back alley abortion.
a beautiful, lively child at the age of 16, died … because she did not have the option of using a sterile medical facility and a qualified health-care physician.
i am not qualified to make life and death decisions for another … only for me, but i can do my best to see that those that are born into this existence get a chance to live …
“carder” asks me to expand on my comment “The ban on marital relations between husband and wife intrudes on sacred ground.”
First, I should have qualified this comment by saying *fertile* marital relations.
God is also a party to Christian marriage. Therefore secular restrictions on marital relations seem to usurp His authority.
In addition, contraceptive use has traditionally been proscribed by Christianity, and is still condemned by Catholic teaching.
In fact, Pope Paul VI explicitly warned about public authorities imposing contraceptive use in his prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae.
again phil, i completely agree with you, which is why i try not to judge those that follow pagan traditions … it would be nice if you would give me the same courtesy, but i do not need your approval on how to follow my path.
“i can do my best to see that those that are born into this existence get a chance to live … ”
Why should only those born be worthy of life? Why should the unborn not be worthy of life? Or even further, why should I not be allowed to kill a born person? What is it about someone that makes them worthy or not worthy of life?
michelle,
I wonder if you ever heard of Dawn Ravenell? After Roe v Wade she was able to obtain a “safe” legal abortion without her parents’ consent. Her mother found out about the abortion when the hospital called to notify her that her daughter Dawn was on life support, following complications that occured during her “safe,legal” abortion. Declared brain dead, Dawn was removed from life support a few days later. She was 13y/o
Don’t be surprised if you never heard of her. Young girls dying of legal abortion are not politically advantageous, so they are not worthy of mention.
Legal does not equal safe.
Oh yes, and legal abortion was supposed to end child abuse, drug and alcohol addicted newborns, relieve the foster care system, and guarantee that every child is planned, loved, and wanted. Has that been your experience as a foster care parent?
“a beautiful, lively child at the age of 16, died … because she did not have the option of using a sterile medical facility and a qualified health-care physician.
i am not qualified to make life and death decisions for another … only for me, but i can do my best to see that those that are born into this existence get a chance to live …
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 3:35 PM”
Thank you Lord for discernment.
Oh Michelle, oh convoluter. People like you are truly the most dangerous people on earth towards the unborn. For you are able to mix faith and abortion justification as if God were an imbecile.
Why was abortion, safe or otherwise, even an option?
The only choice this girl had was to live up to the consequences for having immoral sex and to bear the baby. Perhaps, if you were right with God at the time, God would have used you to speak truth into her life.
Michelle, here is truly what abortion is, despite your sentimental judgment of its correctness and acceptability:
Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,
Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,
Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,
Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.
Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.
Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;
Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,
Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him……for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.
Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009 by HisMan
bobby,
unless that child is in my body, i cannot force another to my belief … i simply do not have that type of power, and i am at a point that i am unwilling to take on another lifetime responsibility of nurturing a child. you, on the other hand, really should consider adopting children if you feel this strongly.
no one says you can’t kill another, you will be subjected to your conscience, the laws of this country, and eventually the laws of Judgment when you leave.
it’s your choice to make.
Michelle,
“no one says you can’t kill another, you will be subjected to your conscience, the laws of this country, and eventually the laws of Judgment when you leave”
What I mean is why is killing someone wrong? What is it that makes someone worthy of life? Why can’t we all just kill each other?
“you …really should consider adopting children if you feel this strongly.”
Yes, I am considering it very strongly, but my behavior does not address the issue or the reality of abortion at all. How I behave does not influence objective morals and duties.
But it seems as if you are saying that you can kill someone if they are in your body, right? Is that the principle that you base your support of legal abortion on?
so phil,
my question and my last comment…
how many children have you adopted and reared?
for until you are willing to accept the responsibility of those that refuse and possibly do not believe as you do …
that is the only question that matters …
are you an adoptive parent?
do you practice what you preach?
or do you spend all your time memorizing scripture so you may sit in judgment of your fellow humans?
in the end, that is what the abortion debate is about … one human sitting in judgment of another.
in a Spiritual sense, the child that is aborted, doesn’t suffers the pain of this existence but a moment…
again, that is my opinion. judge me if you wish … your judgment does not affect my Belief.
There are waiting lists to adopt babies and young children. Most kids waiting to be adopted are older or have issues that make them difficult to place(such as severe Autism or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome). Less abortions does not translate to more kids needing homes. The ones in foster care are there generally because of irresponsible parents who didn’t put their children up for adoption at birth or get their act together and be a parent.
I served in the Navy, and it is a big problem when a woman on a ship gets pregnant (pregnant women cannot serve on a ship so it is a ticket to get off the ship, at least for a time; if they time it right, they can get out of an overseas ship’s deployment by getting pregnant before the ship is scheduled to go overseas).
As others have mentioned, training and readiness of one’s soldiers/sailors/airman is always a huge issue for commanding officers. Today’s military involves a lot of training and drilling for each member of the team to become highly competent in their role. There is a lot of high tech involved with many military jobs. There is a lot of drilling and practice that has to go into a given unit being able to function and perform at a high level under the stressful conditions of combat. When a commanding officer has a top-notch team ready for action, it represents many months of hard work, effort, training and training and drilling and drilling and schooling and schooling by every single member of that team. In the case of a ship, it takes a solid 1 1/2 years or so for the crew as whole to get ready for another overseas deployment because of the huge amount of training, drilling, inspections, schooling, etc., that has to take place.
So, as others have said, when it comes to military units that are intended to function in a combat situation, every single person is very vital to the team as a whole. They have worked hard and spent many hours becoming an integral unit together. If you suddenly yank one person out of this team, you can decrease the future combat effectiveness of the team. And this could mean either less effective missions, or even deaths that would otherwise not have happened.
One of the reasons the United States has the best military in the world is because we spend a large amount of effort in training and education for soldiers/sailors/airman. And an absolutely essential aspect of this is drilling together over and over with the same people. You learn how each other thinks, reacts, and functions under stress and only by lots of time training together under stress do you become a great combat team.
On a ship, for example, one of the essential combat needs is “damage control.” Damage control teams are groups of sailors who train together to respond to any critical damage situations, and on ship this means mainly either fires or flooding. If there is a fire, a damage control team responds and puts the fire out. Ditto with flooding.
Now, these damage control teams are very essential to a ship in combat. They must be excellent, they must be courageous, and they must function together as a finely honed team. They train and drill constantly during peace time. It takes months for the members of a stable team to become really excellent, in part, because it takes this long for each team member to learn exactly how to work best under stress with every other specific person on their team. And when a ship is at sea and there is a fire or a flood, there is no one else to come save their behinds. Either the ship’s own damage control teams handle it, or sailors die and the ship becomes so damaged it is useless for combat or even is lost completely. Seconds matter. One mistake can mean life or death.
There are many different sorts of teams like this in the military that become great as a team only through grueling months of frequent training. Pull one person out and throw in another, and they may still be able to function, but they will not be as good. And this means dead people in combat. Plain and simple.
And here is an interesting historical fact about military service. . .
It used to be the case, not so long ago (I think this was policy into perhaps the 1980’s or so? Does anyone know for sure?) that enlisted members of the Marine Corps could not be married until they were of a certain rank and had been in the Marines for a certain minimum length of time. So when you joined, you had to become, say, an E-4 (not sure what it actually was) and have, say, 2 years or more of service before you could get married. Yes, that’s right, Marines used to need permission of the Marine corps to become a married man.
