Save your health, life, and country: abort!
In Ethiopia – one of the poorest countries in Africa, with a per capita GDP of $398 – abortion is covered in their public health service because the government recognizes that fertility control is crucial to a woman’s health and survival, her children’s health and survival, and ultimately, her country’s development.
But the United States, which has a frankly appalling rate of unwanted pregnancy and child poverty for a country so wealthy, does not. When we understand abortion as a lifesaving health service, making abortion legal but not including it in national health plans is about as logical as denying access to defibrillators without proof of insurance.
~Anu Kumar, in a post entitled, “It’s Not a Choice if You Can’t Afford It,” The Huffington Post, April 29
[Image via kollewin.com]
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.
They will stop at nothing. Legal abortions are not the answer to Ethiopia’s problems, because abortion is never the answer for anything. I read this the other day on HuffPo…please someone stop me from reading it. It’s a pro-abort convention over there.
The logic doesn’t really add up. If you are going to point to a country as an example of sound economic policy, why hold up a country you specifically mention as being one of the poorest? Sure, maybe you’re trying to make a point that the cause is so noble, even the poorest hold it in high esteem, but without some further explanation it’s strange to note that a country has a low per-capita GDP and THEN hold it up as an example of positive actions for a country’s development. It assumes that the action is good and then uses whatever the country’s economic situation is as justification somehow. If the country were wealthy, the action would be considered the reason for that success; if the country is poverty-stricken, the action is somehow an example of the fact that even countries that get it wrong economically get it right in terms of policy. It doesn’t take into account the very real possibilities that maybe the action exacerbates the problem, or is irrelevant to the problem. But regardless, if you’re going to say that an action leads to economic security and development, it just makes no sense to hold up a country that you specifically point out as being economically insecure and underdeveloped.
It’s as though she were to say, “Even India, a country with skyrocketing rates of poverty, understands that labor laws concering worker safety standards get in the way of people having access to jobs; whereas the US, a wealthy country with an appalling unemployment rate, does not.” (I was actually recently in a meeting where something akin to that very point was made – to a degree. Someone was considering outsourcing the entire construction of a modular set for a rock show, and having it built in India. At least no one feigned noble principles, there, unlike in this quote – though the show will take place in Canada, no one reasonably suggested that Canada should take labor-law and benefits cues from India. If they had, it would have been absurd – there’s a reason the show will sell in Canada, after all: few people in India would be able to afford the ticket price, rendering the whole project moot.) I’m just rambling now. Oops.
“It’s Not a Choice if You Can’t Afford It”
It’s not a choice if you depend on someone else to provide it, at least not an independent/self-responsible choice.
By all means necessary…
The lengths the children haters will go to over at Huffpoop to rationalize murder.
To advocate for abortion is to live without any hope of any kind.
Hope that an impoverished child may grow to be that person who, BECAUSE of their background, urges change and has the drive to encourage others to make it happen.
Hope is built on life.
Without it, they are dealing in death. No matter what “spin” is necessary to do so.
How’s that abortion thing working out? Not too well apparently.
So we should provide anything that anyone wants as long as its legal?
Defibrillators start hearts beating. Abortions stop a heart beating (and breaks other hearts).
Exactly, Jen B.! Exactly. Abortion doesn’t SAVE LIVES. It KILLS PEOPLE. It HURTS WOMEN. It is destructive and bloody and unnecessary. There is nothing redeeming about abortion. Pregnancy is not a disease; women are not flawed. We need to say “We get pregnant! Deal with it!” We must refuse to kill our children in order to “compete” in a man’s world. Women who support this blow my mind…..How is killing your child a “right”? It is unbelievably ANTI-feminist.
Another point that I have never really understood about the pro-aborts… somehow, poverty is upheld as the ultimate evil. Okay, so it’s not comfortable, but it’s a sad reflection on society that not having material things is considered worse than death!
That is especially troubling in America, where even people living below the poverty line usually have more than those living in truly 3rd world countries (opportunity, clean water, etc.). I’m not discounting the fact that being poor can be scary and stressful, but as humans, isn’t there more to life than having material things? Since when is being poor and not being comfortable a good reason to kill your child?
My fiance was debating a young man about abortion a few months back and the young man said that abortion is unpleasant but necessary because the baby might be born into poverty, the child might starve to death if it is born. It was eye-opening to both of us that people actually believe that poverty is worse than death.
It just makes no sense. It’s heartbreaking that people would be so hopeless that they would feel the need to kill their own baby because they thought they are too poor.
The only form of abortion that saves a mother’s life is one in response to an ectopic pregnancy or exceedingly rare maternal illness early in pregnancy. Both of these would be covered by the “complications of pregnancy” section of an insurance policy. All insurance is required to cover complications of pregnancy even if they do not offer prenatal coverage in general. If a woman’s life is at risk, her insurance will cover removing her child. Of course, if this occurs post viability this means delivering a live child. Perhaps that is what the “problem” is for pro-aborts. It’s not about women’s health. It’s about dead children.
…..Abortion doesn’t fix poverty. I don’t understand Ms. Kumar’s “logic.” We have more than enough money to help these people financially, and pro-aborts just want to make sure they abort their babies? What the heck?!
Even removal of an ectopic pregnancy isn’t considered abortion. Or removing a living child that may not make it. The intent is to save lives not end them.
I agree, Lauren. I think it is about dead children. :(
MODS: I think that last “comment” needs to be deleted. Somebody’s idea of a joke???
It was likely some sort of spam. Thanks, Pamela.
In the future, if things like this happen, please EMAIL the mods at the links under “Team” on the right sidebar just in case we aren’t on the threads at the moment. Thank you! :)
Uh — perhaps people in the developing world, need FOOD, SHELTER, EDUCATION, and HOPE FOR THE FUTURE? Killing your own offspring provides none of these things!
Amen!!
How about those corrupt governments that keep their people in poverty?
Carla, great minds think alike! ;-)
Not surprisingly, I commented on this article on Huffington and the moderator didn’t post my comment. I guess there was too much truth in it for them to take. Drives me nuts how they claim to be pro-choice but won’t even let anyone from the other side comment. This is the second time this happened to me today. So much for choice! Why don’t they just admit that they are pro-ABORTION already!
http://www.shoutingitloud.com/