Their 2-front war

While pro-lifers debate whether the 2008 SD ballot initiative banning almost all abortions and the CO initiative declaring personhood from the moment of fertilization are good ideas, here is a thought from the other side. Quoting from the Communist publication Workers World, June 6:

overwhelmed 2.jpg

"These situations like South Dakota and Colorado are going to keep playing out all over the country. They are very difficult to fight on a state by state basis, especially when leaders for reproductive rights are entangled in the electoral process, believing that somehow Democrats are going to protect women's rights." ~ Debbie Johnson of the Detroit Action Network For Reproductive Rights...

Debbie is embroiled in her own fight in MI, where on May 27 her Democrat-controlled House betrayed her and passed a state partial birth abortion ban, which the Republican-controlled Senate passed earlier this year.

Democrat Pro-abort Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to veto the ban, as she did in 2003, which a citizen petition drive is expected to override, which it also did in 2003.

Pro-lifers must always bear in mind the concept of war. The reasons we introduce legislation and initiatives are many, aside from the obvious. One is to drain the enemy's resources. Another is to give them a sense of being overwhelmed.


Comments:

Too bad our enemies' resources come in
large measure from our own pockets!

Posted by: lesforlife at June 9, 2008 8:19 AM


Jill is correct about the many ways to fight a war. Another aspect of this war is the need to keep the subject of abortion before the public (for which, of course we get absolutely no help from the mass media). Whenever that subject is discussed openly, we always win.

Posted by: Doyle at June 9, 2008 8:46 AM


Doyle: I completely agree. I read an article yesterday from the UK Telegraph which I can't seem to find this morning but it was discussing the 4 different limits on lowering the age restriction for abortion in the UK from 24 weeks to 22, 20, 16 or 12 weeks.
The writer went on to discuss how difficult it was to ban slavery in the UK and how this person (Tunnicliffe?) succeeded. He had meetings and talked to the people about what was involved in slavery. As people became aware of the conditions and the plight of slaves they rallied to his cause.
My one concern though with this analogy is that abortion is a much more personal issue. It was recently released that 1300 women in the UK have had FIVE or more abortions.

The interesting thing about the UK is that many proaborts are fighting to lower the limit on abortions.
see this article below by a apostate Catholic doctor who performs abortion:
note to SoMG, he makes many of the arguments I've made to you about semantics:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1976846/Why-this-abortion-doctor-wants-to-see-time-limits-reduced-to-16-weeks.html

We should pray for this man. St Vincent pray for us!

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 9:17 AM


Whenever that subject is discussed openly, we always win.
Posted by: Doyle at June 9, 2008 8:46 AM

what "wins" are you referring to?

Posted by: Hal at June 9, 2008 9:33 AM


For those who may be interested:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1473767/%27There-is-a-loophole-in-the-law-...-we-just-say-there-was-a-gynaecological-emergency%27.html?pageNum=1

Please read all three pages. She's one brave lady going into the pit of hell with her unborn child.

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 9:42 AM



The Colorado taxpayers may be very interested in your quote, suggesting that the purpose of the Personhood Amendment is to "drain the enemy's resources" and "overwhelm" them, by causing taxpayers to have to spend tens of millions of dollars to pay for a futile defense of this unconstiutional amendment.

Sounds like a terrorist threat to me.

Posted by: Bystander at June 9, 2008 10:03 AM


and you don't think the proabort movement hasn't behaved like terrorists, Bystander?
the purpose of terrorism is to instill fear - this is exactly what the proaborts do:
fear of the baby, fear of pregnancy, fear of birth, fear of living with a handicap child, fear of loss of freedom, fear of responsibility, fear of fathers, fear of loss of bodily autonomy, fear of accountability.....

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 10:11 AM


Patricia, 10:11 right on.
By the way, what an interesting article you linked to. I will send it directly to Jill..maybe she'll do a story on it.

Posted by: Bethany at June 9, 2008 10:16 AM


And let's remember this:

Peace is not achieved through compromise but only through total defeat of the enemy.

Patricia:

One Being that pro-aborts don't fear which is a huge mistake: God Almighty.

