The right to choose whether or not to have or not have children is a fundamental human right….
There is no organization in this country or the world that is more important than Planned Parenthood.
~ Gloria Steinem, as quoted by NJ.com, September 17
[HT: Kelli]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
What a sad woman. I pity her.
Men do not have this right. They are completely at the mercy of female choice and action. Men can be legally required to pay child support even if they would have preferred the pregnancy be aborted or even if they would simply prefer to abandon the child.
I believe she had the abortion because her boyfriend at the time wanted her to. The wake of destruction behind this woman is wide and long.
I would think the most basic fundamental right would be to not be dismembered against your will… but thats just me, Gloria.
Wow, PP is more important than, say, the Red Cross?
The American Cancer Society?
Feed the Children?
Pediatric AIDS foundations?
Oh, wait, I get it!! Planned Parenthood is more important because if we have fewer people, we won’t have to feed them, help them, or cure them of cancer! Because they’ll all be dead or will never have existed. Now that’s charity for ya.
The right to choose whether or not to have or not have children is a fundamental human right….
I wouldn’t disagree with this comment. However, once you’re pregnant, you already have a child! No human should have the right to kill their offspring.
People engage in the baby-making act. They create a baby. They then seem to be confused by what happened and say that they did not choose to have a baby, so they need to be able to kill the baby that their previous choice created. Abortion is not choosing but rather re-choosing, choosing to negate the consequences of a previous choice. Only a society so ignorant of science as to not realize that purpose of sexual intercourse is to make babies can take seriously the nonsense that people like Steinem spout.
If the pro-abortion people were actually pro-choice, they would have been on the front lines denouncing the population policies of China. They were not. They mostly denied what was happening, ignored it, or applauded it. The choice language is not sincere, but rather a way to ensnare idiots who prefer slogans to thought.
The right to choose whether or not to have children is most definitely not a fundamental human right. Everyone has the right to choose against activities that can create a child (like sex, IVF, etc.). You shouldn’t be forced to do these things. Everyone has the right to try to have children, if that’s what they want. However, someone who is infertile and can not be medically aided does not have their rights violated because they can not have children. Couples who can not create children don’t automatically have a right to one. Heck, couples who can create children don’t automatically have a right to one. All of that aside from the fact that no one has the right to kill a child already living, born or unborn.
Her premise is wrong. It’s wrong all the way around. It’s just wrong.
What is she doing with her hands? Showing us that they’re covered with the blood of innocent children, including the blood of her own child?
She is totally deceived and clueless, alienated from God’s life, like we all once were.
And unless she repents, she will die in her sin, having rejected God’s offer of love, mercy and forgiveness through His Son Jesus Christ.
My heart breaks for her…
Ed,
She is trying to convince us all how FREEEEEEEEEEEEE she is!! How deliriously joyful and freeing it is to be Gloria!! One need only exercise their “right to choose!!” Get the tshirt. Don’t worry. Be happy.
She doesn’t speak for me.
AMEN, KEL!!!
No one if free when they kill – especially when they kill the innocent. Bondage is the only result – whether it be physically (like infertility of by girlfriend due to her abortion history), mentally (as just reiterated by another study by Dr. Coleman) or spiritually (since killing is a sin and deadens the soul).
Bondage is not freedom. Calling evil good is not freedom. It’s embracing the father of lies, and we know how tricky he is.
Keep repeating the mantra: I want what I want, when I want it! I want it! I am entitled to be happy at the expense of others. it’s I….I….Me….Me….Me…. and too bad for everyone else! Self-centeredness at the core, to the core.
Too bad love of others did not win out. So incredibly sad and twisted.
“What is she doing with her hands? “
It looks like the dynasty hand sign, made popular by Jay-Z.
Ed says:
September 21, 2011 at 11:32 am
What is she doing with her hands? Showing us that they’re covered with the blood of innocent children, including the blood of her own child?
(Denise) The sign she’s making with her hands is an internationally recognized sign meaning “women.” It is a triangle because the womb is shaped something like a triangle. Of course, there is irony in making the sign for womb and bragging about having suctioned out its contents.
Perhaps we should remember WHEN Gloria Steinem had her abortion. She was quite young, a waitress in a restaurant and not a professional. She was single and there was still a strong stigma to single motherhood. The term “day care center” didn’t exist and it was extremely difficult to raise a child as a single mother. As for adoption, I have pointed out many problems with it.
