US abortions up for first time since 1990
1/12, 12:34a: Pro-life Professor Michael New has a perspective on Guttmacher’s report worth reading at NRO:
The reasons for this slight uptick are fairly straightforward. A number of peer-reviewed studies have found that the strength of the economy has an impact on abortion rates….
[V]ery few media outlets are taking a longer-term view and asking why the number of abortions has declined by 20 to 25% since the early 1990s.
1/11, 4:10a: The other side admits abortion is wrong simply by its aversion to publicizing its proliferation. Do we say, “We regret to inform you more and more women are voting”? Or, “We have a dream, that black civil rights will be safe and legal but rare”? No, those freedoms are celebrated.
Likewise, those insisting abortion is a constitutional right should cheer when it increases, right? But you wouldn’t know by MSM’s headlines that the US abortion rate, after almost 20 years of decline, is on the rise….
Actually abortion hasn’t “stalled” or “leveled off.” It’s up. Here are the numbers, quoting the Wall Street Journal…
After dropping for more than a decade, the US abortion rate has begun to rise slightly, according to an extensive new survey of providers by the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute.
The increase was just 1%, to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age in 2008, from 19.4 in 2005, the last year captured by the group’s previous survey.
The actual number of abortions performed also rose slightly in that period, to 1,212,350 from 1,206,200 – the 1st increase since a steady march downward that began in 1990, the peak year for total abortions in the US since the survey began tracking them in 1973.
Both sides blamed the economy. Their side also insisted that there are not yet enough condoms on every corner or Pill pack in every purse. Increased access to RU486 most certainly also played a part. According to CNN:
Of the 1.21 million abortions performed in 2008, 17% were early medication abortions. Jones found a 24% increase in the number of these procedures being conducted at nonhospital facilities…. Indeed, the number of providers offering this service also increased.
“Heavy promotion of RU-486 and chemical abortions has really had an impact,” said Randall O’Bannon, Ph.D., director of Education and Research with the National Right to Life Committee. “[Women] would consider abortion when they might not consider it before, and they would take this pill.”
The number of abortion clinics overall continued to decline – slightly – although big box mills are way up. (Pictured right is Planned Parenthood’s new Houston mill, at 78,000 sq the largest abortion mill in the Western Hemisphere.) Again quoting WSJ…
The number of abortion providers remained virtually identical, at 1,793 in 2008 compared with 1,787 in 2005 – the first survey since 1982 that showed no decline. The flat result partly reflected a fuller count of certain facilities in CA that weren’t captured in the 2005 total. Without them, there would have been a 3% drop-off.…
[T]he data showed the growing role of large abortion providers, with the number providing 5,000 or more procedures per year up by more than 50% since the last survey….
USA Today has a helpful graph showing the rate of abortion from state to state. Wyoming earns pro-life praise for having only 0.9 abortions per every 1,000 women, followed by Mississippi (4.6), Kentucky (5.1), and South Dakota (5.6).
The pro-abort industry is certainly celebrating the bicoastal abortion extravaganza, led by Delaware (40), New York (37.6), New Jersey (31.3), District of Columbia (29.9), Maryland (29), California (27.6), and Florida (27.2).
I think one of the messages in all this is the pro-life movement has to place greater emphasis on abstinence education. Abortion is majorly just an outcome of prolific wanton sex.
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.
Remember when Planned Parentless was getting those calls from people who wanted to donate to kill a black baby? Can I donate money to sterilize a liberal???
Save your money, Heather, Their reproduction rate is falling so fast there won’t be enough to worry about!
Yes May Paul. How true! They have the nerve to call us anti-life. They don’t even care to know how many women die from legal abortions. They don’t want to know. All they care about is lying and pimping their agenda which is to kill more babies.
Happy New Year to all!!!
It’s totally understandable that abortion rates are up given the economy. I think it’s a positive sign because it means that women, many of them married, realize that another mouth to feed will just keep them in a financially stressed situation. Conservatives, who hate “welfare,” should be thrilled that fewer poor babies mean less welfare. And for those women who have abortions for other reasons – well, it’s their business not mine.
Wrong again. It is not a “positive sign” that more human beings are being destroyed.
Is it “positive” if the murder rate goes up? Is it “positive” if Al Qaeda launches another attack? Is it “positive” what happened in Tucson? Of course not. Moral human beings do not consider the killing of human beings to be “positive”.
Remember, killing human beings in the first nine months of life (prenatal homicide) is every bit the crime that killing human beings in the other stages of life (postnatal homicide) is. You are killing the same living being and taking away the same lifespan. So it is fundamentally the same crime.
Your lack of regard for human life is, as always, highly disturbing and distressing.
Remember, killing human beings in the first nine months of life (prenatal homicide) is every bit the crime that killing human beings in the other stages of life (postnatal homicide) is
Not according to the law and a large percentage of Americans – including doctors, scientists, and clergy. And to equate what a woman does with her own body to terrorism is insane.
