Anti-pregnancy center laws: pro-“choice” hypocrisy at its finest
As David W. Chen reported in The New York Times, “The [NY] City Council had enacted the [anti-pregnancy center] law in March, framing it as a matter of consumer protection and truth in advertising, not long after NARAL Pro-Choice New York released a report saying it has found crisis pregnancy centers using deceptive tactics and false claims to dissuade women from having abortions.”
Note that the law was tied to this report by [NARAL], a local affiliate of the nation’s leading abortion rights group. Consider also the fact that 40% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion (and fully 60% of all pregnancies to African American women). Those horrendous and chilling percentages are evidently not enough for the abortion industry and its ideological supporters. They want to shut down crisis pregnancy centers or render them ineffective….
Now, city officials in San Francisco have launched their own effort to shutter crisis pregnancy centers, claiming that staff at the centers impose “anti-abortion propaganda and mistruths on unsuspecting women.”
Note the reference to anti-abortion arguments as “propaganda,” as if there could only be one side to the issue. Dennis Herrera, the SF city attorney who is running for mayor, called the crisis pregnancy centers “right wing” and “politically motivated.”
There was no acknowledgment of the fact that pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood are “left wing” and “politically motivated.” Furthermore, given the millions of dollars of income made by PP and other major components of the abortion industry, the phrase “financially motivated” should be added as well.
Where are the calls for honesty from Planned Parenthood?
~ Albert Mohler, Baptist Press, August 5
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.
Truth telling should be a legal pre-requisite to an abortion even when abortion is legal. The girl or woman seeking an abortion must be shown a picture of an embryo or fetus at her stage of pregnancy. She must be told basic facts about it such as if it has a heartbeat. This shouldn’t be the exclusive province of CPCs but legally mandatory. If the female is blind, she can be told what the unborn looks like.
When shown the ultrasound at the OB/GYN is it propaganda?
I agree Denise Noe.
There is no informed consent with abortion.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…if it was ever made law that women were forced to attend a CPC before being able to access their right to an abortion, I would consider it an assault to have the staff of the CPC touch me in any way, ESPECIALLY to give me an ultrasound.
CPCs are deceptive to women, and should be regulated very strictly
As a grown up fetus, I consider it assault on me and my peers to harm us in utero and kill us with chemicals, vacuums, and scissors.
Abortionists are deadly to children and should be regulated very strictly, which is to say, should be made illegal again.
Ninek, as a fellow grown up fetus, I will fight forever to protect my mother’s right to choose when a pregnancy is right for her.
Jane,
Ever been to a CPC?
I suggest you head on down to your nearest one and ask them about the services they offer.
For goodness sakes DON’T LET THEM TOUCH YOU THOUGH!! No touchy.
I’m glad you think that’s funny, Carla. Sounds like you respect women a whole lot. I tell you that I’m sensitive to people touching my body, especially non-medically trained personnel in lab coats, and you mock me.
Women are so lucky to have someone like you on their side!!
Have you ever been to a CPC, Jane?
Duly noted that you do not understand sarcasm.
I will fight forever to protect my mother’s right to choose when a pregnancy is right for her.
If abortion was only “choosing when a pregnancy is right” without the killing of another human being, I’d be ok with it. But it isn’t.
CPC workers do not touch women against their wills. And typically, women must make appointments for their ultrasounds. No, Jane, it’s clear you’ve never been to a CPC. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Ninek, as a fellow grown up fetus, I will fight forever to protect my mother’s right to choose when a pregnancy is right for her.
Pregnancy was right for a mother when she decided she was old enough to have sex.
Jane,
Women should have to know what they are doing when they abort. If you say all of them do, then seeing an ultrasound (which IS DONE ANYWAY BEFORE AND/OR DURING AN ABORTION BY ANY LEGITIMATE DOCTOR) should do NOTHING. If a woman is comfortable in her decision she will abort. If she is not, don’t you want her to have the information to make the decision that’s right for her, not a half blind semi-uniformed desperate choice that she will later regret?
Denise Noe is right and these new laws are pudding. They make a dr. offer the woman an option to see what he’s doing anyway and give her accurate medical facts about the stage of fetal development. She should have to hear this information.
Not really clear how the external touching during an ultrasound on a woman’s abdomen violates sensitivity more than the internal probing during an abortion involving a woman’s most sensitive area.
ninek: “As a grown up fetus, I consider it assault on me and my peers to harm us in utero and kill us with chemicals, vacuums, and scissors.”
Jane: “Ninek, as a fellow grown up fetus, I will fight forever to protect my mother’s right to choose when a pregnancy is right for her.”
(By killing the fetus with chemicals, vacuums, and scissors.)
Keep up the “pro-choice” hysteria, abortion advocates.
Rational people will see the logic and balance of the pro-life view, especially from CPCs. Pro-child, pro-woman, pro-life. Not hysteria, not name-calling. These hearings are excellent because they provide a forum for the satisfied CPC clients to come in and tell these government tools of NARAL that CPCs were helpful, considerate and empowering. They do not prevent women from getting abortions.
My personal favorite testimony was from a New Yorker who went to a Planned Parenthood looking for a car seat for her soon-to-be born child and was counseled to get a late term abortion.
“She should have to hear this information.”
Have to? Why should someone be forcibly exposed to information that is not medically relevant to them prior to having a procedure done? The best rationale that I can think of is that it might instead be morally or religiously relevant to some people, but so what? It might be morally or religiously relevant to some people to see what has to happen in order for the meat they buy to be produced and sold, so does that mean everyone should have to look at a picture of a slaughtered cow before ordering a steak?