Perhaps instead of working for legalized abortion, it would have been better to root out the causes that pregnancy was a source for something other than joy and to give greater assistance to mothers in general.
You can’t go home to hug your abortion. So sad!!! This makes no sense.
The article mentions a group of pro-life students from Princeton protesting the PP fundraiser Steinem was speaking at; here’s an account how things went:
http://phil.studentsforlife.org/2011/09/21/protesting-pp-with-princeton-pro-life/
Re:that article Gloria Steinem being described as “humble?” Very funny.
Oh, ______ please! What about having clean water, food, schooling, and hope for the future! What about having vaccinations and other preventive health care.
This woman makes me ill!
Pointing out problems with adoption? None of the pregnancy options are without problems, but is the best solution really to murder the “problem?”
This mistake of her youth could be forgiven if she would stop advocating for abortion today.
Her hands? It’s the internationals symbol for “I hate my own fertility.” Ironic that when you hold your hands up over your abortion-advocating shirt, it turns the womb upside down. Yep. Very appropriate.
If my child had survived, I might be a grandmother by now. Where are our children, Gloria? Rotting in garbage dumps. That’s your legacy, Gloria, to label our own children ‘medical waste.’
JillR says:
September 21, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Pointing out problems with adoption? None of the pregnancy options are without problems, but is the best solution really to murder the “problem?”
(Denise) The best solution is for females to not get pregnant if they don’t want to get pregnant. Perhaps the best solution for females who do get pregnant and don’t want to be would be to transplant the embryo or fetus into someone else or an artificial womb. That is not yet possible.
As I stated, perhaps it would have been better to work to ensure greater support for mothers.
Problems with adoption are pretty severe. Carla doesn’t want me to specify them but you can find them if you look up “The Forensics of Adoption.”
Also, adoption can’t be done pre-natally (as yet). If the pregnancy itself is perceived as the problem, it is irrelevant. A woman I know who aborted said that under no circumstances would she have completed the pregnancy because it was the conditions associated with pregnancy itself she found intolerable.
Denise Noe,
I told you to STOP posting your rants about adoption and serial killers!!
Baal likes this.
Carla says:
September 21, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Denise Noe,
I told you to STOP posting your rants about adoption and serial killers!!
(Denise) I didn’t rant. I said there are problems with adoption. I told her to look ELSEWHERE to see what those problems are. I didn’t specifically mention anything about what sorts of crimes are linked to adoption. The article discusses several difficulties connected with adoption.
I’m not against adoption. Mothers die in childbirth. They are sentenced to life in prison. They may be psychotic. Their children HAVE to be placed for adoption.
Carla’s not the only one sick of the anti-adoption-because-adoptees-become-bad-people rant. It is a terrible and grave insult to all the people who were raised in adoptive families. Just because someone isn’t an overt abortion advocate doesn’t make them pro-life. When a person advocates against adoption, guess who his allies are?!
@Denise — I’ll admit that my adopted son Isaiah is a pain in the behind sometimes, but I love him dearly, as well as my grandson — he looks just like his father. Raising Isaiah has made me a stronger person in more ways than one. He’s had his share of problems, but he is trying to turn it around. He is working two jobs to support his baby, and he’s even talking about going back to school to get his GED. My point is that while there’s life, there’s always hope.
Yes, adoptive kids do tend to have more emotional and behavioral problems than biological children,it’s a fact. But does that mean they “should” be dead?
Ironic also that her name is GLORIA…which is Latin for “Glory”. Glory belongs to God. There is no “glory” in abortion.
phillymiss says:
September 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm
@Denise — I’ll admit that my adopted son Isaiah is a pain in the behind sometimes, but I love him dearly, as well as my grandson — he looks just like his father. Raising Isaiah has made me a stronger person in more ways than one. He’s had his share of problems, but he is trying to turn it around. He is working two jobs to support his baby, and he’s even talking about going back to school to get his GED. My point is that while there’s life, there’s always hope.
Yes, adoptive kids do tend to have more emotional and behavioral problems than biological children,it’s a fact. But does that mean they “should” be dead?
(Denise) No. It doesn’t mean they should be dead. It MIGHT mean there should be greater efforts to keep babies with their natural mothers and give more help to ensure natural mothers are also adequate mothers. It is also quite possible that open adoptions will help alleviate some of the problems adoptees face.