“Yes May Paul. How true! They have the nerve to call us anti-life. They don’t even care to know how many women die from legal abortions. They don’t want to know. All they care about is lying and pimping their agenda which is to kill more babies.”
According to statistics Gerard Nadal posted several days ago, only 10% of abortions result in complications, and only 2% result in complications that can be considered life-threatening (but do not necessarily result in death). I asked him for statistics on similar procedures (for comparative purposes) but he was unwilling to provide them, probably because they would show that the rate of complications for abortion is within normal parameters for elective medical procedures, or even lower than the average.
Killing human beings is a crime under natural law, regardless of what the “law” and a “large percentage” of Americans believe. In the 19th century, based on your “logic”, it was a “crime” to commit prenatal homicide, but it was not a “crime” to enslave other human beings . I am just following your pathetically weak “logic” here.
An appeal to “experts” (“doctors, scientists and clergy”) also does not work. Just because these authority figures assert something does not make it necessarily true. I can cite some “doctors, scientists and clergy” who will argue the opposite of yours.
A woman who commits the crime of prenatal homicide does NOT do it to her own body. She does it to the body of s separate, unique, biologically distinct human being residing in her body but not a part of it, with completely distinct DNA.
The true insanity is to believe that the whole human race can be destroyed and every human being can be deprived of every minute of life, all to satisfy the psychological needs of people in your movement who lack a high level of moral and spiritual development.
Killing human beings in the unborn stage (prenatal homicide) is a violation of basic human rights and therefore a crime, not a “medical” “procedure”.
“Killing human beings is a crime under natural law, regardless of what the “law” and a “large percentage” of Americans believe. ”
Being a blog commenter named “Joe” is a crime under natural law.
Wow, that was easy. I should use this “natural law” thing more often to attack other people and undermine their arguments. After all, “natural law” is whatever the person invoking “natural law” wants it to be, and it can’t be questioned and must be accepted as objective truth even though it is inherently subjective.
During much of this nation’s history, a “large percentage” of Americans, including doctors, scientists, and clergy, believed that slavery was acceptable, too. Ever hear of ‘scientific racism?” or “the curse of Ham?”
I do agree, however, that the economy is probably to blame in part for the rise of abortion. Hopefully, as things improve, the abortion rate will start to decrease again.
“According to statistics Gerard Nadal posted several days ago, only 10% of abortions result in complications, and only 2% result in complications that can be considered life-threatening (but do not necessarily result in death). I asked him for statistics on similar procedures (for comparative purposes) but he was unwilling to provide them, probably because they would show that the rate of complications for abortion is within normal parameters for elective medical procedures, or even lower than the average.”
Joan, from past discussions I know that abortions early enough in gestation present much less risk to the woman versus continuing a pregnancy. For abortions at 9 weeks are earlier, it was like 60 or 70 times safer.
Natural law is NOT subjective (unlike the abortionist mentality which is primarily based on satisfying the psychological needs of the people who cling to it), it is objective. It is possible to use human reason to analyze human nature and from that basic nature, derive an objective moral philosophy and system of rights. Doing this is the only way to avoid the tyranny of subjectivism, emotionalism and psychologically motivated self interest.
When you examine human nature, you will see that as placental mammals, we must live through both an unborn and a born stage. This is the only way human existence is possible. It follows from this that, since we have a right to live according to our nature, that we do and must have a right to live a full human lifespan, both the born stage and the unborn stage.
You abortionists are “arguing” that we human beings can all be killed in the first nine months of life and can have our entire human lifespans taken from us. This means we do not have a right to live our human lifespans and therefore can be killed at any time throughout our lives. This must lead to acceptance of both prenatal and postnatal homicide. Only the extreme intellectual dishonesty of the anti human rights (abortionist) movement prevents it from following this very harsh logic to its proper conclusion.
Additionally, since we do not and cannot, by abortionist “logic”, have a right to a human lifespan, and since all other rights flow from that right, it follows that we do not have ANY human rights at all. Therefore, we can have NO “right” to kill human beings in the unborn stage.
Do you see now how devastatingly the anti human abortionist mentality leads to contradiction and paradox and ends up destroying itself?
Joan, here is the general definition of “natural law”:
What do we mean by “natural law”? In its simplest definition, natural law is that “unwritten law” that is more or less the same for everyone everywhere. To be more exact, natural law is the concept of a body of moral principles that is common to all humankind and, as generally posited, is recognizable by human reason alone. Natural law is therefore distinguished from — and provides a standard for — positive law, the formal legal enactments of a particular society.
…
To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law:
is not made by human beings;
is based on the structure of reality itself;
is the same for all human beings and at all times;
is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;
is the naturally knowable moral law;
is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philnaturallaw.htm
CC
NOTHING about abortion “thrills” me.
Doug,
“SAFER” for whom? The baby who gets sucked out of what is supposed to be a safe place to grow?