Every man or woman joining the Marines under this policy knew this. It was spelled out in black and white on enlistment papers that they signed their names to.
Members of our military really do live under different rules and laws than other U.S. citizens. They come under an entire legal system–the U.S. Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)–that only applies to the military. Under the UCMJ, there are rights that ordinary citizens have that military members voluntarily give up when they join. For example, they must follow all legitimate orders of their officers.
Why could Marines not marry when they first joined? I’m not for sure, but I think it had to do with the fact that if there is a war going on, Marines see combat more than any other branch of the service. And it has always been the case in combat that the soldiers most likely to get killed are the greenest, least experienced. If they are all married, that means lots of new, young widows and fatherless kids back home.
This is just one example of the sort of practical sacrifice willingly accepted by soldiers. Combat and war require much sacrifice. Professional soldiers everywhere and throughout history have always known this and embraced heavy sacrifices that ordinary citizens could not be expected to endure.
ok, had to comment on scott’s post…
your points illustrate my earlier post, no one who is true to the service & their team would knowingly become pregnant, but nothing is foolproof.
anyone who would become pregnant on purpose while serving at such a time is a danger to their squad.
Ella 4:31PM,
How true. Less abortion does not translate into more children needing homes and unfettered abortion does not translate into fewer children needing homes.
People still have children for the wrong reasons or their life circumstances change dramatically and unexpectedly.
Michelle:
You are moral relativism personified.
I took the responsibility of raising 5 of my own children who are really not my own but belong to God. If people did the same we would have no need of foster parents or adoptive parents or abortion.
Your jutification of abortion as pain lasting for a moment actually makes me want to wretch. How do you know this is the case? Have you ever interviewed an aborted baby?
I don’t consider you a hero but someone who can justify one’s actions on very fragile grounds.
It is interesting, as well, to recall how Uriah (husband of Bathsheba) behaved with his wife when king David summoned him home from the front lines under pretenses.
Uriah, out of solidarity with his fellow soldiers still fighting back at the front, did not sleep with his wife even though he was home from the front and could have done so. Because of his integrity in this matter, he paid with his life so that David could pursue his lust for Bathseba.
There seems to be an instinct of sorts displayed here that it is not right to engage in sex when you are fighting a war. Not that most soldiers over history have behaved this way. But, the example of Uriah does suggest that a virtuous soldier should abstain. Just as should be the case today.
Michelle:
The pain of a plane crash only last for a moment so why should engineers do everything they can to make aviation systems as redundantly safe as possible?
The pain of a head on collision only last for a moment so why spend so much on air bags?
When someone is shot in the head it only lasts for a moment so why make murder a crime?
The pain of electrocution only lasts for a moment so why insulate electric wires?
Ya think maybe it has somethin’ to do with these words: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?
Or perhaps you have never heard of botched abortions? You know the kind where babies survive their limbs being ripped off and they are born alive. Oh, and those your President and his wife who don’t mind murdering after thy were born.
The justification for the sin of murder by abortion should never be based on how long the pain lasts. If this were the case we could justify murdering just about any one, at any time, under any circumstance when we felt the need to do so.
how do i know?
“because there will be no more gloom for those that are in distress.”
“how do i know?
“because there will be no more gloom for those that are in distress.”
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 6:04 PM”
Huh? Is that a Bible paraphrase? Are you Bible thumping when it fits your cause? The same book says, “Thou shalt not murder”.
The truth is out folks….Michelle is a troll.
i am not qualified to make life and death decisions for another … only for me, but i can do my best to see that those that are born into this existence get a chance to live …
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 3:35 PM
except that in choosing an abortion for yourself that is exactly what you are doing to your baby
you are making the choice of death for your child
your thinking is inconsistent and illogical
My brother is a Captain in the USMC and has deployed to Iraq twice. I remember during the Clinton sexcapades that he was incredibly disgusted that if HE (my brother) cheated on his wife he would be disciplined because the marines view betraying your oath to your country as the next step if you could be so low as to betray the oath to your spouse…and YET Bill Clinton, the PRESIDENT could betray his oath to his wife and it was no big deal. ANYHOW…I say all this because my brother was of the firm opinion that women should not be housed near the male soldiers for this very reason. You mix men and women in close quarters and this is the natural result I think. Not all male and female soldiers are sleeping together but it is gonna happen eventually.
I think Mary made very valid points. They had an article about the military and pregnancy in ALL’s “Celebrate Life” magazine. While I do think women ARE trying to get pregnant to get a ticket home, I worry that this could sway a lot of women to choose abortion. Very sad.
I agree with the ban for a multitude of reasons. No, I don’t think the women should have abortions but that they should not be having sex, yes, even the few married people who are stationed together.
They put the other soldiers at huge risk when they have to be sent away, and in some cases replacements are not readily available. It makes perfect sense to me, and the men are being punished as well as the women. In fact only one woman has refused to name the father so 4 women have been reprimanded and 3 men. And really the “punishment” is hardly more than a slap on the wrist if you have ever read what it actually entails.
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 3:50 PM
——
michelle – do you rely upon others to show mercy towards you?
In other words, is anyone obligated not to shred you to pieces?
Are you depending upon them not to do that?
the greatest problem with this whole situation:
instead of discussing the subect, you talk AT me.
you resort to name calling and personal attacks.
your attitude is what turns so many people from Faith… from learning.. instead of spreading the Word & being a teacher, you hammer.
:: phil ::
for one that is so vocal about abortion and believing that you are right on the issue — you COPYRIGHT material of your outrage?!?!?
making MONEY on abortion? i would not be able to face myself each day, knowing my crusade was making money on this subject.
:: angel & chris ::
i’ve never had an abortion,
if you had read any of the posts you would have known that. instead you chose to attack instead of discuss… i suggest reading & comprehending what is written instead of judging out of hand.
i commend any person that works to help others. i was taught to serve, to help those i can … i cannot keep a woman from getting an abortion. i cannot force my Faith on another… but i can help those that are here, on this earth at this time.
yes, there have been botched abortions… long before the law came into being in 1972…. and many have survived as a testiment to Life.
but there are so many teens that need our help, love, and time… i leave the unborn to my Creator.
if you choose to sit in judgment of me, maybe you should spend less time preaching & more time digesting what you are saying.
:: as for the military::
anyone that would willing choose to get pregnant knowing their fellow troops need them will be the weak link in a critical situation.
Michelle, I agree with Phil I think you are a troll. You brag about how much you have done to be a foster mother to 20 kids then justify abortion as a way to have put these poor kids out of their misery. You chide Phil that if he has not adopted every so-called “unwanted” child he could find he has no right to be pro-life, then you talk about how the few minutes of torture and mutilation caused by abortion is worth it to save someone from being poor, having a difficult life and ending up in foster care being taken care of by you. WOW!! God help any child being taken care of by anyone like you, who thinks they would be better off dead than alive. You are either one sick cookie or definately a troll, coming here with all your pro-abort talking points and trying to hide behind the cloak of being “spiritual” and “pro-life”. Like Joe Wilson called out BHO, “You Lie!” Take your BS to a pro-abort blog and spout out all that garbage there. May God have mercy on your pathetic soul. Phil, we’ve got a pro-abort troll here and I don’t buy any of it.