Jane,
… access their right to an abortion…
I could argue with much of what you say. However, our differences come down to what we believe of unborn humans. I say that the unborn should not be killed, and you say that a pregnant woman should make that decision for the human that is living in her womb. The question that I would like you to answer is this: why does an unborn human have no rights? While I am sure you have explained this before, could you do it once more?
“why does an unborn human have no rights?”
Because rights accrue at birth, in the American (and every other) legal tradition. Social conservatives like to accuse liberals of radical social engineering, but what would be a greater act of social engineering than overriding thousands of years of universal legal tradition by deeming fetuses to have rights that begin at conception?
Joan, if you want to talk about social engineering, you truly need to learn the real history of Planned Parenthood. But I’m afraid that you probably aren’t interested in that.
Hi joan,
Why do rights accrue at birth? “It has always been that way” does not count. Even if you mean that “human rights for every individual come into existance as a legally enforcable claim when that individual is born” your argument falls far short of supporting its claim.
By the way, I am sorely tempted to argue against your claim that no legal tradition has recognized rights of unborn humans. I am certain that your assertion is false. However, even if it were true, it makes no argument for the morality of abortion. Laws have upheld, protected and encouraged great moral evil, both today and in the past.
Joan,
what was the status of rights of preborn human beings prior to 1973?
I was a strict vegetarian for many years (over a decade). Absolutely everyone should know where their food comes from. Yes, children should know what a cow is and how it ends up on their plate. I didn’t grow up right on a farm, but around farms and I knew. I didn’t become a vegetarian until much later. Now that I am an omnivore again, I am very respectful of what I eat. I don’t like to see people waste food, it’s horrifying. That cow gave it’s life for you and you throw its flesh in the garbage?! At least eat and use all that is edible and useful.
But humans are our own species. We should protect each and every single member of our species at all times. Does this mean we are guilty if a medical emergency happens to someone who can’t get to help? No, we do all we can. If you are injured in the wilderness and I can’t save you because your injuries are too severe, this is not homicide on my part. But abortion is. Abortion is the willful murder of a helpless human being.
I find the hugest examples of hypocrisy come in the guise of “pro-choice.”
Have to? Why should someone be forcibly exposed to information that is not medically relevant to them prior to having a procedure done?
As much as you’d like to B.S. your way through life pretending abortion is just another “medical procedure,” it’s the only one I know of which deliberately snuffs out a human life.
Before you go around killing people for your own personal gain, perhaps full disclosure of what you’re about to do – kill another human being with the blessing of the federal government – would be beneficial for you. And perhaps even beneficial for the human whose life you’re considering ending.
We are not cows and we are not eating fetuses. We are human beings. But I wouldn’t expect someone who elevates cows to the same level as humans to get that – nor would I expect someone who disregards the dignity of Chinese women who are forced to abort, or ignores the dignity of persons with disabilities to “get” the idea that killing human beings, regardless of the legality, isn’t such a wonderful thing.
B.S. all you want, joanie, but a human life is a human life. Not just because my Bible tells me so, but because my biology textbook is pretty clear on that point.
Because rights accrue at birth
Should women in China have the right to have as many children as they see fit?
“Why do rights accrue at birth? “It has always been that way” does not count.”
It does in the sense that rights are a man-made legal construct designed to guide social interaction.
“By the way, I am sorely tempted to argue against your claim that no legal tradition has recognized rights of unborn humans.”
Please do. You might be right and somewhere, out there, an outlier exists or has existed, but I think you would find that virtually no significant legal traditions have ever acknowledged “unborn humans” to have anything we would recognize as legally enforcible rights.
“However, even if it were true, it makes no argument for the morality of abortion.”
I didn’t claim to be making an argument for the morality of abortion.
“what was the status of rights of preborn human beings prior to 1973?”
The same status as today. That is, to say, nonexistent. Abortion may have been illegal in some states, but in the same sense that animal abuse is illegal and yet animals do not have rights.
If we went by the fact of things being “tradition” in our legal system, especially in the US, then slavery and women’s right to vote would not exist. further more, without life, there is no choice. Being alive is fundamental to being able to choose, otherwise it’s a moot point. As a few people have already said, we all started out as a fetus, even the pro-choice camp, our parents must have thought that life was important to some degree to carry us to term and become rational beings.
Here I go again: WHAT PART OF ABORTION ALTERNATIVES DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?? No one is forcing women to go to CPC’s, and if they do go, no one is forcing them to stay!
I predict that this law will be challenged in court, and hopefully we will win, just like we did in Baltimore and New York (these cties are appealing, of course, but I believe in the end we will prevail).
“Before you go around killing people for your own personal gain, perhaps full disclosure of what you’re about to do – kill another human being with the blessing of the federal government – would be beneficial for you.”
Right, because you believe it has some moral relevance. Of course, you don’t go to the doctor, or the local burger joint, to buy moral relevance, so being forcibly exposed to an unsolicited message about fetal development or the process of cow slaughtering is an unwelcome infringement.
“Should women in China have the right to have as many children as they see fit?”
That’s for China to decide.
Yes, Joan. They should have to. Let’s assume for a moment that the choicer comparison of a fetus to a tumor is not nonsensical on its face. I had a tumor removed from my ovary. The doctor did an ultrasound, showed me the tumor, explained its properties and laid out my options for me. When I decided to have it removed I made an appointment for surgery, came back w/ a friend to drive me home.
In the very unlikely even that I had thrown my hands over my eyes and started screaming, “NO Don’t make me look at it, just operate NOW, I don’t want any information, I don’t care that it might affect my fertility (which it could have), I don’t care about the risks, just do it before I change my mind!!!!!” the doctor would have rightly NOT performed the surgery and possibly referred me for a mental health evaluation.