Or safer for the women who didn’t want an abortion and were coerced and forced?? Safer for the women who are now infertile because of their abortions?
You are beginning to sound a lot like Robert Berger.
“The other side admits abortion is wrong simply by its aversion to publicizing its proliferation.”
A vast oversimplification, and not even true in the first place. Keeping track of the numbers and discussing them is one place where both sides in the argument can focus on real things, rather than things which cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary.
Pro-choicers often would say it’s better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to end one. How many pro-choicers do you see saying, “We want there to be more abortions”?
This is a great argument, but I would prefer there were fewer abortions. I’m a guy and 51 years old, so pretty unlikely to be faced with being pregnant, but putting myself there, I’d much rather prevent a pregnancy versus have an abortion.
_______
“Likewise, those insisting abortion is a constitutional right should cheer when it increases, right?”
Heh – no, not any more than they would cheer an increase in the incidence of cancer, though there’s nothing in the Constitution that permits the states to prevent people from seeking treatment for it.
“SAFER” for whom?
Carla, Doctor Nadal was talking about risk to the woman.
“Joan, from past discussions I know that abortions early enough in gestation present much less risk to the woman versus continuing a pregnancy. For abortions at 9 weeks are earlier, it was like 60 or 70 times safer.”
The vast majority of abortions do happen within 9 weeks anyway, right? Late term abortions are comparatively rare (which makes sense because what woman would voluntarily stay pregnant for all that time and then suddenly decide near the natural end of the pregnancy that she wants to terminate it, barring any sudden health-related issues?).
“Joan, here is the general definition of “natural law””
I’m aware of what natural law has been defined as in the Western philosophical context. I simply don’t agree with the concept. Moral norms are not found outside of human thought and cannot reasonably be derived from nature. “Right and wrong” are strictly human constructions and they are necessarily subjective because of that. For example, we don’t want to be murdered or raped so we have collectively created sanctions against those things out of a sense of mutual negative obligation. The only “natural law” that I accept as genuine are things like biological imperatives or the laws of physics.
CC,
I guess you missed a presentation of “A Christmas Carol” last month. Meet Ebenezer Scrooge. You’re views on “the surplus population” are quite sympatico.
Doug,
This is what you wrote. This is what I was responding to.
Joan, from past discussions I know that abortions early enough in gestation present much less risk to the woman versus continuing a pregnancy. For abortions at 9 weeks are earlier, it was like 60 or 70 times safer.
Safer for whom?
The culprit: bad economy.
Women who are already mothers can’t afford another child; women can’t afford a child to begin with, and so on and so forth. I’ve heard that more people enroll in community colleges when the economy is bad because they’ve been let go from their work and need new skills. While I’m happy for the boost in education if this is true, it also means that there are now women who need childcare and we might not be equipped to meet these needs.
What I propose is a website or collection of essays or something from women who have been effected by the economy in regards to this particular issue. *Have these tough economic times effected you as a woman and as a mother? What should be done to ease the burden on mothers and fathers who also need to work or get an education? Thoughts?* Questions of this nature, perhaps.
While statistics are excellent for taking “measurements” of our current situation, it means nothing if we don’t get the human beings behind the statistics. We need to see real women and how the economy influenced their decisions on abortion or giving birth. It would be very telling.
“I’m aware of what natural law has been defined as in the Western philosophical context. I simply don’t agree with the concept. Moral norms are not found outside of human thought and cannot reasonably be derived from nature. “Right and wrong” are strictly human constructions and they are necessarily subjective because of that. For example, we don’t want to be murdered or raped so we have collectively created sanctions against those things out of a sense of mutual negative obligation. The only “natural law” that I accept as genuine are things like biological imperatives or the laws of physics.”
Joan, moral norms, as you put it, are found within human thought and reason because only human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, with the ability to know moral right and wrong, and with an eternal soul that will either unite itself to God or be separated from God forever. We’re not animals or plants or rocks.
God has given mankind a heart along with a brain and He has revealed to us His commands, His nature, His laws. We are not excused from knowing and doing what is right.
Killing a child in the womb is always and everywhere wrong. Period. That is not subjective. Anyone with the courage and humility to seek the truth can understand that for herself. The natural law is written on every human heart by the Author of that law, whether you care to agree with it or not. You won’t be able to claim “Well, I just disagree, Lord.”
(Joan): I’m aware of what natural law has been defined as in the Western philosophical context. I simply don’t agree with the concept. Moral norms are not found outside of human thought and cannot reasonably be derived from nature. “Right and wrong” are strictly human constructions and they are necessarily subjective because of that. For example, we don’t want to be murdered or raped so we have collectively created sanctions against those things out of a sense of mutual negative obligation. The only “natural law” that I accept as genuine are things like biological imperatives or the laws of physics.
Very well said, Joan. The laws of physics exist whether or not I/you/we are aware of them. They are external to the mind.