:: angel & chris ::
i’ve never had an abortion,
“if you had read any of the posts you would have known that. instead you chose to attack instead of discuss… i suggest reading & comprehending what is written instead of judging out of hand.
first OFF, if YOU had READ my post you would know that I was speaking figuratively
I’m saying that you say that you can’t make a life or death decision but IF you were to have an abortion that IS exactly what you are saying
you are making a decision for death for that child
to say it is anything else is not intellectually honest
for after the abortion, there is no child born
something dies?
a baby dies in an abortion Michelle
it’s that straightforward
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 8:04 PM
——
Michelle – I was asking you a very serious, thought-provoking question. I wasn’t attacking you at all. From your prior comments, I understood you have a particular perspective and I wanted to know your thoughts on the role of mercy and dependency when it comes to personal choice and abortion. I realize my brevity in asking may appear harsh, particularly if you are engaged in a heated debate with others.
My question is related to the topic in a way that I hope is as neutral to your perspective as mine. I could interpret your defensive response, but would rather have you address it directly.
Thanks.
BTW michelle – if you looked, you would have saw that the questions I were asking were directly related to your own comments at 3:50 PM.
Rereading your comment, I get the impression you might have missed that.
“prolife l” ?
me thinks thou doth protest too much.
Have never made one penny on any of my pro-life views, got that not 1 cent.
The copyright is to protect it from people like you that would distort it.
The definition is sacred.
I do not peddle the gospel.
I will choose to ignore the troll. For those who don’t consider it a waste of time, I truly applaud your efforts. God bless.
chris,
i’m depending on my fellow humans to respect life… but not everyone agrees when that begins…
to place religious beliefs upon another is not how i read the US Constitution.
when discussing this subject i am so accustomed to being attacked that i am a bit defensive, i apologize.
the problems imo is people are to willing to discount anothers Faith as ridiculous & heathern… which is why we have wars… because each person interprets his religion as the only one.
my Saviour sat with sinners, saints, women, children, lepers… all those that at the time were considered unclean by His religion.
but he embraced… and taught thru compassion for those he came into contact with on His journeys. that is all i can do, to try and help those i come into contact with each day.
if i am wrong, then that is for me to answer for, but it will not keep me from doing what i know is right.
if everyone were responsible for self… there would be no abortions… but i can’t stop every one. there are too many already in existence that need attention.
http://memachelle.blogspot.com/2009/12/so-what-have-you-learned.html?zx=d1e4df19bbbc31d0
chris,
maybe this will explain a bit about me
i’m depending on my fellow humans to respect life… but not everyone agrees when that begins…
brave and foolish you!
which is WHY we need to respect life from conception
who will choose the arbitrary line of when life begins?
you?, your husband? your doctor?
if we can choose the beginning of life what about choosing the end of life?
and what if your definition of when life ends is different from that of your husband? your doctor? your son?
who decides Michelle?
even if we ignore all the scientific and rational arguments for life beginning at conception, this is another reason why there must be no arbitrary choice as to when life begins.
if it is a human life, it is a person and that person has the right to life no matter what and no matter the circumstances.
Why? Because they never hesitate to use whatever they can, including hypocrisy, in order to score cheap rhetorical/political points. Planned Parenthood and NARAL could care less that these women are pregnant, and will conveniently overlook that it also said the FATHERS would be punished. They claim unborn fetal children are ‘invaders’ ‘parasites’ and even on a par with rapists when it suits their agenda. They are only children in a proabort actually wants them. Double standard anyone?
“my Saviour sat with sinners, saints, women, children, lepers… all those that at the time were considered unclean by His religion.
but he embraced… and taught thru compassion for those he came into contact with on His journeys. that is all i can do, to try and help those i come into contact with each day.
if i am wrong, then that is for me to answer for, but it will not keep me from doing what i know is right.
if everyone were responsible for self… there would be no abortions… but i can’t stop every one. there are too many already in existence that need attention.
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 8:45 PM”
How anyone can talk about being a follower of Jesus Christ and be a pro-abort at the same time is way beyond comprehension.
Or perhaps you are a cafeteria follower who only likes the parts that she agrees with and throws the rest away while sucking on her granola bar.
I know this one guy who claims to be a believer but ignores just about everything St. Paul writes. He too is a Liberal pro-abort.
I do know this, Jesus in His compassion was very stern about what would happen to anyone regarding their treatment of children.
It is impossible to think that the author of life, the Cause of Conception would think that the life He created in a women’s womb would now be subject to the whims of a human being to destroy it. This is a totally xxxant view, i.e., arrogant, flippant, and ignorant.
Michelle…our Lord and Saviour also took the time to be there for little children. He valued them so much he chastised His disciples for chasing them away. “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not for such is the kingdom of heaven.” the words of our Lord. What do you think Jesus would think if He was sitting in the abortion clinic watching a child be pulled out of his/her mother piece by piece?
Of course Jesus has tremendous love and compassion for women who choose abortion. His heart breaks as their hearts break. But that only means that abortion is evil and should be stopped not that we should sit back passively and shrug “oh well. not my place to say anything.” Legal or illegal, abortion still scars lives.
This is how Jesus feels every time a woman makes a “choice” to rid herself of her unborn child. Don’t sugarcoat it Michelle.
http://www.spiritualadoption.org/images/jesus.gif
Once again:
MICHELLE-
NOT ALL PRO-LIFERS ARE RELIGIOUS. ABORTION IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE, IT IS THE LEGALIZED KILLING OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING WHICH SHOULD BE UNLAWFUL, NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION (INCLUDING NO RELIGION) YOU BELONG TO.
LOVE,
AN ATHEIST PRO-LIFER
Posted by: michelle brooks at January 2, 2010 8:45 PM
Xalisae:
It’s amazing to me that a person who denies God’s existence can come to a totally different conclusion about what abortion is than a theist.
That’s not to say that atheists don’t have morals, it’s just that a theist should view this as God-101. I think pro-abort theists get compassion mixed in there somehow and become totally confused. Yes, the human heart is capable of much self-deceit.
While I have much patience towards a person like you, a non-believer who understands why abortion is wrong, with regards to a person who professes belief and is a pro-abort is just about as disgusting as it gets for me. After all, if they are believers, they have been given some light yet choose to keep their eyes closed.
I guess this intolerance reveals a problem with me rather than anyone else. Guess I’ll have to work on separating the behavior from the person.
Michelle-
This:
“in a Spiritual sense, the child that is aborted, doesn’t suffers the pain of this existence but a moment…”
is absolutely untrue. I know it isn’t true. These babies are rejected and they suffer more than you know. I could not let this comment go unresponded to.
How ridiculious to think that, with all the emphasis we place on acceptance and love in this life, those who are rejected by their own mothers to the point of death aren’t swimming in utter despair.
These babies want to come here. They want a chance at life and at a body (something they’ve never had.) They love their mothers long before their mothers meet them for the first time.
You are so proud of your foster care. I appreciate what you have done, but I’ll have you know that there is adoption to be had on both sides. For the only hope these rejected little ones have is that another mother will allow them into her family.