He wouldn’t have been oppressing me or limiting my right to access surgical removal of a tumor by making sure I understood what I was consenting to.
**Sorry about the name edits, I confused Jane and Joan for a second.
“Should women in China have the right to have as many children as they see fit?”
That’s for China to decide.
WOW. Apparently rights don’t attach ever, even to born women. You have no rights except those which your government says you have at any given point. If you argue to change it, you can’t argue that it’s your ‘right’ not to be forced into sterilizations or abortions, b/c too bad, so sad, your government says you don’t have that right.
It does in the sense that rights are a man-made legal construct designed to guide social interaction.
We are getting somewhere now. Rights are NOT man-made. They are not a “legal construct.” They are not “designed to guide social interactions. Rights ARE things that exist regardless of the law. Rights are the basis for morality. Rights should be the foundation of laws. Laws should not be considered the foundation for rights. What a world you live in! By your logic you would have been found among those who defended slavery! Remember that it is only in the last 100 to 200 years that any legal tradition has recognized that slaves have rights, rights significant enough to make slavery morally untenable. It was the morally untenable part that caused slavery to cease as a legal construct.
Please do.
No problem. Give me some time to do some research.
…you would find that virtually no significant legal traditions have ever acknowledged “unborn humans” to have anything we would recognize as legally enforcible rights.
Nothing that you would recognize as “legally enforcible” because you would claim that those rights violated the law that you recognize to be legally enforcible…
I didn’t claim to be making an argument for the morality of abortion.
You certainly did not. Were you trying to prove that abortion is legal? What on Earth DID you mean to say?
Wow, Joan is not merely a pro-choicer who thinks women should be able to kill their children. She is also a totalitarianist who believes any goverment on the planet may at any time mandate the wholesale slaughter of any and all human beings within its borders. Nice.
Rights accrue at birth? I beg to differ!
The U.S. Congress voted unanimously to delay the death penalty of a pregnant woman until after her baby was born. Every congressman, including those who were pro-choice, apparently recognized the humanity of the unborn child living and growing in that woman’s womb. “No stay of execution was requested for the sake of the mother’s tonsils, heart, or kidneys;” it was requested on behalf of her unborn child.
Many states have already given explicit attest to the right to life of the unborn by passing fetal homicide laws. These laws deem it murder for anyone but the mother to deliberately take the life of a fetus.
Perhaps most interestingly, the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” which Congress passed in 2004, requires that a person who “intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child . . . be punished . . . for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.” Under this law, a “child in utero” is recognized as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed due to any one of over sixty listed federal crimes of violence. It was because of this mandate that Scott Peterson, for instance, was convicted of double-homicide under California state law when he murdered his pregnant wife, Laci, in 2002. (taken from http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/2011/03/01/are-double-standards-deforming-america/)
The poli-sci paradigm embraced by the abortion advocates is this:
Might makes right.
Try again, Megs.
Without the jab at another commenter.
Um Hey Joan, Animals do have rights…See what happens when you torture an animal…PETA Will be all over that. Especially when it comes to endangered animals. Crack the egg of an endangered bird and pay a serious consequence. But Tear a human baby limb by limb and then crush it’s skull and its all good. And yes that is surgical abortion.
It doesn’t matter how much you and Jane defend your precious “choice” the fact of the matter is that Choice is murder. Aslo what about the rules and laws of the Hebrew children…The one law which was touted by a rev. Haffner of the Unitarian Universalist church. Going back to the original context of said verse, as in the original true translation (obviously haffner didn’t look it up before flapping the gums) Exodus 21:22-23. If we acutally look at original translation of the hebrew it would be if the child was born okay and alive he wouldn’t have to pay the price of the child too. But if the child was harmed in any way then he would actually have to pay the consequences. At least I believe that to be right. Also there are many other verses in the Hebrew bible that support life before birth. Plus if this is true that rights accrue at birth what about children who are born early? What about the ones who are at the same stage but not born yet…What is the difference other than one is cover in his/her mothers womb? To me and many others the logical response is that there is no difference…
My point is that abortion is obviously a bad thing. Especially if it is hidden and covered up. Even today it is via lies that the human fetus in question is aborted. Real and true medical facts are NOT given to women. The sting videos and accounts of women and girls are proof of that. Choice is in the toilet now and soon it will be flushed and girls and women will be safe from this social evil that we have allowed to occur. Some of us know how to fight back with out lying and name calling.
Whoops, sorry Carla, couldn’t resist.
Hi Jane,
My local CPC’s “advice” consists of telling pregnant women to wait and see if they miscarry. Very sound medical advice.
Phillymiss,
South Dakota has tried to compel women to go to CPCs before getting an abortion.
My advice to you Megan is RESIST! :)
Give me some context about the conversation you had with your CPC please.
Even better if you could give me their phone number and I will find out for myself.
Thanks!!
Megan – women shouldn’t be compelled to go anywhere. But doctors should be compelled to give them accurate information about the procedure they want performed and the clinics should be regulated like other outpatient surgery centers.
@Megan,
My first child was a miscarriage and my body handled it just fine. No doctor’s intervention was needed. That’s not to say that it’s true in every case, of course. It would be wise for CPCs to go medical if at all possible. When Planned Parenthood goes under, who will be there to do pap smears, well-women care, STD testing, etc.?!
““Should women in China have the right to have as many children as they see fit?”
That’s for China to decide.”
Seriously, joan? After all the “trust women” and “reproductive freedom” soundbites you are happy to let women in China have their rights taken away? Very pro-choice indeed.