However, it does seem to me that there must be reasons having a baby and placing it for adoption is the least popular outcome for a problem pregnancy. There are currently an appalling million and a half abortions in this country. Since adoption is available, why is it that a million and a half babies are not placed for adoption each year?
Even when abortion was illegal, females sought abortions or committed suicide when they could have had the babies and placed them for adoption.
Denise,
Given that many serial killers grew up with their biological parents, should we then decree that biological parenting is inadequate as well? Perhaps no one should have children just in case those children grow up to be bad people…?
Do you see where that logic leads?
Planned Parenthood is allowed to go into our schools and offer “sex ed.” Planned Parenthood has become ubiquitous on college campuses.
Planned Parenthood makes only 1 adoption referral for every 660 + abortions they perform (that number has risen: PP makes less adoption referrals today than they did 5 years ago.).
Marketing.
There is no deep seated secret reason: it’s MARKETING. Abortionists PROFIT from abortion. Abortionists do not make money off adoption. Even in Britain, we have learned, abortionists counsel pregnant women to abort, not make adoption arrangements. CPC’s have been trying for years to help women find adoptive families for their children, but in city after city, ABORTION ADVOCATES keep fighting them tooth and nail. As I said, take a careful look at who your allies are.
Cecile Richards doesn’t make $300,000 plus a year by telling women that pregnancy is natural and many families will love their new baby.
And, please learn some history and facts people: When abortion was illegal, the preferred method of getting rid of unwanted babies has been, for thousands of years, INFANTICIDE. Abortions, both chemical and surgical, have only been non-lethal to women in the last century. Please, people, stop drinking Planned Parenthood’s koolaid: Abortion is a MODERN phenomenon. Historically, it did actually used to be RARE. We also know that even in recent history, young women would “visit relatives” in another city and come back 9 months later after the baby had been secretly born and given to an adoptive family.
If certain people like to read, I recommend Bernard Nathanson’s books, especially The Hand of God. In it, he spells out quite well the inflated and simply fictional numbers of women who supposedly got illegal abortions. I’m pretty sick of repeating myself now, so peace out.
I’m an adoptee and would MUCH rather have been aborted. 110 times as much as having been born.
I’m interested in how you came up with 110 times better, myself.
JoAnna says:
September 21, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Denise, Given that many serial killers grew up with their biological parents, should we then decree that biological parenting is inadequate as well? Perhaps no one should have children just in case those children grow up to be bad people…? Do you see where that logic leads?
(Denise) The point is to foster circumstances that are most associated with positive outcomes. I’ve already stated that open adoptions might help alleviate some problems with adoptions and I even favor making “openness” legally enforceable. Adoption is just one factor among many, many factors associated with negative outcomes. Again, I don’t oppose adoption. If the mother dies in childbirth, is sentenced to life imprisonment, or has any sort of problem preventing her from adequately caring for her child, the baby may have to be placed for adoption. Similarly, if a mother gives birth and doesn’t want to raise the child, I support the ability to place for adoption.
Similarly, if a mother gives birth and doesn’t want to raise the child, I support the ability to place for adoption.
If you believe this, then I don’t get why you keep harping on how harmful adoption is. This (and other posts) cause me to question where you’re coming from, Denise.
I have two cousins who are adoptees. If my one cousin hadn’t been adopted, my aunt would only have a stepdaughter.. With her adopted son, she has a daughter in law and someday, they will probably have a grandchild. My cousin and his wife are in the process of adoption.
Please don’t diss adoption. Some couples would never have been able to have a child to bring joy to their lives if it wasn’t for adoption.
People who were adopted:
Melissa Gilbert (Played Laura Ingalls in the Little House on the Prairie TV series)
Babe Ruth (Baseball Player)
Dave Thomas (Founder of Wendy’s Fast Food Restaurant)
Steve Jobs (Formerly of Apple)
Scott Hamilton (Gold medal winning Ice Skater)
Faith Hill (country singer)
Liz, adding to that list: http://www.adoptionopen.com/famousadoptions.html
“I’m interested in how you came up with 110 times better, myself.”
Re-read please: I said “110 times more than being born.”
Jeni,
I am so sorry to read that. :(
You ok?
Could you try that again minus the swearing, Jeni?
Sure. I’d be an ungrateful little WENCH. Better?????????
Kel says:
September 21, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Similarly, if a mother gives birth and doesn’t want to raise the child, I support the ability to place for adoption.