Michelle, Thank you for the hard work and dedication you’ve put into fostering disadvantaged children. I’m sorry the others here haven’t been as welcoming, but they are cautiously skeptical for a reason, because we’ve had some pretty bad trolls here in the past. But I have no reason to believe you are a troll, only misguided, and you seem genuine and sincere in your beliefs. You’ve made some interesting statements, some I agree with and some I do not, which I would like to discuss with you further, in a civil manner of course. Do feel free to stop by my blog for some coffee or tea (or hot cocoa) and a fireside discussion. This inventation is open to all of course, but you must be willing to remain in civil discourse with those you disagree with at my blog.
Hi michelle,
The link you provided was helpful in getting to know you better.
I don’t know how long you’ve been reading JillStanek.com, but as you’ve discovered, the discussions here are very spirited. As a pro-life site, many readers vigorously defend life, and at times might overwhelm others who hold a different view. We’ve had our share of trolls and hecklers.
I’m not suggesting at all that’s where you’re coming from.
I’ve read your comments above and there are several things which seem confusing. Can we clear these up?
To summarize your view on abortion – choice is a personal matter, so while you are personally opposed to abortion, you don’t believe others should impose or restrict the choice for mothers to kill their own human children.
Is that correct?
chris, you are correct.
bans never work… (think prohibition)
the only way is education … not preaching, not condemnation… but teaching, sharing, and compassion.
abortion is an abomination, but try explaining that to a 13 year old that sees a friend shot down in the streets of this country. for that child, it’s just another day where mercy and compassion do not exist.
i can’t change another person, but maybe through shaing i can hopefully change the way he sees others.
much is accomplished through education. drunk driving, seat belt use, etc… yet, there will always be those who refuse to learn. i accept that.
the only way is education, not of the horrors, not of the consequences, but of the choices.
humans, by nature, rebel against tyranny… and resist those that would enslave choices.
the one lesson i have learned in this life — when you force an individual into submission, you cannot predict their response. that is why Faith is a choice. that is how humans were Designed.
Hi Michelle,
You are certainly correct. Bans never work. So when do we get rid of laws that ban rape, domestic violence, and child molestation?
No one would argue laws have done anything to end these crimes once and for all.
I certainly advocate education on the perils of drunk driving, but I also advocate very strong laws against it as well.
I don’t quite understand your point about abortion and the child who witnesses a killing.
I recall when it was argued that legal abortion would result in children who live idyllic lives because they are planned, perfect, loved, and wanted.
mary, if all were responsible and did what was “right” … laws and commandments would not be needed.
my comparison abt teen — when faced with the depravities that child witnesses on a daily basis, condemnation will not change the circumstances. only education.
our Saviour could have been born a ruler of a powerful worldly nation and impose His Law thru hammering people into His Image and forcing obedience upon the land… my opinion, and it’s just that, is He was born of lowly human status to show that it doesn’t take worldly power and humans laws to change the world… that is done one person at a time, connecting with another person.
I recall when it was argued that legal abortion would result in children who live idyllic lives because they are planned, perfect, loved, and wanted.
Posted by: Mary at January 3, 2010 10:17 AM
this is still being claimed by abortionists who have been in the “business” for 30 years
they look back and feel that they have helped lower the crime rate and prevented millions of unwanted children from being born into a life of poverty
except the only people that didn’t “want” the baby was the mother
meanwhile millions wait to adopt…..
michelle,
That’s certainly true, but my point is laws and commandments don’t stop people from doing what they are determined to do, so why have them?
Thank you for the clarification. However, over 30 years ago abortionists claimed children would no longer witness such things once abortion was legal. Life would be idyllic for children and the rest of society once all children were planned, perfect, loved, and wanted.
I’m sure your experience as a foster mother has taught you otherwise. Again, I thank you for your years of service as a foster mother.
Hi angel,
It would almost stand to reason that when you wipe out 50 million people you’ve wiped out some potential criminals. You’ve also wiped out potential scientists, doctors, nurses, teachers, researchers, parents, students,…. to name only a few.
Okay michelle – if I understand you correctly, you believe abortion will eventually stop because people will become educated.
In the interest of sharing, let’s go back to what I originally posed:
Do you rely (depend) upon others to show mercy towards you by not violently shredding you to pieces?
And is such mercy a choice or an obligation?
Hi angel,
It would almost stand to reason that when you wipe out 50 million people you’ve wiped out some potential criminals. You’ve also wiped out potential scientists, doctors, nurses, teachers, researchers, parents, students,…. to name only a few.
Posted by: Mary at January 3, 2010 1:06 PM
well yes.
who knows what discoveries will never be made because mommy and daddy were more interested in the joys and freedoms of promiscuous sex…
who knows how many people never met the spouse God intended for them
who knows how many people’s lives might have been very different, if it weren’t for the intergenerational effects of sex..
should read the intergenerational effects of abortion…
The moral of the story is 100% clear: women should not be combatants.
this is still being claimed by abortionists who have been in the “business” for 30 years
they look back and feel that they have helped lower the crime rate and prevented millions of unwanted children from being born into a life of poverty
except the only people that didn’t “want” the baby was the mother
meanwhile millions wait to adopt…..
Posted by: angel at January 3, 2010 12:38 PM
1) no one is suggesting that there is a 100% failproof solution, ie abortion, to issues of poverty, crime, unwanted children, etc. That’s the strawman response of the PL side, to inaccurately conflate the issue;
2) of course its not a popular concept, but there have been stats generated to suggest that legalization did lower the crime rate in some instances. I’m not suggesting its not fallible, only to note that it has been measured;
3) couples are not waiting to adopt for lack of children. There’s an abundance of them. The issue is the incredible challenges people face trying to navigate the adoption system. Lowered abortion rates will not suddenly open the gates for potential parents and newly available children.
Regarding women in the military getting pregnant to avoid duty…
I think that if it can be PROVEN with actual EVIDENCE (i.e. statements made by the Soldier herself, etc.) that a Soldier has become pregnant for the purpose of either being redeployed (sent home from a deployment) or avoiding a deployment… or avoiding any other aspect of her duty… that she should be kicked out of the military. If you are not willing (or able) to do your duty then you shouldn’t be in. You know what you’re signing up for. If the father of the baby is a Soldier, he should receive the same consequence because he was party to the scheme (fraternization is against the UCMJ anyway).
HOWEVER, it really irritates me that a female soldier who gets pregnant is automatically assumed to have done so in order to get out of her duty or a deployment, and she is treated accordingly by other Soldiers and her chain of command. It really concerns me that a female Soldier who truly is dedicated to her mission may have gotten herself pregnant under other circumstances, such as birth control failure or rape, and may decide to get an abortion so that she is not penalized by her chain of command.
Yes, the ideal situation would be not having sex in the first place. In situations such as rape, I think that certainly the woman should get a break. She didn’t choose that and she shouldn’t be penalized by the military or made to feel that she should have an abortion by ANYONE, the military OR anyone who believes that children conceived in rape do not deserve life. And in situations where the birth control didn’t “work out”, hey, the government and everyone else always claims that birth control is the “answer”, so as long as she was “being careful”, then the government shouldn’t seek to punish her, right?