Morality, on the other hand, is internal to it. What morality could exist if there was not a mind with desires, one way or another, to have the concept in the first place?
All the right/wrong/good/bad of the moral realm comes from conscious application of desire. The physical universe exists aside from the mind, while all the “shoulds” and “should nots” of the moral realm exist inside it.
I think one of the messages in all this is the pro-life movement has to place greater emphasis on abstinence education. Abortion is majorily just an outcome of prolific wanton sex.
Jill,
I love your choice of words. Sex, by its nature is meant to be prolific, but only ideally fulfills its natural purpose in the proper context of a loving, stable, married relationship. God tells us to be fruitful and multiply after all.
On abstinence education – just wondering, which are the best abstinence programs available to schools/ churches? I seem to recall that Colleen Kelly Mast had one a few years ago. Any suggestions?
Joan says:
“Moral norms are not found outside of human thought and cannot reasonably be derived from nature.”
So I guess you’ve never heard of mother bears/tigers/elephants/dolphins being so protective of their young that they would kill for them? How is that not “outside of human thought’?
I am sorry but killing your own children by abortion because of a “bad economy” is just another excuse to try and live as though your actions have no consequences. There are choices to be made BEFORE a baby is conceived.
We can’t afford any of the children we have. Which ones can I get rid of???
(Peg): So I guess you’ve never heard of mother bears/tigers/elephants/dolphins being so protective of their young that they would kill for them? How is that not “outside of human thought’?
Peg, I think it could be said that elephants and dolphins, at least, probably do have a moral sense – their brains are that complex, and some of their actions portray this. They certainly make conscious decisions, as opposed to those that are merely instinctive. It would be internal to their minds, though, as with human morality, rather than external to them.
“So I guess you’ve never heard of mother bears/tigers/elephants/dolphins being so protective of their young that they would kill for them? How is that not “outside of human thought’?”
That’s not a moral norm, it’s a biological imperative, which I already mentioned. Of course, sometimes those same animals eat their young because they are weak or they cannot take care of them. That’s a biological imperative too.
“We can’t afford any of the children we have. Which ones can I get rid of???”
Do you really think you’re in the best place to question the judgment of women who get abortions partially as a result of the bad economy when you admit that you can’t even afford the children you have?
It seems like everything the pro-choice leaders and organizations are advocating, broader access to and celebrating abortion, seems counter-intuitive towards making abortion rare.
CC says:
January 11, 2011 at 9:02 am
It’s totally understandable that abortion rates are up given the economy.
It’s been my experience this is what pro-aborts say for any reason. “Well, it’s totally understandable abortion rates would be up given that more women are working…” etc., etc., etc. Whatever excuse works, right? (color me disgusted).
I think it’s a positive sign because it means that women, many of them married, realize that another mouth to feed will just keep them in a financially stressed situation.
Right, because financial situations NEVER EVER EVER change for ANYONE! And all human beings know exactly what the future holds! (Wow, somehow that particular gift skipped me).
Conservatives, who hate “welfare,” should be thrilled that fewer poor babies mean less welfare.
I’ll echo what Carla said: “Nothing about abortion ‘thrills’ me.” NOTHING about it thrills me.
And for those women who have abortions for other reasons – well, it’s their business not mine.
Of course, because what other people do never affects another, right? Have you heard of the ripple effect?
Rachael C. says:
January 11, 2011 at 11:57 am
It seems like everything the pro-choice leaders and organizations are advocating, broader access to and celebrating abortion, seems counter-intuitive towards making abortion rare.
They say they want abortion to be rare because that’s the popular thing to say. When in essence I have yet to hear a pro-choicer say “That’s really sad the person had an abortion.” They usually say “Well, too bad, but that was their choice.”
They brush it off because “It’s not me” and think they had absolutely nothing to do with it because “it’s not my personal choice”.
“It seems like everything the pro-choice leaders and organizations are advocating, broader access to and celebrating abortion, seems counter-intuitive towards making abortion rare.”
That’s because the purpose of pro-choice advocacy organizations is to make sure that abortion remains legal and accessible; it’s a narrow mandate. It takes broader social change to create conditions where the economic climate is favorable to going through with unexpected pregnancies. Social change that many “pro-life” conservatives are very resistant to.
Well Joanie,
Which ones can I kill? I mean really. All of their clothes are hand me downs or from the thrift store, they don’t have their own cell phones, TV’s, DVD players or computers in their rooms, we can’t afford to take any vacations, we rarely eat out, we can’t afford a new van, and by golly that teenage son is eating us out of house and home, I tell ya!! Oh and I wanted ALL GIRLS and dang I should have exactly what I want, when I want it because I deserve it!
So which ones, Joan? My life would be so much easier and I could AFFORD a much grander lifestyle if I just offed a couple!
I think I am in the very best place to decide who gets to live or die in this household. After all it’s my CHOICE.