If you believe this, then I don’t get why you keep harping on how harmful adoption is. This (and other posts) cause me to question where you’re coming from, Denise.
(Denise) I just want people to be realistic and understand that certain situations are inherently troubling. They might be more prepared to deal with such situations — or discover ways to avoid them. Again, one might encourage more openness in adoption. Some problems relate directly to the secrecy of the old system and the mystery surrounding the birth mother.
We also might as a society look for more ways to discourage pregnancy among those who are not prepared to become custodial mothers. I said “pregnancy,” not “birth.”
Jeni, are you a troll? Or do you have something useful to contribute to this conversation? You jump in here, guns blazing, snarking away at Carla… whats your beef? You say you wish you were aborted… um. Okay. Care to elaborate?
Denise, I have quite a few friends who were adopted and not one of them has ever been arrested or has any mental issues.
Being adopted sucks. Why is that so difficult to accept?
Jeni – here are some resources you might find helpful: http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=crisis_hotlineinfo
Have you been evaluated for depression or other mental illness by a medical professional? My husband is has bipolar disorder, and finding the right medication made all the difference in the world for him.
Joanna- how would you feel if I asked you if you were mentally ill bc of your stance on pro-lifism?
“The right to choose whether or not to have children is most definitely not a fundamental human right” – you what? Really?
“look for more ways to discourage pregnancy among those who are not prepared to become custodial mothers” – we have, contraception.
Well, Jeni, typically wishing that one was dead or that one had never been born (i.e., aborted) is a possible red flag for depression or mental illness.
Wishing to uphold basic human rights for every human being, from conception to natural death, is not a red flag, so far as I know.
jeni,
I don’t think anyone is calling you mentally ill because of your stance on abortion/adoption.
The way you are presenting yourself shows some signs of serious depression. We care about you, believe it or not.
I’ve suffered from depression for many years. I was never adopted but terrible things are in my past. You don’t have to be adopted to suffer in life. I would encourage you to seek some counseling to help you work through your issues. It’s obvious that you have some resentments/hurts related to your adoption and I am not minimizing that at all. Keeping it all inside and only letting it out to lash out is hurting you. I have been there, full of anger and pain. There is no shame or wrong in seeking help from a licensed counselor who can help you work through your feelings and to begin the healing process.
Perhaps it would do you some good to educate yourselves on adult adoptees. I’m hardly the only one who despises adoption, while at the same time, adores her family. Yes, it’s possible.
Again, Jeni, care to elaborate? All my friends who are adopted are happy they were adopted (their birth parents all had situations or problems that would have prevented them from parenting successfully, my friends feel). I do believe what you say, I’m just asking for your side. Why do you feel different than my adopted friends? What exactly “sucks” about being adopted? I am truly curious because I have never heard an adoptee speak this way. But just saying “It sucks. I wish I was dead (aborted).” doesn’t help me or others understand your point of view in any way.
“The right to choose whether or not to have children is most definitely not a fundamental human right” – you what? Really?
My post was not remotely ambiguous or unclear. Feel free to read it again, though, if you are struggling.
We also might as a society look for more ways to discourage pregnancy among those who are not prepared to become custodial mothers.
I think the best way to do this way is to put all girls starting at age ten on the pill and encourage lesbianism.
I’m joking. I’m joking. Sorry Carla. I just couldn’t resist.
No struggle here Alice.
“The right to choose whether or not to have children is most definitely not a fundamental human right.” – tell that to women who were raped during the war in the former Yugoslavia where the men of one religion raped the women of another in order to impregnate them.
“Everyone has the right to choose against activities that can create a child (like sex, IVF, etc.).” – yes they also have the right to choose for those activities.
“You shouldn’t be forced to do these things.” – certainly not.
“Everyone has the right to try to have children, if that’s what they want. However, someone who is infertile and can not be medically aided does not have their rights violated because they can not have children.” – but they do have a right to IVF.
“Couples who can not create children don’t automatically have a right to one.” – no, but they can use IVF or apply for adoption.
“Heck, couples who can create children don’t automatically have a right to one.” – er, that’s not what you said above.
“All of that aside from the fact that no one has the right to kill a child already living, born or unborn.” – they do have the right to have an abortion.
So so sad to say that I am from NJ, and so so sad to say I lived in Mercer County for the last four years.
Sad that I never crossed paths with this woman, sad that no one is helping her to God’s light.
Pray for her.
The fact that people are wearing those shirts proudly makes me sick.
