Pro-life news brief 3-13-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- In his Best of the Web column from yesterday, James Taranto hits on a number of issues related to abortion, out-of-wedlock births and sex-ratios as he comments on New York City’s new campaign to stigmatize teen births – Planned Parenthood’s response:
Planned Parenthood may describe itself as a “health organization,” but in reality it is an ideological outfit. It is committed to the idea of “reproductive rights” that belong only to women. In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, for instance, the group persuaded the Supreme Court that a married woman has a constitutional right to abort her husband’s child without telling him.If men have no reproductive rights, it follows logically that they have no reproductive responsibilities….
The contemporary problem of illegitimacy, then, is largely the consequence of Planned Parenthood’s ideology of female “reproductive rights” and the technology that made it feasible. Planned Parenthood’s hostility toward any effort to tackle, or even acknowledge, the problem is anything but coincidental….
The “98%” poster alludes to that life script and makes the dubious supposition that following it – at least if one leaves out college – is realistic for all women. But an important reason women bear children out of wedlock is because they don’t expect to find husbands.
- Intersections South LA has an article about sidewalk counselors and abortion clinic escorts at one South LA abortion clinic:
On one side, a group of people kneel on a broken sidewalk, sliding rosary beads through their fingers as they call for divine action. And across the sidewalk, another group stands silently; dressed in bright orange vests and black sunglasses. They escort patients into the clinic. Both sides stay on their sides without budging an inch, unless someone tests the boundaries. - An unlicensed pharmacy in Bangkok has been shut down for illegally distributing abortion drugs:
“One of our officers who is three months pregnant entered the store and asked to buy abortion pills. The pharmacist gave her the pills and charged her 16,000 baht,” Ministry of Health legal officer Chatree Pinyai explained.
[Photo via Intersections South LA]
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.
Congratulations to my Catholic friends on the election of your new Pope Francis. I am glad he named himself after St. Francis of Assisi, who loved animals and people. He seems strongly prolife and a good and honorable man. This (lapsed) Baptist will be praying for him!
“But an important reason women bear children out of wedlock is because they don’t expect to find husbands.”
.
This is so true. It is also a sort of self fulfilling situation. A woman who has had many sexual partners and is older and “ready” to marry is also less desirable because she is older and has had so many sexual partners. So, by the time she is ready to settle down with a nice guy, no nice guy wants her. Women often don’t realize this till it is too late. They were told how fun it was going to be to have lots of partners. Instead they just got their hearts broken, or worse. By they time they realize this, a lot of the nice guys are already taken.
I don’t consider someone who turns their nose up at a possible partner because mistakes in the past, “too many partners” or whatever, a “nice” guy or girl. I get people not wanting to marry an older woman if they are set on having kids, but I’ll never get the attitude that someone is spoiled by having too much sex. And men do seem to be more judgmental towards women on this than women are to men.
Jack, people choose those that appeal to them. Any individual is justified in having whatever criteria for a mate that they want to have. None of us can tell someone else whom they should find attractive. If men prefer to marry younger women who have had few or no partners, they are totally justified in doing so. Shall we start shaming women because they won’t consider men for mates who have been in prison or are long term unemployed, or fat, or cranky, or whatever? Seriously, you can’t tell people what they should find attractive.
There is no way to make yourself find someone attractive if they aren’t attractive to you.
“I don’t consider someone who turns their nose up at a possible partner because mistakes in the past, “too many partners” or whatever, a “nice” guy…”
.
Okay, but plenty of women who would like to marry do consider those people “nice” but the feeling is not reciprocated. She wants him to marry her, be he doesn’t want to.
I don’t consider someone who turns their nose up at a possible partner because mistakes in the past, “too many partners” or whatever, a “nice” guy or girl.
Well-said, Jack.
Well said, hippie. ;)
”
Jack, people choose those that appeal to them. Any individual is justified in having whatever criteria for a mate that they want to have. None of us can tell someone else whom they should find attractive. If men prefer to marry younger women who have had few or no partners, they are totally justified in doing so. Shall we start shaming women because they won’t consider men for mates who have been in prison or are long term unemployed, or fat, or cranky, or whatever? Seriously, you can’t tell people what they should find attractive.
There is no way to make yourself find someone attractive if they aren’t attractive to you. ”
Okay then people need to stop saying you can choose to be/not to be gay, for one.
And honestly I think there’s a difference between just not being attracted to someone and judging them based on decisions you don’t agree with. If you genuinely like someone and want to be with them, then found out when they were young they had twenty partners or something and you decide that she’s just not good enough for you, I think that’s more just bias than attraction. And plus I think a lot of these men just seem to be huge hypocrites, the ones I know have had multiple partners themselves, but seem to think they “deserve” a virgin. And I also thought that people deserve a second change, especially with religion.
Of course, I’m probably just butthurt because someone told me recently that she considers men who are divorced damaged goods and not date-worthy. I was like “Awwwwwww!” :( I think it’s overly limiting to disregard people because they made mistakes.
I don’t think women should be able to kill unwanted babies and I don’t believe fathers should be able to disown unwanted babies. But the way things are now; out of fairness I would have to agree that until things change; men should bear no legal financial responsibility for the child unless the woman is willing to give him equal rights to decide the child’s destiny. As long as a mother can abort the father’s wanted child then the man should be able to legally disown the mother’s wanted child.
” As long as a mother can abort the father’s wanted child then the man should be able to legally disown the mother’s wanted child.”
Let me clarify. I am not pro giving father’s the legal right to abandon their unwanted unborn children; but as long as a mother can abort the father’s wanted child then it would be logical legally that a father should be able to legally rid himself of the mother’s wanted unborn child.
I think things are plenty bad enough with only one sex having access to abortion on demand.
truthseeker
That totally makes sense! As long as abortion is legal, children who are born should live in poverty. I think the GOP already got that memo…
Navi
Men can get abortions too, as long as they’re pregnant.
That totally makes sense! As long as abortion is legal, children who are born should live in poverty. I think the GOP already got that memo…
I’m sorry, but being born and living in poverty is worse than being killed and disposed of as medical waste…how…exactly? Not that living with a single mother is a guarantee that one will live in poverty, of course.
Men can get abortions, too, as long as they’re pregnant.
So…never. Gotcha. Men are ALWAYS on the hook for the whims of their female sexual partners, whether that be providing for a child they never wanted, or being forced to sit back and look on in horror as their child is killed should the mother of their child so choose. Because “equality”.
If a man does not want to be on the hook for the woman’s wanted child, he can voluntarily terminate his parental rights in front of a judge. He will sever everything including having a say in his child’s upbringing, visitation, financial support, and raising the child should the mother pass away.
“If a man does not want to be on the hook for the woman’s wanted child, he can voluntarily terminate his parental rights in front of a judge. He will sever everything including having a say in his child’s upbringing, visitation, financial support, and raising the child should the mother pass away.”
Completely severing parental rights is much, much harder than you are making it sound. A lot of judges won’t grant it, and most of the time the guy is still gonna be on the hook for child support.
@Joanne, severing parental rights not only doesn’t work that way, you don’t just go before a judge and make a declaration, but it also has almost nothing to do with financial support. Courts will, can, and frequently do require child support from fathers whose parental rights were/are terminated. Even sperm donors have been held accountable for child support! And not just in one quack court, but repeatedly in several states. Men have *no* option to not support a child he doesn’t want if the woman wants support from him. If he simply refuses to pay despite court order he may slip by for awhile, but can be sued for back payment, have his wages garnished, even sent to prision even years after the kid has turned 18!