Hal:

What is a win? A win is guaranteeing the right to life to every human being no matter what stage of developement they are in.

Posted by: HisMan at June 9, 2008 10:16 AM


and you don't think the proabort movement hasn't behaved like terrorists, Bystander?
the purpose of terrorism is to instill fear - this is exactly what the proaborts do:
fear of the baby, fear of pregnancy, fear of birth, fear of living with a handicap child, fear of loss of freedom, fear of responsibility, fear of fathers, fear of loss of bodily autonomy, fear of accountability.....

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 10:11 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FEAR?

I don't "fear" babies any more than I fear anchovies - I just prefer not to have any.

I do, however, own a small flock of emus.
Sure, they're aggressive, foul-smelling and crap all over the place, but I think they're hilarious.

How many emus do you own? None?

YOU MUST FEAR THE EMUS AND THE ADULT RESPONSIBILITIES OF EMU OWNERSHIP!
YOU HAVE CLEARLY BEEM BRAINWASHED AND TERRORIZED BY THE ANTI-EMU JIHADISTS AND THEIR ANTI-EMU FATWA!

Posted by: Laura at June 9, 2008 10:22 AM


Some people are framing this as a physical war (come'on Bystander - inferring pro-life advocates are terrorists?!) - when it's actually spiritual. That's not to say that the violence and victims aren't real, millions are killed, millions of others live as walking wounded.

As in all wars, there's pain - however, the roots of abortion come from situations which are unplanned/unwanted. The spiritual aspect of that is the linkage between what's desired - consequence-free sex, and the natural result of sex - pregnancy. It's a battle between selfish now, and future generations.

The issue is the lie that abortion is consequence-free and exploiting such situations to provide both profit and political power.

In short, abortion says we hate our children - we fight them.

Many are beginning to wake up to that. Wars of attrition can't last forever, no matter how profitable financially or politically.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 10:31 AM


In short, abortion says we hate our children - we fight them.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 10:31 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, the majority of Americans - the ones who support reproductive rights - and 40% of all American women - the ones who access abortion services - ALL hate children?

Gee, you'd think the horizon would be littered with their little corpses, yet my hometown is spending tens of millions on new Elementary, Middle and High Schools.

Posted by: Laura at June 9, 2008 10:38 AM


Thanks for the stupid analogy Laura. I'm not surprised you have an emu actually considering your description of them:

"Sure, they're aggressive, foul-smelling and crap all over the place, but I think they're hilarious."

hmmmm, Laura and emu's.....


Chris: it IS most definitely a spiritual battle but as usual it is fought on two levels!

I think what abortion says is that we consider our children to be an obstacle to our convenient lifestyle lived without repercussions and responsibility, and to our ever important self-fulfillment. We live in a culture devoid of hope, in past expressed through the birth of the next generation.
We see the baby as the problem, but in reality it is the sex that is the problem.

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 10:57 AM


Patricia, Chris, HisMan, thank you for further insight into the mind of the fanatic.

Yes, Patrica, since "sex is the problem", once everyone becomes celibate, things will be great...

Posted by: Bystander at June 9, 2008 11:01 AM


Hal asks: "what "wins" are you referring to?"

Every time someone's eyes are opened to the true horror of elective abortion (because it's in the media), it's a small victory for our side, Hal. Eventually, our side will outnumber your side so much that laws will be changed, and judges will be appointed to reflect our views, not yours.

Tragically, however, many millions more babies will die before that happens.

Posted by: Doyle at June 9, 2008 11:03 AM


Yes Laura, we as a nation hate our children. How many post-abortive mothers ever tell their full-term children "I aborted your brother or sister?" Most can't even admit it to themselves.

When ripping apart children is nonchalantly discussed within the halls of our Supreme Court, is there any other word to use but hate?

You're dressing up your arguments, just like post-abortive mothers dress up their full-term children in guilt clothing because they know what they've done.

It's war because the unborn are the enemies of personal choice when it comes to sex.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 11:05 AM


Yes, Patrica, since "sex is the problem", once everyone becomes celibate, things will be great...