Pray, pray, pray.
“How can anyone listen to someone who doesn’t even believe in darwins evoloution hahaha hwta an idiot”
I am proud to say that I do not believe it. I believe in God <3
I feel sick everytime I see this picture. :(
I am a pro life believer who also believes in choice…provided that the choice is made before a woman becomes pregnant.
Is one major reason for the high rate of abortion, and many other problems connected with problem pregnancies, that people marry so much later in life than they used to?
“Waiting for marriage” is much more likely to happen if people marry young. I’m not talking about 12-year-olds marrying. Rather, if it were the norm that people married at around 18, would pregnancies be more likely to be accepted by the young pregnant wife?
Pregnancies that have negative outcomes often originate because minor girls are sexually exploited by adult men. Do we need a national campaign to strictly enforce the statutory rape laws? That would protect the minor girls, the society as a whole, and the next generation.
Denise, I recently read an article – I can’t remember where it was but it was in the mainstream press, not a ‘pro’ anything site – saying that the ‘bible belt’ states had higher divorce rates than that of the more ‘liberal’ states.
It was postulated that this was because the age at marriage was younger in the ‘bible belt’ states because the young folk who followed abstinence and such like got married so they could have sex and as they matured they were no longer happy in that marriage.
In the more ‘liberal’ states people married later and were more likely to already be sexually active and may have had medium to long-term non-marital relationships before they got married and were therefore older and more committed to the act of marriage that they chose to undertake.
I cannot vouch for the stats or the theory.
One thing should be mentioned about this photograph: Gloria Steinem was very pretty as a young woman and even now, at her very advanced age, she is a rather attractive person.
It is sad that a woman as talented and intelligent as she is didn’t avoid pregnancy if she wasn’t prepared to carry to term.
Back before Roe v. Wade was a ruling, I saw a debate about abortion on the Virginia Graham Show. People in favor of legalized abortion argued that females would seek abortions whether or not it was legal so we might as well allow them to terminate their pregnancies with the safest possible outcome for themselves. The abortion criminalization advocate said, “It’s not a choice between legal and illegal abortion. There’s adoption.” And then he just left it there as if the outcomes were either abortion or adoption. They’re not.
What he could have added was: “Pregnancy has a powerful influence on a girl or woman’s mental and physical state. Even if she never wanted to be pregnant and even if she wanted desperately to abort but wasn’t able to because it was a crime, she is likely to come to deeply love her child if she had to carry it for a full nine months and give birth to it. After she’s given birth, she may be grateful she was prohibited from aborting because she loves the baby so much and wants to raise the child. However, if she STILL doesn’t want to raise the child after carrying it and give birth, she had the option of placing the baby for adoption.” The truth is that very, very few females are going to carry to term and place for adoption. Even those who plan to relinquish will usually raise the baby if they give birth to the baby.
Hello Praxedes!!
Yeah. Funny. :)
Carla says:
September 22, 2011 at 7:56 am
Hello Praxedes!!
Yeah. Funny. ”
(Denise) Carla, how do YOU believe problem pregnancies can be prevented? Do you support a revival of chaperoned dating? A campaign to thoroughly enforce the statutory rape laws? Research into better contraceptives? Greater social supports for mothers and children? A campaign to encourage marriage?
What?
So, you did have trouble understanding my post, and now you just don’t want to admit it. Fine, I will spell it out for you.
“The right to choose whether or not to have children is most definitely not a fundamental human right.” – tell that to women who were raped during the war in the former Yugoslavia where the men of one religion raped the women of another in order to impregnate them.
That would fall under having the right to choose for or against trying to have children and was definitely a violation of their rights. That is a different thing from actually having a child.
“Everyone has the right to try to have children, if that’s what they want. However, someone who is infertile and can not be medically aided does not have their rights violated because they can not have children.” – but they do have a right to IVF.
No, they don’t. They have a right to use a medical procedure, be it IVF or something else, if they can afford it, and if they can find a doctor in that field willing to help them. If they can’t afford it, or if there isn’t a doctor available, they do not have the right to force the medical system to bend to their whims. And their rights are not violated by their inability to do so. The right to seek out a certain outcome is not equivalent to the right to actually obtain it.
“Couples who can not create children don’t automatically have a right to one.” – no, but they can use IVF or apply for adoption.
Covered in the above response. Applying for adoption does not equate to being approved for adoption, which does not equate to actually adopting. At any point along the chain, the process may end and the couple’s wish to have a child will be denied all without violating their rights.