It is stated on the website, and the woman I talked to when I called out of curiosity reiterated it: women in the first trimester can “wait and see” if they miscarriage to avoid needing to get an abortion, because many pregnancies do end spontaneously. Frebus–it’s not that women need medical care to deal with miscarriages that’s the problem, it’s this clear attempt to get women to delay making a decision that is. Delaying termination means that the procedure will be more expensive, invasive, and for many, no longer accessible. What if a woman truly expects to miscarriage doesn’t, and she’s been drinking or smoking, and likely hasn’t been getting prenatal care? That’s a potentially bad situation for both mom and baby.
I like the idea that places exist to help women have children if they want them, but I don’t think this work needs to be accomplished through manipulation.
Megan – can you link to the website?
Carla says:
August 9, 2011 at 10:08 am
When shown the ultrasound at the OB/GYN is it propaganda?
(Denise) No. It is truth. Females seeking abortions must know the truth in advance.
Exactly. Show women the truth.
Megan,
What if a woman drinks or smokes while expecting to miscarry? Does it do something to the blob?
You said baby. I say blob. Which is it?
Joan there is ample evidence tha, based on an improved understanding of fetal development, and that the unborn child was a human being, society began moving toward the legal protection of the unborn beginning in the late nineteenth and early 20th century; this is how when we got many of the state laws against abortion that were then overturned in 1973 by Roe v. Wade.
In 1959, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child stated that each child deserved “appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp
Around 1970, unfortunately, people started thinking that preserving the sexual revolution was more important than young human lives, so this new understanding tragically was ignored and the laws began to be reversed.
Your argument that because the rights of the unborn have seldom been recognized they therefore can’t exist is a very poor one. Does the fact that there was very little legal recognition of the rights of women for centuries, and in many places they are still not recognized, mean that women’s rights don’t or can’t exist?
South Dakota has tried to compel women to go to CPCs before getting an abortion.
You say tried. There is no state or law that forces women to go to a CPC.
Does it do something to the blob?
Very interesting question, Carla. If that thing inside a woman is just a blob, or a collection of cells, why does it matter if she gets prenatal care for “it?”
“Should women in China have the right to have as many children as they see fit?”
That’s for China to decide.
Seriously, Joan?!? You believe the Chinese government has the right to tell women how many children they can have? And to forcibly abort babies that are “too many?” What happened to women’s rights and freedom, Joan? What happened to your precious bodily autonomy? What happened to choice?
It’s okay for the Chinese to kill a mother’s child against her will, and forbid her to have more than one child, but anyone who offers a woman an alternative to abortion is just downright manipulative, controlling, and evil?? Is that it?
“I tell you that I’m sensitive to people touching my body, especially non-medically trained personnel in lab coats, and you mock me.”
You’re not being mocked for being sensitive, Jane. You’re being mocked for being a willfully ignorant idealogue who comes here hurling allegations at things and people of which you know nothing.
You’re also being mocked because you studiously ignore the truth. How many times do people here have to tell you that CPC’s only allow medically trained personnel to use their sonogram machines?! Yet, you continue to show up with your ‘Chicken Little’ routine about non-trained personnel in lab coats putting their hands on you.
You’re also being mocked because you studiously ignore the truth about the medically trained personnel in lab coats who DO put their hands on women and leave them sterile after abortions, at increased risk of breast cancer (and before you deny that, you had better get an Ph.D. or an M.D. and read the 100 papers in top flight journals that all say so), or who leave them with perforated uteruses, septic shock, hemorrhage, and a host of other post-abortive sequellae.
You’re being mocked because you have labored long and hard here at building your credentials as an ignoramus.
Happy Graduation Day!
I don’t know who comes on here and “likes” Jane or Joan’s comments. I’m starting to think they just hit the “like” button themselves.
A little “self-esteem” booster.
They “like” each others. :)
“I tell you that I’m sensitive to people touching my body, especially non-medically trained personnel in lab coats, and you mock me.”
Of course, being post abortive has nothing whatsoever to do with that…it must be post-traumatic stress from a bad makeover at the Clinique counter.
I find it amazing how pro-abortion Jo-Ane is. My friends who are pro-choice generally fall into the category of misinformed women who don’t know very much about the abortion industry. Thankfully, few of them have ever said the cold-blooded comments I regularly read here by abortion advocates. But seriously,abortion fans only talk about bodily autonomy if it means killing a child so as not to be pregnant (after all 9 months is practically an eternity isn’t it?). There is no autonomy for you if you are small and vulnerable. I wonder what tortured relationships our abortion advocates have with their own mothers. How can anyone who values their own relationship with her mother be so bloodthirsty toward the pre-born?
Hey CT great example! @ August 9, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I was about to offer my experience from my emergency laparotomy for ruptured ectopic. When the diagnosis was made the doctor explained EXACTLY what was happening inside me, what he would do, gave me two possible treatments according to what he found as to the severity of my case, and explained all possible outcomes. All this while I was bleeding internally and “could crash at any time”! It was THAT important that I understand what was happening, understand my OPTIONS and RIGHTS(I was given the option of not having treatment at all and my prognosis if I didn’t! They even explained I had the right to refuse a transfusion and gave me the medically sound reasons why that might be inadvisable and outlined my options if I chose to anyway), and that I understood the procedures that would be done to me, and the possible repercussions (reduced fertility, infection, etc). Afterward I got a detailed explanation of what DID happen, what was found and done, and the following week received a lab report describing the tissue in detail (a “10cm mass”), and what was and wasn’t present (i.e. “no fetal tissue present”).
According to pro-aborts (who ignorantly compare abortion to “life-saving surgery” and “any other surgical procedure”) I shouldn’t have been told ANYTHING. I was force fed propaganda. My life and “rights” were threatened by the few minute delay that explaining my rights and options took. And all the (very helpful) information I received was meant to “shame” me out of “my right” to surgery and was “condescending” and “offensive”. Right? The doctors reports and labs reports were “unduly burdensome” and “assigning guilt” and “engineered to make [me] feel guilty for my choice”. Right? Or better yet, “propaganda and lies” or “Photoshopped”. Right?