I understand the need to retain your trained personnel in theater until the job is done. I really do understand the basic ideas behind these orders. I am just concerned about the fact that any female Soldier who gets pregnant is automatically ASSUMED to have done so on purpose to avoid her duty, and that more dedicated Soldiers with unplanned pregnancies will get an abortion to avoid trouble with her chain of command, or that the father of the child (who, if in the military himself, would be in trouble also) will pressure her into it for the same reason.
yes, well Danielle, considering that PP almost exclusively has targeted low income families and certain ethnic communities where crime tends to be higher, it’s little wonder that they “took out” a few children who would end up criminals
however, research also shows that the reduction in crime rate is alot more complicated with not just one factor being involved….
abortion, which involves the death of a human person is NEVER the solution to any human problem, be it poverty, crime, or disability
Danielle 9:46PM
I’m old enough to remember the years before Roe and the battle to legalize abortion. Assurances of how abortion would end social problems, especially child abuse, were indeed part of the PA propaganda strategy and people were taken in by what seemed such easy and simplistic solutions.
We’re a bumper sticker society Danielle. I remember bumper stickers that said “stop child abuse, support abortion reform”. Instant simplistic solutions appeal to us all. Didn’t it just make sense that eliminating “unwanted” children would mean less abuse and children growing up planned, loved, and wanted? Didn’t it mean less crime? Less poverty? Fewer children born drug and/or alcohol addicted?
Problem was human nature and problems don’t make for easy bumper sticker solutions. These are extremely complex problems which involve work, time, energy, education, etc. Not a suction aspirator.
Now that abortion advocates face the social problems they promised 40 years ago would disappear the younger ones like you Danielle think this is some PL strawman. I know different.
It was a PA propaganda ploy that was proven to be a falsehood and modern day PC people such as yourself are left holding the bag.
Oh yeah, this is a much better country since the passage of Roe v. Wade.
Who can believe such a statement?
Now that abortion advocates face the social problems they promised 40 years ago would disappear the younger ones like you Danielle think this is some PL strawman. I know different.
It was a PA propaganda ploy that was proven to be a falsehood and modern day PC people such as yourself are left holding the bag.
Posted by: Mary at January 4, 2010 9:10 AM
-Again: No one promised or promises that there is a one stop, fail- safe solution to the issues above. Thinking adults, capable of common sense, know that. A bumper sticker slogan, however you choose to remember it, does not encapsulate the full position for either side of the debate. Reduction and elimination are two completely different things. We hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see.
right Phil.
Morally it isn’t. Spiritually it isn’t.
How can 50 million missing citizens be a good thing for America?
How can hundreds of thousands of women who are the walking wounded, suffering from abortion be a good thing?
We hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see.
Posted by: Danielle at January 4, 2010 9:43 AM
oh boy you walked right into this one!
this statement exactly defines the proabortion movement thinking – hear nothing, see nothing.
you see the unborn as what you want to see them as – in some cases non human beings and definitely without any rights
and you are definitely not listening to the developing body of scientific literature that demonstrates the physical, emotional, mental and social harm abortion does.
talk about having an open mind…..NOT!
Danielle 9:43am
Please, I lived in that era, I remember the propaganda and emotional appeal. That’s the key word Danielle, you appeal to people’s emotions, not their rational thinking. This is exactly the ploy used by the movement to legalize abortion.
For a real eye opener read “Aborting America” by Bernard Nathanson. You’ll read how your predecesors invented abortion “statistics” they knew were a complete falsehood, promoted bigotry against the Catholic Church who, because of their structure, made the best target. What better way to unify supporters of abortion than to give them a common enemy? The Catholic Church fit the bill. Its a great strategy, just ask the Ku Klux Klan.
These were people prepared to stop at nothing Danielle, even lies and bigotry that served the cause were promoted. Is it any shock they would play on people’s emotions, not rational thinking, with social problems and abused children? It was all part of a strategy in which the ends justifies the means.
good posts Mary!
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2510/before-em-roe-em-v-em-wade-em-did-10-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions
Wish I could find some of those bumper stickers, Mary. :)
oh boy you walked right into this one!
this statement exactly defines the proabortion movement thinking – hear nothing, see nothing. you see the unborn as what you want to see them as – in some cases non human beings and definitely without any rights
and you are definitely not listening to the developing body of scientific literature that demonstrates the physical, emotional, mental and social harm abortion does.
talk about having an open mind…..NOT!
Posted by: angel at January 4, 2010 9:53 AM
-Angel, take the point on the scoreboard if you feel the need. I speak/write what I believe and nothing more. I stand by my point.
Our two posts are the personification of what it means to be open minded and close minded. I’m open minded to your argument. I have examined it, looked at it, listened to it. I can even understand the basic construct. I can address flaws within my own political community. The imperfect-ness of an abortion procedure. I subject myself to reading and reacting to some of the most jaw-dropping thought bubbles on this blog that at times have left me dumbfounded in their ignorance. You on the other hand, seem to be completely incapable of the same critical analysis because you can’t see past your own position, solidifed and insolated long ago with points, sound bites and people who only support what you already believed deep inside.
All of the scientific evidence in the world on fetal development (some true, some slanted) does not negate the issues which surround that fetus and the woman at the center. All that data does not solve the question of, who or what should hold executive power during a pregnancy. For now, the law says most of the time, the woman should, but this is the grey area that most of us realize cannot be solved very easily, if at all.
My eyes are wide open to the intricacies of this fight. My mind is quite open. Are you sure yours is?
That’s the key word Danielle, you appeal to people’s emotions, not their rational thinking. This is exactly the ploy used by the movement to legalize abortion.
Posted by: Mary at January 4, 2010 10:06 AM
-Exactly, Mary. Goes both ways. Remember that.
Hi Carla,
Ellen Goodman remembers when birth control was illegal? She must be pushing 100y/o and then some. My mother used BC during WW2. My grandmother and her sisters must have used something prior to and during the Great Depression since none of them had more than 2 children.
About the bumper stickers. I remember them well.
Great emotional appeal and I will have to admit, it worked. Any time you started a discussion on legalizing abortion the first question was always “well what about child abuse”?
My favorite comeback was to ask if we would solve the problem of wife abuse by killing engaged women?
Danielle,
I’m glad you are finally owning up to the emotional appeal. Too bad you’re the one left holding the bag.
Oh another one was when medicaid funding of abortion was cut off. The wailing and gnashing of teeth by abortion advocates was comparable to a Greek chorus. Poor women would die like flies from illegal abortion, poor women would produce all these children they can’t care for, poor women are incapable of caring for children, its cheaper to abort these children than to raise them on welfare, the poor are irresponsible parents (one article actually had poor women sucking down beer and tossing their empty beer cans on the lawn while their children terrorized the citizenry). The bigotry, elitism, and complete falsehood was appalling, yet somehow viewed as acceptable and true. Interesting that no legitimate spokesperson for poor women ever spoke up on this matter, only middle and upper class men and women. Can we say elitism and bigotry?
Its a ploy your side has used time and again Danielle.
Angel 10:12am
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Hi Carla,
Come to think of it my mother is pushing 100y/o and her mother and aunts would be around 110-115y/o if they were still alive. Ellen most be a real dinosaur.
I have yet to meet a PC who owns up to Margaret Sanger’s vileness OR the outright lying to get abortion legalized. Sanger walked the walk and talked the vile talk at least. Own your roots!!
I’m glad you are finally owning up to the emotional appeal. Too bad you’re the one left holding the bag.