“Heck, couples who can create children don’t automatically have a right to one.” – er, that’s not what you said above.
No, I didn’t. I said they had the right to try. Even assuming a couple tries to get pregnant, does so, and gives birth, they still might be unable to care for that child, for whatever reason, leading to social services removing the child from their care. That is not a violation of their rights, either. Their desire to raise a child does not extend to them having the right to harm that child just so they can get what they want.
You have the right to try to have children and the right not to have them. Actually having them is a different can of worms because at that point, another human being is involved, and their rights must be considered. Which leads me to…
“All of that aside from the fact that no one has the right to kill a child already living, born or unborn.” – they do have the right to have an abortion.
As is the whole crux of the pro-life movement, no, they do not. No one has the right to harm an innocent child, even one that isn’t born yet, so they can get what they want. And that one, sugar pea, you can take to the bank. Because the pro-life movement is strong and getting stronger and we are sick and tired of seeing people kill children. There will be an end to the death and I’m going to live to see it.
dogma/littlewanderer, stick to one moniker. Your posts were deleted because you chose to disregard the rules of this comment board.
jeni, please seek out some counseling. You are suffering from depression. Your life has value and meaning, regardless of your circumstances.
I know several adopted people who are wonderful, productive members of society. They do not believe adoption sucks, nor do they believe they’d have been better off dead – nor do their families, high school students, customers, or patients.
Since I can only ‘like’ once, let’s hear that again:
Because the pro-life movement is strong and getting stronger and we are sick and tired of seeing people kill children. There will be an end to the death and I’m going to live to see it.
Say it, Alice!!
how do YOU believe problem pregnancies can be prevented?
Denise, To start with you can STOP referring to any pregnancies as a problem but rather state that all pregnancies are blessings!
Positive thinking. Try it. It works.
Praxedes says:
September 22, 2011 at 12:57 pm
how do YOU believe problem pregnancies can be prevented?
Denise, To start with you can STOP referring to any pregnancies as a problem but rather state that all pregnancies are blessings!
Positive thinking. Try it. It works.
(Denise) When I was growing up, my mother said, “So-and-so is pregnant.” The teen girl was a lonely, unattractive foster child. Then my mother said that her foster mother said, “She wishes she’d never taken her in. She’s been such a disappointment.”
I read of a woman in the pre-Roe v. Wade era who sought an illegal abortion. The doctor warned her against the consequences of trying to abort. The next day he read in the newspaper that she had committed suicide.
Another woman in the illegal abortion era had an abortion that caused complications such that when she got to the hospital she began getting bruises all over her body like she was being punched repeatedly from inside. She died in agony. I’ve heard other people indicate of teen daughters that they were “disappointments” because they were pregnant. I have a friend who aborted in the illegal abortion era and says that “nothing” would have stopped her from aborting even if she had gotten killed during it.
I heard of a woman pregnant by a rapist who stabbed herself in the belly with a butcher knife shouting, “I can’t take it anymore!”
All of the above were problem pregnancies.
Even today we read of babies being born in toilets and strangled, babies tossed into dumpsters, babies left by the side of the road.
I wish the above were not true. I wish the only females who got pregnant were those who welcomed pregnancy.
Denise, Why do you keep referring to girls/women as “females”? They are girls or women. Yes…biologically they are “female”, but usually only animals are referred to as females.
Women and girls are not animals.
Pamela says:
September 22, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Denise, Why do you keep referring to girls/women as “females”? They are girls or women. Yes…biologically they are “female”, but usually only animals are referred to as females.
Women and girls are not animals.
(Denise) Brevity. I don’t want to always write “girls and women” so I write “females.”
These pregnancies were not the problem Denise. The problems were the people that belittled the mother. The problem is with society not standing up to bullies. The problem is telling a mother she is a disappointment. The problem is mothers not loving themselves enough to do the right thing. The problem is people not reaching out to those they can see are depressed. The problem is looking at humans as baggage or worse.
The pregnancies (new lives) were the light in all of the darkness, they were not the problems. The problems existed before the pregnancy. Pregnancies can be the solution to problems if you look at it as a gift rather than a negative.
Nice try Alice. But attacking the messenger won’t change the message to what you want it to be.