These arguments applied to my situation are ridiculous but applied to ANY abortion are justified right? I wish logic could be mail-ordered. I’d buy a few commentors here Christmas gifts! :)
Joan’s defense (or condoning) of China’s willful and violent oppression of women is natural. Once you remove God and ignore His law written in our hearts as religious bigotry, or oppressive morality, or what ever, you’re left with nothing but the whims of man.
So here women have rights, and there they don’t, and here toddlers can’t be married to grown men, and there they can, etc, etc, etc. Whatever is “right” or “wrong” depends on where you live and who rules over you. Sounds very similar to the “Theocracy” such people claim to be all hell-fire against though doesn’t it? Except it’s totalitarianism, so it’s ok.
Done in the name of “science” or “progress” any evil is good, but done in the name of God and any good is evil.
What do you expect? They were raised by mothers who told them it was fine and dandy that they be allowed to kill them at any time while they were pregnant with them. Can’t you just feel the love from Mommy dearest? I can’t imagine the horror of hearing that from my own mother.
“They were raised by mothers who told them it was fine and dandy that they be allowed to kill them at any time while they were pregnant with them. Can’t you just feel the love from Mommy dearest? I can’t imagine the horror of hearing that from my own mother.”
Ha! I know exactly how that feel X! My mom told me how she wanted to have me aborted my entire life. It screws with your head. What I don’t understand is wanting to put that on your own kids. I never would. I can’t imagine telling me kids that I would have been A-OK with it if their mother hadn’t wanted them to be born. It’s an awful feeling.
Jack,
I’m so sorry your mother told you that. :( Truly horrible. I hope you are able to separate your worth from her actions. Her thinking and her wishes have no bearing whatsoever on your value as a person. That’s the core of what makes abortion so evil in the first place. Human life has objective value, and objective sanctity. It’s not subjective to anyone’s opinion or whim, not even the mother’s.
God bless you. I hope this doesn’t sound trite, but you are loved.
Jack,
I am so sorry too.
I second Jen’s comment.
Ha! I know exactly how that feel X! My mom told me how she wanted to have me aborted my entire life.
That’s so sad. But despite your horrendous childhood, it seemed like you turned out okay!
Ah, it’s better now. My worth isn’t dependent on how much my parents loved me. I am worth plenty just for being alive.
And that’s what I tell the “better aborted than abused” idiots.
ChristianHippie – your situation sounds terrifying, but another great example of how ridiculous the opposition to factual information is. Though I’m sure we just don’t realize how oppressed we were by those judgmental doctors of ours who gave us all our choices.
Jack,
Dignity is an intrinsic quality, one that we have simply by virtue of being human. I think that we often overlook that reality and allow our worth to be measured and assigned by others, such as family members.
Your mother’s frustrated desire to have you aborted is not a function of who you are, or the personality that you developed over time. That desire of hers welled up at a time when she could only sense you, but not behold you. It was also a desire that was born of her own doubts, fears, and self-loathing.
I often think that when parents tell their children how much better their lives would have been without the child, that they are lashing out at their own timidity and impotence that kept them from achieving whatever was their perceived goal. Unable to admit their own failures, they bully the child. It speaks volumes about them, and not a word about the child. I’m really sorry that you carry the burden of your mother’s spiritual sickness. However, you seem to be sublimating that burden quite nicely through your pro-life advocacy.
Pray for her. She is gripped by an unimaginable suffering.
Gerard,
Amen. What a precious post.
Thanks Gerard.
When I was younger I felt guilty for being alive. With my mother’s hatred and my father’s abuse I never felt like I deserved to be here. Luckily, through love from my wife and her family I realized that their problems weren’t mine and I wasn’t doomed to be my parent’s child. Having my own kids helped immeasurably, because I really saw the innocence of kids and how they could never deserve to be hurt like that. It is still a struggle but it gets better.
Really, I can’t tell people enough how much the pro-life movement helps when you have gone through a childhood like mine. Being able to help save babies that otherwise would have been thrown away is amazing. I don’t understand people who were unloved as a child can turn around and support abuse in the form of abortion. It is continuing the cycle of hurting kids and SO WRONG.
At 7 weeks it can be determined if your “blob” is a boy or a girl:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44079287/ns/health-pregnancy/
Let’s pray that is not used for evil if/when it gets to this country …
“Seriously, Joan?!? You believe the Chinese government has the right to tell women how many children they can have?”
I didn’t stipulate the Chinese government. I said that it’s for China to decide. As in, China as not only a political entity–its government–but as a culture and society. Because really, what’s the alternative? To demand that China drastically alter its laws and values to accommodate Western liberal ideals?
“It was THAT important that I understand what was happening, understand my OPTIONS and RIGHTS(I was given the option of not having treatment at all and my prognosis if I didn’t!”
Do you really not perceive the difference between information that is medically relevant–in other words, all the things that your doctors correctly told you–and information that isn’t? Fetal development has no bearing on the health of a woman having an abortion. You might as well demand that the attending physician read off stock quotes to women before performing an abortion, because, hey, it’s information!
“I didn’t stipulate the Chinese government. I said that it’s for China to decide. As in, China as not only a political entity–its government–but as a culture and society. Because really, what’s the alternative? To demand that China drastically alter its laws and values to accommodate Western liberal ideals?”
Yeah, we can demand in the interest of human rights that our allies not treat their people like crap. We do it a lot. Or I suppose that you don’t approve of measures we take against genocide and other human rights abuses? I mean, it’s relative to their culture, right?