Posted by: Mary at January 4, 2010 10:59 AM
-And too bad, yet again, that the PL community can’t own up to the same equal, egregious manipulations that they are also guilty of. Believe it or not, it is possible to be critical of a platform you support and believe in. Its called objectivity. And rest assured…that bag’s big enough for everyone to hold.
Danielle,
My question to you is, why over the years has your side resorted to promotion of bigotry, distortion of statistics, downright lies, emotional appeal, elitisim, and at times borderline hysteria(the medicaid issue)if the facts are on your side?
My question to you is, why over the years has your side resorted to promotion of bigotry, distortion of statistics, downright lies, emotional appeal, elitisim, and at times borderline hysteria(the medicaid issue)if the facts are on your side?
Posted by: Mary at January 4, 2010 11:23 AM
-Is this a rhetorical question, or are you looking for a sincere response? If you’re sincere, you’d have to know that your claims need some support first. If you want to itemize it for me, I’ll play.
Let’s start will defining ‘the promotion of bigotry.’ What does that even mean? Be specific.
Hi Carla,
An interesting point about Christopher Tietze. He was a pro-abortion statistician. At one time he referred to the inflated illegal abortion death rate figures as “unmitigated nonsense”.
Interesting how the article points out that improvement in medical care, and not the legalization of abortion, was a more likely reason for the declining death rate from both illegal and legal abortion prior to Roe.
Also, Goodman may have been referring to the overturning of two states’ laws concerning the sale of contraception in her rather theatrical claim of “illegal birth control”. In Massachussetts it was a law outlawing sale to single people and in Connecticut it was a law outlawing sale to married people. How old these laws were or how strictly they were enforced is another matter. There are statutes on the books today that are laughable and most certainly not enforced. Birth control was certainly not illegal in the US. Interesting though that despite the “illegal birth control” the illegal abortion death rates continued to decline.
Danielle,
Bigotry:
The deliberate singling out of the Catholic Church as a common enemy against which the supporters of abortion could rally. This is a great strategy, just ask the KKK. Dr.Nathanson says the Catholic Church was selected because their hierarchy made a great target, not because the CC was the only religion to oppose abortion.
Even Dr.Nathanson would become appalled at the blatant bigoted attacks and would question why the CC silently took the abuse that no other religion or racial group would have tolerated. Good point.
Hi Mary.
Thank you for being such a wealth of knowledge. I have read several accounts of former abortionists and they all say pretty much the same thing. Inflated numbers to garner public support.
Hi Danielle,
Not in the mood to argue but wanted to say hello. I’m tired today. yawn
Hope your Christmas was great!
Bigotry:
The deliberate singling out of the Catholic Church as a common enemy against which the supporters of abortion could rally.
Posted by: Mary at January 4, 2010 11:41 AM
-Hmm, not sure. I don’t know anything about the singling out of the Catholic Church. I’m not trying to be obstinate, but I sincerely don’t know what you’re specifically referring to. But based on your post you said that the CC church openly opposed abortion at the same time it was trying to be legalised, so therefore it would make sense that the church would therefore be accurately portrayed as an obstacle against legalization. Not sure how that’s exactly bigotry.
I am always wondering what world pro-aborts live in. The Sexual Revolution was supposed to free women from sexual inhibitions and abortion was supposed to free them from the consequences of “free love”; having “unwanted babies”. They need to read Star Parker’s (a former self-professed welfare queen) books “Uncle Sam’s Plantation”, her autobiography “Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats” and “White Ghetto” and also Dr. Alveda King’s (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King) book “Sons of Thunder: The King Family Legacy; How Can the Dream Survive if We Murder the Children”. Both of these women are post-abortive women who bought the lies, the “Planned Barrenhood”, Margaret Sanger, deceit and lies. They thought their lives would be better if they aborted. The “Every child a wanted child” mantra was supposed to take African Americans out of poverty, racism, child abuse, ignorance, domestic violence, gang violence, poor academic achievement and Black women being “forced” to carry their babies to term. What a joke!! Now instead of about 20% of births being out-of-wedlock before 1970 (the biggest predictor of poverty), the rate has gone up to almost 70%. Of the abortions per 1000 Live births in 2004, the rate was 161 for Caucasians, 211 for Hispanics but 472 per 1000 for African Americans. A.A women account for 38% of all abortions, while only making up 13% of the female population. Like Star Parker says “They tell you, “it’s a quick fix”. They say “It will solve your problems and allow you to get on with your life” They’re wrong.” Since Roe v. Wade the A.A. population has been reduced by 39.6%. 62.5% of abortion clinics are located in the inner city and neighborhoods where poor and minorities live. Go to Star’s website urbancure.org. Go to Dr. King’s website gospeloflife.com If anyone wants to tout how abortion helps women especially poor women they need to hear both of these women. Like we say at prolife rallies “PLANNED PARENTHOOD LIES TO YOU”!!
“Since Roe v. Wade the A.A. population has been reduced by 39.6%.”
I’m quite sure this can’t be correct.
There were approximately 38 million black or African American residents of the US in 2005. There were 22.6 million in 1970.
Danielle,
Please read Dr.Nathanson’s “Aborting America”. The reason I would see this book as so objective is that at the time it was written Dr.Nathanson did not oppose abortion and he was no friend of the PL cause. He was in the “second thoughts” phase concerning his role in legalizing abortion.
The CC was not the only religion opposing abortion. It just happened to have a convenient hierarchy that was easy to attack, unlike other churches. Since Nathanson and co. didn’t want to seem bigoted, it would appear that the hierarchy, and not Catholics themselves, would be the targets of PA venom.
It was a very carefully crafted strategy Danielle and a very old strategy. If you want to unify people for or against a cause, give them a common enemy against whom they can unite. This is a strategy however that would get out of control, so much so that even Dr.Nathanson was appalled at the blatant bigotry. Its sort of like arguing I want to target black churches but not come across as attacking black people. Its easy to see how that could get out of control, no matter how “good” my intentions.
Also, Nathanson and co. had the help of a very compliant media ready to do their every bidding. Its spread the lies about illegal abortion deaths and also promoted the bigotry. I read plenty of it and even wrote editors accusing them of blatant religious bigotry.
Only the Catholic faith of PL people would be mentioned. We never heard if they were non-Catholic. We were also never informed of the religious beliefs of PA people.
One time either Newsweek or Time said that some state legislature was under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine if someone had said they were under the influence of Jews! You would think it was Nazi Germany.
Anyway I wrote the magazine and told them they were absurd. They snottily replied that since there are a large number of Catholic legislators, they influence the legislature with their religious beliefs. I then asked for the exact number of Catholic legislators and for a complete count on the number of Protestant,Jewish, atheist, non-denominational, and agnostic legislators as well. Put your money where your mouth is folks. Never did get a response.
Those are only a few of the milder examples I saw and addressed.
Hal sources for this statistic: “Abortion has reduced the African American population by 39.6%”
Guttmacher Institute. “In brief-Facts on Induced Abortion in the U.S.” July 2008.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ‘AbortionSurveillance-United States, 2004 “Surveillance Summaries Nov. 23, 2007, MMWR 2007;56 (No.SS-9) Table 1 & 2
Jones RK et al., Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1): 6-16. Table 1.