They say they want abortion to be rare because that’s the popular thing to say. When in essence I have yet to hear a pro-choicer say “That’s really sad the person had an abortion.” They usually say “Well, too bad, but that was their choice.”
They brush it off because “It’s not me” and think they had absolutely nothing to do with it because “it’s not my personal choice”.
EXACTLTY, Mother in Texas!!
Don’t like abortion, don’t have one!! It is always a typical blow off type answer. I have yet to see any proabort commenter here display any sympathy on the countless heart wrenching stories posted here. Always the slogans. Or the silence.
$48
So, when are abortionists going to grow some cojones and start taking out healthy adults? Come on, if it’s all about the economy, why not right? You’ve got a pesky adult child in college, who can afford all that tuition? Just take them to Planned Parenthood and ask for an extremely late term abortion, right? No? Why not?
You advocate pre-natal homicide because you’re cowards and you pick on the tiniest humans you can find.
(Ninek): So, when are abortionists going to grow some cojones and start taking out healthy adults? Come on, if it’s all about the economy, why not right?
Because, despite the silly tone and content of quite a few of today’s posts, there is more to it than that.
joan
Great idea! Lets abort all the poor kids. Why should they have a chance at life? Already too many of them anyway. This seems to be what you are saying. Do you call this compassionate? A public service?
I have noticed a common theme of your posts is the desire for logic. When did arbitrary become logical?
Are you really satisfied with a 10% complication rate? Sounds pretty high to me. This website makes the reader a little bit cross-eyed, but it appears that the general surgical complication rate is under 1%.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/surgical_errors_complications/stats.htm
Well said, Mother in Texas & Carla! My thoughts exactly!
“Well Joanie,
Which ones can I kill? I mean really.”
..
“Great idea! Lets abort all the poor kids.”
Can nobody here read? How is it that someone can read my posts and take from them things that I never said implicitly or explicitly? It’s getting really ridiculous.
Joan, we finally agree!!
Slaughtering tiny humans, medium size humans, and great big humans is indeed ridiculous.
(Mother In Texas): It’s been my experience this is what pro-aborts say for any reason. “Well, it’s totally understandable abortion rates would be up given that more women are working…” etc., etc., etc. Whatever excuse works, right?
People have reasons for doing things, whether you agree with them or not. They don’t need an “excuse” here – they don’t need to clear it with you.
More women working probably has meant some decline in the average fertility, but we are in that overall trend – a decline in fertility as well as in mortality, as are many countries.
(Joan): Can nobody here read? How is it that someone can read my posts and take from them things that I never said implicitly or explicitly? It’s getting really ridiculous.
Aye, ’tis a wacky day. : P
People have reasons for doing things, whether you agree with them or not. They don’t need an “excuse” here – they don’t need to clear it with you.
Doug,
Did I say ANYTHING about them needing to clear it with me? My point was any old excuse (whether serious or not) works for a person to have an abortion (or support abortion).
More women working probably has meant some decline in the average fertility, but we are in that overall trend – a decline in fertility as well as in mortality, as are many countries.
I actually was just using the woman working thing as one example of an excuse. I don’t know what the stats are on a woman working and abortion.
Did I say ANYTHING about them needing to clear it with me? My point was any old excuse (whether serious or not) works for a person to have an abortion (or support abortion).
MIT, when you say “excuse,” it sure sounds like you are implying that there is a need to be forgiven, and/or that their reason will not be good enough. Here again, it’s not for you to say. You may not like the legality of it, but it’s up to the woman, and “any old reason” is good enough if it’s hers.
You don’t have to say it joan, it is clear you justify and accept abortions based on economics.
BTW – isn’t the right to live and remain alive a biological imperative?
And that narrow mandate you speak of is still annually allowing over 1.2 million abortions for any reason under the sun.
MIT, when you say “excuse,” it sure sounds like you are implying that there is a need to be forgiven, and/or that their reason will not be good enough. Here again, it’s not for you to say. You may not like the legality of it, but it’s up to the woman, and “any old reason” is good enough if it’s hers.
Well we all need forgiveness for something. That stands to reason–nobody is perfect. And I do believe women who have abortions need forgiveness, because it’s crime against humanity regardless of its legal status. (For years slavery was legal, but that didn’t make it right).
I said “excuse” because that’s precisely what it is. It’s an attempt to “excuse” a very serious wrongdoing.
Hi Joan,
Pretty sure some on your side would agree that a mom gets to decide when her children become children and then decide just what to do with said children. Let them live. Let them die.
I’m still deciding. Which I thought was nobody’s business but mine??!!
“I’m aware of what natural law has been defined as in the Western philosophical context. I simply don’t agree with the concept. Moral norms are not found outside of human thought and cannot reasonably be derived from nature. “Right and wrong” are strictly human constructions and they are necessarily subjective because of that.”