Joan, I beg to differ … again. There’s a HUGE difference between these two surgeries and the resulting risks involved to your uterus, duration of surgery, prep time (an hour vs two days), etc.:
http://catalog.nucleusinc.com/generateexhibit.php?ID=37023&ExhibitKeywordsRaw=&TL=&A=2
versus
http://catalog.nucleusinc.com/generateexhibit.php?ID=9663&ExhibitKeywordsRaw=&TL=&A=2
It’s pretty obvious. At Planned Parenthood Bixby LA office, “in-clinic abortion is offered up to 24 weeks after the start of your last menstrual period. If your last period was after 24 weeks, we can still help.” However, the website warns “if you are more than 18 weeks pregnant, your in-clinic abortion may require multiple visits.”
P.S. Wonder where they send you if you are more than 6 months pregnant?!
Joan, the nature of what is being removed is medically relevant information. Do you really not see that? Can you really not see the difference between that and stock quotes? It has long been required that people wait 30 days before sterilization and undergo counseling to make sure people are sure. That’s not relevant to your ability to survive the surgery, but we recognize that this is an elective decision with permanent repercussions. Much like abortion.
To demand that China drastically alter its laws and values to accommodate Western liberal ideals?
Joan, try telling that to the women in China weeping over the babies, born and unborn, torn from them and butchered. Why are they crying? Don’t they know that human rights and protection of the innocent is not a part of their values – that it’s a “Western liberal ideal?” Do they really think human life is sacred or something?
Human rights know no borders.
If you really believe what you wrote, I pity you.
“Seriously, Joan?!? You believe the Chinese government has the right to tell women how many children they can have?”
I didn’t stipulate the Chinese government. I said that it’s for China to decide. As in, China as not only a political entity–its government–but as a culture and society. Because really, what’s the alternative? To demand that China drastically alter its laws and values to accommodate Western liberal ideals?
You didn’t answer the real question, Joan. Do you believe it’s acceptable for anyone to force Chinese women to abort their children? Should they be forbidden to have more than one child? Where is their freedom, their choice, their autonomy?
And you do realize that in a communist country, the people don’t exactly have a fair voice, don’t you? China isn’t exactly known for listening to the will of the people. That’s the backbone behind their vile one-child policy. Their will, their choice, their power, their mandate. Enforced by death.
Yeah, you’re right. It would be wrong to demand that China drastically alter its laws and values and actually recognize human rights.
Joan,
Once again I ask of you…
What kind of blackness has settled in your soul that keeps you coming back here for hundreds and hundreds of hours, arguing for the slaughter of babies, the literal tearing apart of babies in their mother’s wombs? Why do you champion the slaughter of millions?
Do you honestly think the slaughter of 4,000 per day in the U.S. or 35,000 per day in China could ever wash away the blood of the baby you had killed?
Only God’s love and mercy can accomplish that. Only the blood of Jesus can wash your blood-stained hands and heart clean.
Come Home.
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…if it was ever made law that women were forced to attend a CPC before being able to access their right to an abortion, I would consider it an assault to have the staff of the CPC touch me in any way, ESPECIALLY to give me an ultrasound.”
“CPCs are deceptive to women, and should be regulated very strictly”
Ridiculous. In Germany all women who want an abortion must go to a counselor whose sole job it is to dissuade her from aborting. It is not legal to get an abortion in Germany from the same doctor. The first doctor refers to the counselor who then may refer to a third doctor if the woman cannot be convinced to continue the pregnancy.
“why does an unborn human have no rights?” “Because rights accrue at birth, in the American (and every other) legal tradition. Social conservatives like to accuse liberals of radical social engineering, but what would be a greater act of social engineering than overriding thousands of years of universal legal tradition by deeming fetuses to have rights that begin at conception?”
Well, with that logic we would still have slavery, and a host of other heretofore legally established forms of oppression.
I didn’t stipulate the Chinese government. I said that it’s for China to decide. As in, China as not only a political entity–its government–but as a culture and society. Because really, what’s the alternative? To demand that China drastically alter its laws and values to accommodate Western liberal ideals?
Gen. Sir Charles Napier in India explaining to the locals his position on suttee — the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands:
Joan,
Fetal development has EVERYTHING to do with the health of the woman having the abortion! For one, fetal development means hormones. The sudden unnatural (i.e. not a miscarriage) stop of those hormones has been inarguably linked to breast cancer. Other hormonally linked cancers such as ovarian, uteran, and cervical cancers may also be linked. Fetal development has everything to do with the procedure used to kill the child. Each procedure carries it’s own serious risks for the mother including uteran rupture, blood clots, hemorrhage, death or complications from abortifacent drugs and anesthesia. The more developed the child, the more dangerous the procedure. Fetal development has EVERYTHING to do with the abortion and the woman it’s commited on.
“Fetal development” decided the procedure done on me during my laparotomy. An earlier (smaller) pregnancy and simpler ectopic condition would have warranted only a laporascopic out-patient surgery. Because of the size of the pregnancy and the amount of damage and internal bleeding from the rupture, the surgery was complicated and warranted a more invasive laparotomy and hospital stay. “Fetal development” or the age of the pregnancy must be considered by any medical professional in any medical procedure impacting the pregnancy. That includes abortions. And if it is a “legitimate surgery” done by a “medical professional” then it deserves the same amount of transparency as my, CT’s, or ANY surgery. Full disclosure of all the information relevant (including the “tissue” being removed) to the procedure.
I consider it offensive and demeaning that pro-aborts and abortionists think so little of women’s intelligence and ability to make informed choices that they feel the need to “protect” them from the full truth of abortion and ALL it entails. If it’s really not as bad as we fear-mongering woman hating antis make it out to be, why all the hub bub over every informed consent law that casts it’s shadow anywhere near the law house?? Don’t YOU trust women?