U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1. Population by Sex and Age, for Black Alone of in Combination and White Alone, Not Hispanic: March 2004.
I also suggested the editors must have slept through their junior high civics course. The legislators are put in office by the voters, not the CC. Also, they answer to their voters. Do you folks think that maybe, just maybe, they passed PL legislation because that is what the voters wanted??!! Nahhhhh, must have been a priest hiding behind every potted plant in the state capitol.
PLL 12:54PM
Excellent! Guttmacher is certainly not known for its PL sympathies.
Hal sources for this statistic: “Abortion has reduced the African American population by 39.6%”
Guttmacher Institute. “In brief-Facts on Induced Abortion in the U.S.” July 2008.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ‘AbortionSurveillance-United States, 2004 “Surveillance Summaries Nov. 23, 2007, MMWR 2007;56 (No.SS-9) Table 1 & 2
Posted by: Prolifer L at January 4, 2010 12:54 PM
-Nowhere in either of these studies is the data point of a 39.6% reduction in the AA population rate. Also, given that the population of AAs in the US is larger than in 1973 as Hal mentioned, these two #s can’t support each other.
-Mary, it sounds like the bigotry you’ve presented is perceived, and viewed as a part of some larger network of conspiracy. While I can accept if you have/had a personal problem with the portrayal of the CC church or religious organizations, this is opinion, and not fact. If you want to lay out points for the other claims you made in the earlier post (“distortion of statistics, downright lies, emotional appeal, elitisim, and at times borderline hysteria”), I’ll be happy to discuss.
Danielle,
Please face up to it. This is the tactic the leaders of the movement to legalize abortion engaged in. I’m getting it straight from Dr.Nathanson and you can certainly read it for yourself if you don’t believe me. No it wasn’t my perception Danielle. It was out there because abortion leaders like Dr.Nathanson wanted it out there and a compliant media responded. I saw it and responded to it. BTW I’m not Catholic. But then I wouldn’t have to be Jewish to perceive that a legislature is “under the influence of Jews” as a bigoted comment.
Those were only a few examples, I didn’t want to give you a long dissertation.
Lies and distorted statistics: Dr.Nathanson states the abortion leadership knew full well the death rate from illegal abortion had been steadily declining for years prior to Roe(You may want to check out Carla’s link 10:32am)yet knowingly inflated statistics, sometimes inventing numbers out of “whole cloth”. They invented the numbers of illegal abortions when in fact no one had a clue what they were.
Also, illegal abortions were mostly performed in doctor’s offices, not “back alleys”. 90% were done by doctor’s with most of the remaining 10% done by nurses, midwives, or someone with some medical training. The term “back-alley” is in reference to entering the doctor’s office after hours to have an abortion so as not to be seen.
How else could there be a death rate of 39 the year before Roe if women were going to hacks and self inducing?
Emotional appeal, well the above covers that as well as abortion as a cure for child abuse, poverty, etc., but mainly child abuse was the favorite. Who wasn’t moved by the abuse of children and wanting to do anything to end it. Abortion advocates played this for what it was worth.
I gave you examples of the elitism and borderline hysteria in my post concerning the cutoff of medicaid funding of abortion. Talk about a Greek chorus. Oh yes, the rich, affluent, and elite who can assume to speak for the poor. They just “know” that poor women make terrible mothers, don’t want their children, abandon their children to terrorize the citizenry while throwing their beer cans off of porches they do nothing but park on.
How interesting that we never heard from poor women on this issue, just elitists who assumed to know what was best for poor women.
This is what I’m referring to Danielle.
Posted by: Mary at January 4, 2010 2:24 PM:
I’m getting it straight from Dr.Nathanson and you can certainly read it for yourself if you don’t believe me.
-So far you’ve told me that you feel as though organized religion was used as an enemy in the fight to legalize abortion, and use the support of one prominant abortion provider, who was on his way to a passionate pro life conversion, to corraborate. What does this prove? If I were a part of a denomination, I would feel some kind of way about it, too. Their feelings were hurt, they felt blasphemed. Understood. And?
Lies and distorted statistics: Dr.Nathanson states the abortion leadership knew full well the death rate from illegal abortion had been steadily declining for years prior to Roe(You may want to check out Carla’s link 10:32am)yet knowingly inflated statistics, sometimes inventing numbers out of “whole cloth”. They invented the numbers of illegal abortions when in fact no one had a clue what they were.
-No support to refute this. I don’t think I could disprove you anymore than you could prove that accusation with full on, b/w numbers, either. So let’s agree that you’re right, the numbers were inflated. Organizations and policy makers playing fast and loose with #s? Nothing new.
Also, illegal abortions were mostly performed in doctor’s offices, not “back alleys”. 90% were done by doctor’s with most of the remaining 10% done by nurses, midwives, or someone with some medical training. The term “back-alley” is in reference to entering the doctor’s office after hours to have an abortion so as not to be seen.
How else could there be a death rate of 39 the year before Roe if women were going to hacks and self inducing?
-How can you accurately quantify or breakdown the details of an illegal abortion, if you just said above that “they (abortion lobby) invented the numbers of illegal abortions when in fact no one had a clue what they were”? If no one knows, then no one knows.
Emotional appeal, well the above covers that as well as abortion as a cure for child abuse, poverty, etc., but mainly child abuse was the favorite. Who wasn’t moved by the abuse of children and wanting to do anything to end it. Abortion advocates played this for what it was worth.
-This has already been said before on this very thread, but, “cure?” 100% guarantee? Never been said by any respected leader of PC community. Never. Reduction? A potential benefit? Yes, absolutely. It’s easy to remember the past as, ‘you said everything would be fixed’ vs. ‘you said this might help’. Like I said, we hear/see what we want to.
I gave you examples of the elitism and borderline hysteria in my post concerning the cutoff of medicaid funding of abortion. Talk about a Greek chorus. Oh yes, the rich, affluent, and elite who can assume to speak for the poor. They just “know” that poor women make terrible mothers, don’t want their children, abandon their children to terrorize the citizenry while throwing their beer cans off of porches they do nothing but park on.
-More opinion and perception. Where I agree with you in on the classism and racism that’s tied up in abortion on both sides. However, I am not rich or affluent. Call me a liberal elite if you must. But if I heard that women on Medicaid could not access abortion, I would be outraged, too. It’s another resource that she’s been blocked from, with little to no power of her own to stop it. And if any woman, rich or poor is barred, I’m outraged. One woman’s self righteous indignation = another woman’s hysteria.
How interesting that we never heard from poor women on this issue, just elitists who assumed to know what was best for poor women.
-Because as we all know, poor people generally don’t have a national voice.
And I know this thread has gotten away from the original post, but for the record, I think the PC/liberal opposition to this military action goes back to the root: Choice. This type of mandate was a clear and rather offensive affront to reproductive choice. No one can dictate what woman is and isn’t allowed to have children, or when. That said, if you contractually agreed upfront NOT to have children prior to duty, that’s another story.
Danielle,
I’m not telling you why I feel organized religion was used as an enemy I’m showing you that it was the carefully crafted strategy of the abortion leadership to unify supporters against a common “enemy”, that being the organized RC religion. I even told you why the RCC was selected! For heaven’s sake read Nathanson’s book since obviously I can’t get it through to you.