So, Joan, you know all about the Western concept of natural law. Ever heard of the idea in that tradition that natural law is in fact derived from God the Creator? Evidently God is merely a product of human thought then? This from a supposed Catholic, one who protests loudly when her faith is not taken seriously in the comment boxes.
Time to stop the pretense, Joan. Better claim to have no faith at all than engage in this charade.
“Right and wrong” are strictly human constructions and they are necessarily subjective because of that.”
I will be making joan my slave. The house is a mess, all these kids I didn’t abort are no help and the economy is bad so I can’t afford a maid.
Don’t come here and argue about my decision. It is none of your business.
“Don’t come here and argue about my decision. It is none of your business”
You can’t make Joan your slave because slavery is illegal. Abortion, however, is legal but if you have kids you cannot afford, that’s your choice. As you say, your business – but if you apply for welfare (if it’s available) Note Bene that your conservative compatriots might not be too happy because “welfare” creates “dependency.”
All about choice.
“And that narrow mandate you speak of is still annually allowing over 1.2 million abortions for any reason under the sun”
And what I and other women do with our reproductive organs is your business, how?
“You’ve got a pesky adult child in college, who can afford all that tuition? Just take them to Planned Parenthood and ask for an extremely late term abortion, right? No? Why not”
Late term abortions are not the type of casual thing that you describe as they are, if they are allowed in a state, governed by standards relating to life and health of she who carries the fetus. But yeah, if a ten year old’s body will be destroyed by giving birth, it’s really only the fetus that matters and not she who incubates it. Right?
Come on CC, don’t be a wimp. If my mom had aborted me, I’m pretty sure that destroys my sexual organs, which, as you said, are no one else’s business to mess with. My heart, which was beating by the time my mother realized her period was not merely late, is also my business and not my mother’s property to destroy.
Now, what about a 10 year old girl (who’s obviously gone through precocious puberty in order to be pregnant)? All you have to offer her is medical rape/murder? Cuz nothing says healing to a little girl than putting her on a cold table, and assaulting her child with a cutting instrument. Then, make sure to toss that evidence in the trash, lest the poor pedophile be put in jail and his personal autonomy limited. Riiiight. The truth is, giving birth is NOT an automatic death sentence for the underage minor (risky yes, but not automatically deadly), but abortion IS a death sentence for the innocent unborn child. On the day my child was aborted, there was an extremely young girl there with her mother. I will hear her screams in my nightmares for the rest of my life. You don’t care about her, you only care about killing the prenatal human. You don’t consider a pregnant female to present TWO distinct patients. You consider my body to be my mother’s tumor, apparently.
You pick on the small and defenseless. Almost 40 years of prenatal homicide later, I have seen NO decline in poverty, NO decline in violence against women, and NO joy or relief on the faces of the girls who leave Planned Parenthood. Yep, they look so empowered when they stagger out, weeping, vomiting and collapsing into the arms of their companions. If I had staggered out of the dentist’s office like that after my wisdom tooth was extracted, my friend would have called police IMMEDIATELY.
The whole “evil MSM” debate makes me want to stick my finger, through my eye, into my brain, and swirl it around (stolen from Friends).
Seriously – if you don’t like the MSM, don’t read it. Go to Fox or MSNBC political entertainment stations/websites.
You can’t make Joan your slave because slavery is illegal.
But I have decided it is ok to makes slaves of proaborts named joan in spite of what the law says. After all, “Right and wrong” are strictly human constructions and they are necessarily subjective because of that.
This is none of your business CC.
Abby Johnson testified herself that Planned Parenthood wants abortion numbers to increase – she was the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas. She was named an employee of the year, and PP wanted to silence her after she left.
Just last night she told part of her story – of her change of heart, and her coming into a fully pro-Life position (Praise God!). Her book is out today: unPlanned.
So despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, Planned Parenthood wants to increase the number of abortions. And it’ll increase their own bottom line by having every PP clinic offering abortions, and ideally wants the government to help pay for them.
And as we know, making something ‘free’ to people will end up driving up the demand for that product, since ‘I don’t have to pay for it anyway,’ and it makes abortion the ‘norm.’
Now we know what their real plan is, does every pro-choicer here want abortion numbers to go up? A simple Y or N, and why!
Now we know what their real plan is, does every pro-choicer here want abortion numbers to go up? A simple Y or N, and why!
Great question Joy! Can’t wait to hear their answers.
Now we know what their real plan is, does every pro-choicer here want abortion numbers to go up? A simple Y or N, and why!
Now wait a minute – is the “real plan” of the dastardly pro-lifers to enslave all women to their will going to get equal time? : P
Anyway, I don’t want abortion numbers to increase, as I see it being better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than end one via abortion.
Now wait a minute – is the “real plan” of the dastardly pro-lifers to enslave all women to their will going to get equal time? : P
Doug, women aren’t enslaved by pro-lifers. We’ve repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over (do I need to say “and over” anymore times) how many (and their names) places that will help women with going through the pregnancy, giving birth, adopting the child or becoming a mom. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but I do know the Gabriel Project collects baby items for mothers in need (including diapers and clothing, furniture, blankets, etcetera).