Reminds me too much of the days when women were encouraged not to take part in “men’s conversations” or “technical work” because it would be too much for their sensitive constitutions and cause headaches or “fits”. Though now they’re “liberated” so we call it “demeaning” or “offensive”. But same principle. Too much information is just too much for our pretty little heads.
Joan: “Social conservatives like to accuse liberals of radical social engineering, but what would be a greater act of social engineering than overriding thousands of years of universal legal tradition by deeming fetuses to have rights that begin at conception?”
Wonderful to hear that we stand in the progressive tradition. We anticipate a groundswell of support from classical liberals who seek expansion of human rights. The few who are provincial and defend only their own rights, of course, we can do without.
Jack’s parents from hell remind me of the famous Bill Cosby line: “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!” It was funny at the time because it was such an empty, ridiculous threat. But I fear that, more and more, it is not an empty threat for more and more children of all ages. :(
Yeah, well, mine and a lot of other people’s parents aren’t exactly shining examples of God’s love.
JackBorsch, your standing up for the unborn is an example of God’s love, and a shining one at that.
YOU are a shining example of God’s love, JackBorsch.
joan,
According to you, there is virtually no significant legal tradition in which rights do not accrue at birth, right? I just remembered that there is at least one significant legal tradition in which rights DID NOT accrue at birth. The Roman Empire. Newborns could be killed by their parents. Not exactly what you expected, is it? What is your defense now? What exactly are you trying to defend? Could you answer my question? Please?
http://www.suite101.com/content/abandonment-infanticide-in-ancient-times-a119201
“…so does that mean everyone should have to look at a picture of a slaughtered cow before ordering a steak?”
Fine by me!
Thank you Eric and Carla.
Another thought…who’s going to ensure that doctors are complying with these mandates? Will there be audits? If so, who’s going to pay for that?? I don’t want MY tax dollars to finance a protocol that treats women like big children. I’m fine with intake screenings at health & OB clinics that are more sensitive to issues of domestic violence and reproductive coercion. But demanding that women hear a rigmarole about fetal development amounts to emotional browbeating. Plus, I don’t buy this nonsense that women in abortion clinics are clueless about what they’re doing. Are they lying on the operating room table thinking they’re there to get an ice cream cone?
Still not sure why pregnant women who want to have the baby aren’t scrutinized in the same way. Do you care if these women have been “coerced,” or if they know about the risks of childbirth and the potential for postpartum depression to develop?
Megan – it’ll be enforced the same way other workplace misconduct is enforced. Patient complaints, employee reports, and yes periodic audits and inspections.
Women who decide to have the baby aren’t undergoing a medical procedure. But yes, they should be informed by their OB/GYN about the risks and potential complications of childbirth and should be kept fully informed whenever a medical decision needs to be made.
Also, still waiting on that website link. If it’s too much trouble, the name and location of the CPC will do and I’ll look it up myself. Thanks.
Please also link to any “rigamarole about fetal development” that you have, Megan.
I would like to see it for myself.
Thanks.
I don’t buy the nonsense that all women getting abortions know exactly what they are doing.
“Are they lying on the operating room table thinking they’re there to get an ice cream cone?”
No. They think they’re going to go have “the contents of their uterus removed”, and that those “contents” are “blobs of tissue”, “not human beings”, have “heart tones”-not heartbeats, and are definitely not their children. THAT is what they think because THAT is what they are being told, and THAT is why we need laws to enforce women being told the truth.
The women I know who had abortions were young and scared. They had no place to go, no one to help them, and were told that they did not have a chance to raise their children. They were told it was a simple procedure and they would be free. Guess how free they feel after their babies died?
:(
Megan,
Plus, I don’t buy this nonsense that women in abortion clinics are clueless about what they’re doing. Are they lying on the operating room table thinking they’re there to get an ice cream cone?
If they think they are having a “blob of tissue” or “blood clot” removed and that it won’t effect them for the rest of their lives, or worse yet, will actually improve their lives or prevent some calamity from happening….. then yes, they are clueless about what they are doing. They are in fact acting like they are only getting an ice cream cone or something equally trivial when abortion is anything but.
But demanding that women hear a rigmarole about fetal development amounts to emotional browbeating.
Are “Don’t drink and drive” ads emotional brow beating? How about the “or meth” billboard campaign? “Arrive alive” is an unfair guilt trip right? ALL biology and human development classes should be banned then right? Since such information is so emotionally traumatic. Was I emotionally brow beaten when my condition was described and my rights and treatment options were explained to me before emergency surgery?
There’s nothing wrong with the education of women. If you truly have a problem with it, there are still a few places in the third world you may feel more comfortable living in.
Pro-choice = if it facilitates abortion. Good.
If it deters abortion, Bad.
The pro-choice endorsement of China’s “one-child” policy, including the interference of China’s government in women’s reproductive decisions, convinces me that Pro-choice is not pro-woman; it is anti-child, period.
Alright CH, then I guess you were counseled about the possibility that the surgery could have been psychologically traumatic? My sister had to get stitches once and passed out during it because she’s so squeamish. Shouldn’t the doctor have counseled her beforehand about that possibility???
And why on earth would I like to a website that clearly lists the city that I live near??? Do you not believe me that there are sham health clinics out there that are more motivated by ideology than delivering sound medicine? What a shock!
Any links for us yet, Megan?