“That would fall under having the right to choose for or against trying to have children and was definitely a violation of their rights. That is a different thing from actually having a child.” – what a confused statement. Those women were impregnated against their will, forcibly. Are you saying that they don’t have the fundamental human right to choose not to be raped and impregnated which in many cases will lead to them having a child?
“The right to seek out a certain outcome is not equivalent to the right to actually obtain it.” – fair enough, that would be more of a political argument. But they do have the right to IVF if they are able to access it.
“As is the whole crux of the pro-life movement, no, they do not.” – that is simply your opinion. Mine is different. And so is that of most western nations.
“No one has the right to harm an innocent child, even one that isn’t born yet, so they can get what they want.” – ignoring your emotive terms, obviously they do.
“And that one, sugar pea, you can take to the bank.” – I don’t think that would be a very safe or lucrative investment.
“Because the pro-life movement is strong and getting stronger and we are sick and tired of seeing people kill children.” – abortion is here to stay.
“There will be an end to the death and I’m going to live to see it.” – another unwise investment.
Are you saying that they don’t have the fundamental human right to choose not to be raped and impregnated which in many cases will lead to them having a child?
Not only am I not saying that, I never said anything that could be interpreted as implying anything remotely in that ballpark, even if you squint. You are deliberately attempting to find a meaning that not only isn’t in my words, but is the clear opposite of what I said in several cases.
And given that that means you are descending into outright trollery–again–then I’m done engaging with you. Good day, troll.
Trolls, like abortionist liars, love to throw out the rape card.
The fact is: statistically a rape victim is less likely to abort her child than a woman who concieves by having consensual sex. If you are a developing child, you are safer in the womb of a rape victim than in the womb of any consensual-sex-having woman residing in New York City.
Rape victims make up less than 1% of all abortions in the United States. It is still horribly wrong to kill the child for the crimes of the parent but abortion fans don’t much care who or why as long as that baby ends up dead.
The persistence of our abortion-loving trolls is curious, isn’t it? I mean, they’ve got the media, Obama, and others on their side. Hundreds of thousands of human children are murdered in our country alone every single year and yet, the blood is not sufficient for them. They feel an uncontrollable need to keep harping on how great it is to kill the smallest and weakest among us. Methinks the troll doth protest too much. They are working hard to keep themselves convinced.
You are utterly and completely off point ninek. Your little rant has nothing to do with the aspect being discussed.
Alice said “The right to choose whether or not to have children is most definitely not a fundamental human right.” and I used the point of purposeful rape in war as an illustration of the trampling of someone’s fundamental human right to not be raped and intentionally impregnated.
I did not even mention abortion in this context.
Men don’t have the right to choose whether or not to have children. They are completely dependent on the choices girls and women make as to whether or to carry to term.
Agreed!
See? I rest my case.
Neither do church leaders or politicians.
Ninek: The fact is: statistically a rape victim is less likely to abort her child than a woman who conceives by having consensual sex.
Really? Aside from it being farfetched to call it a “child,” I would not have thought that.
Doug says:
September 24, 2011 at 8:20 am
Ninek: The fact is: statistically a rape victim is less likely to abort her child than a woman who conceives by having consensual sex. Really? Aside from it being farfetched to call it a “child,” I would not have thought that.
(Denise) Rape can happen to anyone and everyone. It might be because it strikes such a complete cross-section of the population — including those who are most strongly opposed to abortion — that females pregnant by rape are less likely to abort. Those who get pregnant through voluntary sexual activity may be more liberal in their attitudes and therefore more open to abortion.
Denise: Rape can happen to anyone and everyone. It might be because it strikes such a complete cross-section of the population — including those who are most strongly opposed to abortion — that females pregnant by rape are less likely to abort. Those who get pregnant through voluntary sexual activity may be more liberal in their attitudes and therefore more open to abortion.
Hmm… I am really wondering about this. Something is still not adding up.
Granted that it’s a cross-section of women. Granted that many pro-lifers would not have an abortion, anyway, but I still cannot believe that the average pro-lifer isn’t more likely to have an abortion if raped than if the sex was consensual, and the same for pro-choicers – a higher percentage of them would be having abortions anyway if the sex was consensual, but case-by-case it’s hard to believe that rape would not increase the percentages having abortions.
You might be interested in a heterosexually active woman who did NOT have an abortion: Jayne Mansfield. The sex goddess of the 1950s and 1960s opposed abortion.
She has it wrong. A woman needs Planned Parenthood like a fish needs a bicycle.
Navi, you win the thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!