And there are other ministries that provide to those in need that we pro-lifers are either directly or indirectly involved in.
That hardly falls under enslavement. In fact, a good number of pro-life women ARE mothers themselves. (Myself, Carla, Sydney, Jill Stanek, just to mention a few).
Anyway, I don’t want abortion numbers to increase, as I see it being better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than end one via abortion.
One ‘No’ from Doug.
Doug, You don’t directly answer the question of why you vote ‘No’. Why do you think it is better to prevent the conception of a human over the aborting of a human?
Proaborts refer to both prevention and abortion as Reproductive Rights in spite of the fact that they know that once a woman has conceived she has already reproduced.
I was on Depo Provera for 14 years. I very well may have self aborted. I never had a surgical procedure, but bedding down with multiple partners took a toll on my self esteem and self worth. Planned Parentless lied to me. Anything that goes against God’s law will harm us. Men and women alike!!! Thank God I have the truth now!!!
(MIT): “Doug, women aren’t enslaved by pro-lifers.”
Mother In Texas, yes – I was kidding. We see a lot of demonizing of pro-choicers, so I was leaning in that direction, but tongue-in-cheek. To be serious about it, one could make the point of people wanting the will of the pregnant woman subverted to their own, but we have quite a bit of that anyway – people wanting others to act in certain ways.
Indeed, I know that many of the women here are mothers, and from what I have seen, quite good ones. : )
(Praxedes): Why do you think it is better to prevent the conception of a human over the aborting of a human?
Proaborts refer to both prevention and abortion as Reproductive Rights in spite of the fact that they know that once a woman has conceived she has already reproduced.
Ahem – if you’re going to have “abortion” in there, then it would be “pro-legal abortion.” I no more want a woman with a wanted pregnancy forced to have an abortion than you do.
The unborn are still in the woman’s reproductive system, so “reproductive rights” would certainly apply. With pregnancy prevention over abortion, I see less cost, less hassle, less time spent. Despite the relative safety of abortion, especially early in gestation, there is still some risk, and that too is avoided by preventing the pregnancy.
With respect to the baby, there comes a point in gestation when I see it as being substantially similar to the full-term, born infant, and I’m not wanting it to be aborted then. Late enough in gestation and it could be delivered, ending the pregnancy that way, rather than via abortion, for one thing.
“With respect to the baby, there comes a point in gestation when I see it as being substantially similar to the full-term, born infant, and I’m not wanting it to be aborted then.”
Abortion is abortion, no matter the size or length of pregnancy.
Doug, a human is a human regardless of it’s size. A baby who has gestated for almost the full 9 months has the same DNA he had the day of his conception. Since conception, he has been developing, steadily, without stopping, and will continue to do so until his mid-20’s. You don’t like the idea of dismembering a human that looks like your own baby picture? Well, that’s the same human that was only 4 weeks in the womb a short time ago. You don’t mind killing him then, because he’s real small and it’s less ugly to you. Abortion advocates don’t have the belly to take a good look at what you advocate.
Here’s a novel idea: Go pro-life!
With respect to the baby, there comes a point in gestation when I see it as being substantially similar to the full-term, born infant, and I’m not wanting it to be aborted then.
Hey Doug, How many days after conception would it be OK with you to abort?
I think a lot of casual folks who think they’re pro-choice haven’t really thought it through from the baby’s perspective. Yes, a mother is overwhelmed and may even panic at the thought of bringing a new life into the world. And in some respect, I can see the casual person’s view that the poor mother, she just can’t deal. But in the real world: doctors, relatives, and well-intentioned people can push and magnify that panic until abortion seems like a reasonable alternative. I’m sure my friend, who drove me to the building, did not realize that I was going to experience such a terrible and lifelong regret. (And now, with almost 40 years of legal murder under our collective social belt, we have women aborting children not out of panic but out of convenience. It’s gone way too far.)
But I feel differently about the pro-abortion advocates here on the internet. In order to take a stand, and fight us about this, they are not pregnant, they are not in panic mode, they have information at their fingertips to see what a real abortion looks like, the tiny little limbs, the tiny little bodies. So I myself judge them more harshly and I ask them to look, who are you advocating to murder? Not a little blob, but an extremely small human being.
Great points ninek.
(Ninek): Doug, a human is a human regardless of it’s size. A baby who has gestated for almost the full 9 months has the same DNA he had the day of his conception. Since conception, he has been developing, steadily, without stopping, and will continue to do so until his mid-20’s. You don’t like the idea of dismembering a human that looks like your own baby picture?”
Ninek, certainly agreed on the DNA. The conceptus has it just like I have it, just like the centenarian has it. But it’s not just that we have our own unique DNA nor that we’re a singular species on Earth that makes us “people,” that gives us our personality, or gives rise to the very concepts we’re discussing here. It’s our brains, it’s that we have emotions, etc.