Carla,
First off, I believe with all my heart that abortion is wrong and should be illegal. HOWEVER, I have to step in here and say that what Megan is telling you may be true. I know for a fact that the Care Net CPCs, which are located across the country, use this line. At least the one I inquired about volunteering at did, as did another one I found using a google search. “it could be that you are going to miscarry the baby and won’t need the services of an abortion clinic,” it says. So, if you don’t miscarry you WILL NEED the services of an abortion clinic??? Is that what they’re saying?
That terminology, along with some other details about Carenet, really bothered me and I ended up volunteering at a YWCA instead. It was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, working with pregnant teens. Heartbreaking, too. I wish I had the time now to do it again.
I would like to add that it was never stated outright that the line about miscarriages being common was used to postpone abortions and make them more difficult to get. Personally, though, I don’t know why else they would say it, especially when they insinuate that abortion services may or may not be NEEDED. Sorry, it really irked me!
Len,
I would like to find out for myself whether it is true or not. Which is why I asked for the website for the CPC that Megan wrote about.
Did you ask them WHY they say that about miscarriages and did you tell them why it irked you? I certainly would like to know why as well.
Yes, Carla, I did. The woman I met with kind of hemmed and hawed a little bit and said something about “just speaking to the client in her own language” and “not sending her home discouraged.” What does that even mean?
Like I said, that was not the only thing that made me uncomfortable about the carenet clinic.
Here is a link to a site for a totally different CPC that uses almost the exact phrase:
http://www.1stchoice.org/abortion.html
About 25% of all pregnancies end naturally in miscarriage. A good way to confirm pregnancy is through an ultrasound exam. Come in for a free medical consultation and ultrasound, so you can make an informed decision. You may not need to experience the pain and cost of an abortion.
Hurrah! Nature might kill that pesky baby for you and save you trouble, as well as the dough! What is it with these CPCs talking about NEEDING abortions? It really bothers me.
Yeah Megan, it was considered. The impact that the surgery would have on my fertility was discussed. Condolences on my loss were offered. I was given a pamphlet offering grief counseling.
Even suggesting that ANY of these things be discussed or offered in an abortuary is met with hysteric squeelings of guilt and “emotional browbeating”. Why, if like my “surgical procedure to save the life of the mother”, abortion is a “legitimate surgical procedure necessary to save lives”, does it not warrant the same considerations and transparency as any other surgery??? Why is it different? Why should women not be fully informed of the procedure and all it entails before going under the knife or ingesting the pills?
Why should abortuaries which operate on women not be required to be at least as safe as a nail salon or veterinary clinic?
Why must I be fully informed and prepared before my laparotomy but my psuedo-sister-in-law wasn’t required to even know what “tissue” is being removed or what goes into the procedure to remove it during her abortion (which by the way sterilized her for life and is now haunting her current relationship with my brother. He wants kids and can’t have them with her, so their relationship is at a strained standstill and may end. All because of abortion)? To even suggest that her procedure would do exactly what it did; sterilize her, impact her future relationships, affect her for the rest of her life, is staunchly disallowed. Especially within the hallowed halls of the mills where such life shattering surgeries are done.
You pro-aborts like to throw around your comparisons of abortion to legitimate surgical procedures, but refuse to allow it to be treated like a legitimate surgical procedure. Why? Because you understand, deep down, that more informed women means less abortions? Why would that bother YOU Megan? Do YOU have a financial stake in the abortion business like PP or Carhart?
Len:
That link is broken.
Also, the stat they share is true. It is not at all uncommon for a woman to get a positive test and then have her period right on time or just slightly late (an early miscarriage). Perhaps that is why the stat is then followed up with the offer of an ultrasound (to date the pregnancy). It would not make a woman too far advanced for an abortion if she were to wait 2wks from her first PPT since that would make her all of 4wks pregnant, at which point she would be past the point of that stat. The ultrasound would then be able to confirm the pregnancy (or occurring miscarriage). She would still be eligable for the “safer” D&C or even a medicinal procedure at that gestational age.
I just don’t see what ya’ll are reading into this at all. Like I’ve said earlier, women, with lack of support and surrounded by the pro-abort culture of “You can’t possibly raise a child and get an education or have a job! Abort!” and “Your life is over if you have a baby!”, will often panic at the first hint of a second line. It is not too much to ask that they wait a couple days or even a couple weeks to allow the panic to pass so they can then consider calmly and logically the fact that a pregnancy on average lasts 9-10 months (and doesn’t actually drain your brain out your ears and magically transport you to Warren Jeffs ranch to forever thereafter stay barefoot and pregnant) and that is more than enough time to build a support network (CPC’s are WAITING to do just that), organize sitters/find a daycare, rearrange class schedules, etc. or even find an adoptive couple/agency for the child.
I think the “You may not need to experience the pain and cost of an abortion. ” is referring to the fact that a little education and time to digest it may result in the revelation that an abortion is in fact never “need”ed after all and she does in fact have the strength, power, and support, to give birth to her child and raise him/her or provide him/her with a loving adoptive family.
Christian Hippie I agree with you. I have nothing but kudos for my local CPC where everything is free and confidential and women rave about the services even those who went on to abort. Nobody forces them to do anything just gives them the facts and loves them regardless.
(sarcasm alert) Of course we know that abortions have NEVER been performed on women who were not even pregnant from this fine, upstanding, not-for-profit organzation. Does anyone hear a cash register ringing “Cha-ching” along with”will that be cash or credit, honey”. It is totally up to you but you guys may want to consider stop feeding the trolls who come here with the same old circular arguments over and over again. God bless you and carry on.
Note the reference to anti-abortion arguments as “propaganda,” as if there could only be one side to the issue. Dennis Herrera, the SF city attorney who is running for mayor, called the crisis pregnancy centers “right wing” and “politically motivated.”
Well, was it propaganda? No question that pro-choicers can sling it too…..