OK, you don’t want to believe that Nathanson admits this was a deliberate distortion of statistics and facts, even though he was directly involved in doing just this. Did you check out Carla’s link? People play fast and loose with numbers? Well that certainly justifies everything. But if you have the facts on your side it isn’t really necessary is it?
How could anyone know the number of illegal abortions? I didn’t try to claim I did. We can know how they were performed and the Center For Disease Control can give you the number, which in 1972 was 39 deaths from illegal abortion.
Danielle the motto was “stop child abuse, support abortion reform”. It wasn’t reduce the incidence or there is no 100% guarantee abortion will remedy this problem. The issue had tremendous emotional appeal and abortion was made to look like a solution. Again you appeal to people’s emotions, not rational thinking.
Hardly opinion or perception on the medicaid issue Danielle. I actually read plenty of this garbage and listened to the incessent whining of abortion supporters who had no qualms reminding the public how much cheaper an abortion was over years of welfare payments. I think that shows where these elitists were really coming from, especially when the only time they had “concern” for the poor was when they couldn’t get abortions.
You’d be outraged a poor woman can’t have an abortion? Are you outraged she is poor, uneducated, living in poverty? Are you outraged she may not have opportunities you have? Why is it we hear this hysteria only when poor women can’t have abortions? Why not all this wailing over poverty itself?
Any outrage over the fact the list of everything rich women can do that poor women cannot would go on forever?
The poor don’t have a national voice? Since when?
You’ve probably too young to remember the 1968 poor people’s march on Washington. Yes poor people can definitely make themselves heard if they want to be. If memory serves me right, when medicaid funding for abortions was cancelled, poor women had mouths and knew how to speak.
Another impasse. Let’s call a draw on the data points and sources from Nathanson. We’ll never agree on them. i”ll always look skeptically at any data supplied from a PL influenced source and you’ll give a side eye to anything ever written by Cecile Richards, Faye Wattleton, anyone who ever converted from PL to PC, MSM, etc. Deal? Deal.
“You’d be outraged a poor woman can’t have an abortion? Are you outraged she is poor, uneducated, living in poverty? Are you outraged she may not have opportunities you have?”
-Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.
“Why is it we hear this hysteria only when poor women can’t have abortions? Why not all this wailing over poverty itself? Any outrage over the fact the list of everything rich women can do that poor women cannot would go on forever?”
-You can’t be serious. They don’t call us bleeding heart, tree-hugging liberals for nothing.
“The poor don’t have a national voice? Since when?”
-Since forever. Societal issues always build up from the neediest, but they rarely ever have the resources and manpower to create a national conversation, lobby, law, etc about said issue on their own. That’s where money and affluence comes in. It greases the wheels. It gets heads to turn. It give the spotlight to issues that otherwise, no one would care about enough to change.
The homeless are not on 60 Minutes discussing shelter conditions with Leslie Stahl – the organizations that work on their behalf are. A human trafficking survivor may be the keynote speaker at an event that brings in donations, but she didn’t get there on her own, something bigger than her got her there. This is what I’m referring to when I bring up a national voice.
Danielle,
Again, Nathanson was no PL, and PLs were not particularly fond of him at the time he wrote the book. He discussed HIS activities in the abortion leadership. None of this is my opinion or perspective.
Really? About 50,000 poor people converged on Washington D.C. in 1968. Poor people can speak up as well as anyone, they have, and do.
Maybe people are too busy listening to those who presume to speak for the poor to actually listen to the poor.
I would never expect Guttmacher Institute (PP’s own researcher) and the CDC to connect the dots of the progression of The Abortion Holocaust, giving a calculation of what the A.A. population would have been at this point if there were not over 16 million A.A. babies aborted since Roe (the 2004 numbers broke down to about 1,275 A.A. babies aborted everyday in the U.S.) This is Margaret Sanger’s dream come true for “getting rid of the unfit, human weeds”.
I do not really expect you to read the books and check out the A. A. prolife websites I suggested either.
By the way with all the other statistics I gave and that one is the only one that you don’t think is “right”? Good grief! With the 472 abortions per 1000 A.A. live births vs 151 abortions per 1000 white live births, it doesn’t take much to thought to conclude what is going on but if you that blinded by the pro-death agenda, I am sure you will justify abortion regardless.
By the way prolifers Day Gardner, founder and president of National Black Pro-life Union has an excellent article about the young, pro-life Jesse Jackson vs. the post POTUS candidate, pro-abort Jesse Jackson of today at her website nationalblackprolifeunion.com.
Hi PLL,
I remember listening to the leader of a black PL organization. I only recall the woman is named Alice and she always wears a large hat.
Anyway she was describing how she became so dedicated to the PL cause. She had just listened to an inspiring PL speaker who so moved her that she walked up to him afterward and said, “Rev.Jackson, what can I do to help?”
Alice was in fact sadly reminiscing since the good reverend had long since gone the PA route.
You on the other hand, seem to be completely incapable of the same critical analysis because you can’t see past your own position, solidifed and insolated long ago with points, sound bites and people who only support what you already believed deep inside.
All of the scientific evidence in the world on fetal development (some true, some slanted) does not negate the issues which surround that fetus and the woman at the center. All that data does not solve the question of, who or what should hold executive power during a pregnancy. For now, the law says most of the time, the woman should, but this is the grey area that most of us realize cannot be solved very easily, if at all.
My eyes are wide open to the intricacies of this fight. My mind is quite open. Are you sure yours is?
Posted by: Danielle at January 4, 2010 10:35 AM
first off scientific fact is not slanted – it is fact
supported by research and observation.
views are slanted Danielle not facts.
of course if you are a proabort, fact certainly is NOT on your side.
science provides the proof that the fetus is alive, and human
These two facts have been denied by proaborts from the very beginning (remember the blob of cells lies??) and are still being promulgated to this day, even on this blog.
just because the law says that the woman should hold the power of life and death (let’s not call it executive, another proabort euphemism) over the unborn baby does not mean it is right.
Laws are products of man and as we all know many many laws are very unjust.
The fact that the unborn is a human being, alive means it is deserving of all the rights and dignity that are inherent and due to all human beings.
You, on the other hand, cannot accept that the abortion law has placed woman in a position of tyranny against her own child – she who should be the protectress of such an innocent and helpless person,
and also against, in many instances, fathers who deeply desire to cherish their children.
It is not only an open mind you lack, Danielle, it is a heart.
Ah yes, Danielle…the tree hugging bleeding heart liberal. I am related to one through marriage. Those are the people who are soooo compassionate they want to take all your money by FORCE to feed and clothe everyone (but not their own money, mind you), but are soooo lacking of compassion that they could never see fit to FORCE a woman to have a baby against, sniff, her will! Even if the baby has to die…oh well. As long as the mother has her “right” to choose to kill her baby! So much for your bleeding hearts. pulease.
Posted by: Mary at January 4, 2010 5:46 PM
Hi Mary,
I believe the woman that you describe may be Dolores Grier who is an African-American convert to Catholicism. She has appeared on EWTN Catholic TV network and is a fascinating person to listen to. There is a picture of her with Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN at this website: http://www.companysj.com/v221/ontheair.htm
Hi Janet,
I’m certain you are correct. Its been so long since I’ve seen her that I couldn’t recall her first name but the “Grier” definitely sounds familiar. Thank you.