I’m really not for abortion after 22 weeks – I just picked that time in gestation on a post in another thread. After that, increasingly, there is mental awareness, emotions, etc. I realize that some would say they are there prior to that, and to some degree with some babies that may be true. I’m drawing a line between where I see personality/personhood developing – the baby being pretty much similar to most full-term born infants, and where, while I do agree that the broad sense of “human being” applies, I don’t see personhood, etc.
Doug,
Speaking from having been pregnant I can tell you it’s incredibly astonishing sensation to realize one is carrying another human being inside. Since biology tells us human egg plus human sperm coming together is conception of another human being there was no possible way I could be carrying anything else within me.
I was overwhelmed with the sense of responsbility. On a religious side, I was responsible for another person’s soul. On a psychological side it was going to be my responsbility to be the mom and all that is supposed to mean (safetly, comfort, healing, nuturing). On an emotional level I knew this was where the real maturity would either manifest itself or not based on the choices I’d make.
I had 2 choices: I could let the knowledge overwhelm and leave me paralyzed with fear or I could realize that the being inside of me had a whole separate DNA (and developing body) than myself and as someone who COULD become pregnant and carry a child within, it was my responsibility to do so and to do the best I could.
I had to quit being selfish. Sure, I couldn’t be completely selfish because I was a wife, but my husband was(still is) a grown man who could pretty much do things for himself. I had responsibilities to him, and on a religious level I was entrusted with his soul to a certain extent, but he wasn’t completely dependent on me. (I’ll add I’m STILL married to the same man who is the father to my child–praise God!)
The unfortunate thing is, when a woman choses to abort she is, to a certain degree, running from the realization that this being inside of her is not just a bunch of inanimate cells and tissues, but a real live human being. She might tell herself “No fingers or toes means not really a baby.” But she wouldn’t be pregnant if said being wasn’t a pre-born human being. The only time a woman is pregnant is when she is carrying a pre-born human being inside of her. This doesn’t happen any other time. If it’s a tumor, she’s not pregnant. If it’s her period, she’s not pregnant. The only time a woman CAN be pregnant is when she’s conceived a child (a pre-born human being) inside of her. So, if said being is not a pre-born human being then she’s not pregnant.
But, a woman who’s scared, or doesn’t want to take on the responsbility (not even to give the baby up for adoption) takes the way of using any type of termology to keep from facing the facts. That way, she can kid herself into believing it’s not what she knows down deep (what her body has already figured out because the woman’s body makes special preparations when the woman conceives a pre-born human). (Carla or ninek can jump in if I’m wrong)
So she has the abortion…for whatever reason. She’s just hidden from everything. Even if she claims she doesn’t care, even if she says she wasn’t hiding from anything. Even if she says she couldn’t afford, couldn’t think of adoption, had too many other things going on, she’s ducked away from the facts.
The facts are: human sperm and human egg came together and conception happened. We don’t conceive anything but a human. I suppose in a weird lab experiment a woman could become pregnant with kittens, but as far as that happening from a woman and a man coming together through sexual intercourse and the egg and sperm coming together and conception happening it’s only been a human being.
I understand the fears and the reasoning, the rationales. Being pregnant is an incredibly moumental responsbility. There’s very little out there quite as incredible as pregnancy, labor and delivery. It’s understandable there’s fear attached to it. It’s a pretty big happening.
However, we [as a society] can’t keep prying on pregnant women’s fears by supporting abortion. It doesn’t help a woman get over those fears. The temptations of “you’ll be free from all this if you abort” are empty promises. There’s no reward for giving into fear.
I have never had an abortion…but I have faced fear. There are things in my life that I ducked away from that I should’ve faced head on long before I finally did. I didn’t learn anything about facing the situation and growing from it until I actually faced my fears and took a leap of faith. I’m glad I did. I’ve learned a lot from those leaps of faith–invaluable lessons that have helped me (I hope) to become a better person (or better at something of positive value).
I truly believe that fear drives a woman to abortion. Fear of what parents will say, fear of not being able to provide, fear of not being a good mother, fear of getting too attached and not being able to give the child up for adoption, fear of dying because of health risks, fear of giving birth because it’s not easy and can be scary, fear of being ill during pregnancy.
There’s a lot of fear associated with pregnancy and birth and motherhood. But giving into those fears will never empower women. They won’t give women the grace to overcome them.
Mother In Texas, that was quite a post. : )
No argument about fingers and toes, etc., being there at a point in gestation. I also think you have a good attitude toward your kids. If people are to have kids, I hope they care for them a lot and feel responsible toward them.
I also understand when a woman does not want to be pregnant, and is. She won’t necessarily be less well-informed than you about biological reality, and she may not be acting from irrational fears but from the realization that having more kids, then, or having kids versus not having them, is not right for her at that time.