Posted by: Bystander at June 9, 2008 11:01 AM

Once again, you are the extremeist. I never stated that everyone should become celibate. That was YOUR interpretation.

1. sex has as it's primary function the creation of new life. It is the way we reproduce ourselves.
2. if the above is true, then a couple having sex should be aware that this is a likely possibility of engaging in such an activity. No act is without it's consequence.If they are using BC, then there are always going to be some babies created since no method is 100 percent effective.
3. therefore, if you have sex it JUST might mean you will make a baby.
4. If you are a mature, responsible adult, you take responsibility for the consequences of your actions. In this case it means you grow and have the baby,accepting the fact that this is the consequence of your having sex.

Proaborts do not reason like this.
Instead they insist that sex does not make babies. Or maybe I should say that sex WILL not make babies.
Then they insist that the baby is not really a baby. Instead, it is "a clump of cells", or it is not viable or not "sentient" or whatever else they can think up on that particular day.

Then they further insist that their action of having sex and not really being in a situation to accept and be open to a baby, is not the problem, rather the baby IS the problem
Hence, they must destroy the baby and this makes their action of having sex, not have any consequences.

Baby=problem

If you don't want a baby, or can't accept the possibility of new life resulting from sex
DONT HAVE SEX.
What a novel idea!

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 11:14 AM


Hey Chris,
Here! Over here! *waving frantically*

There are many, many women like me that have repented our abortions and accepted the forgiveness of Our Savior. We tell our children what we have done, we bring our stories to many and we stand together.

Post abortive women need our prayers to step into the light.

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 11:26 AM


You're dressing up your arguments, just like post-abortive mothers dress up their full-term children in guilt clothing because they know what they've done.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 11:05 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, the best-dressed babies always seen to be the children of gay male couples. (Probably the guilt over their multitude of abortions...)

Posted by: Laura at June 9, 2008 11:32 AM


Carla,

I read your "Being Real" series a few weeks ago. Brought me to tears, very powerful. I know your little one is praying for you and all post abortive women. God love you, Carla.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 9, 2008 11:34 AM


Carla @ 11:26 AM

Yes - God bless you Carla, as well as all the many other women out there who have had painful experiences, but have had the courage to come forward, to speak out against this war.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 11:37 AM


"I think what abortion says is that we consider our children to be an obstacle to our convenient lifestyle lived without repercussions and responsibility, and to our ever important self-fulfillment."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funny, I've never had an abortion, yet I still consider children to be an obstacle to my convenient lifestyle.
Perhaps the two are unrelated.


"We see the baby as the problem, but in reality it is the sex that is the problem."

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 10:57 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funny, I have sex all the time.
Apparently that's YOUR problem.

Posted by: Laura at June 9, 2008 11:39 AM


Laura @ 11:32 AM

Laura - you're beginning to make my argument that children are a social adornment and not wanted specifically for the gift they are.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 11:41 AM


Thanks guys!! :) So glad you are here!

The battle rages but it belongs to the Lord. We know how it ends.

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 11:41 AM


Carla: what is your Being Real series that Mr. "Pickle" Bambino is referring to?

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 11:44 AM


Hi Patricia,
I posted my abortion story on my blog. It's in the right side bar called Being Real. :)

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 11:46 AM


Funny, I have sex all the time.
Apparently that's YOUR problem.

Posted by: Laura at June 9, 2008 11:39 AM

What with emu's? If it's with emu, yes, I do!

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 11:47 AM


Laura @ 11:32 AM

Laura - you're beginning to make my argument that children are a treated as a social adornment and not specifically wanted as the gift they are.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 11:51 AM


THanks Carla. I will check it out. God bless.

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 11:54 AM


"... Mr. "Pickle" Bambino..."

LOL, Patricia, although I'm not the one who cries when pickles are taken away from me...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 9, 2008 11:58 AM


and you don't think the proabort movement hasn't behaved like terrorists, Bystander?

Hahaha. Get back to me when workers from CPCs start wearing bulletproof vests to their job. THEN we'll talk about terrorism.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 12:31 PM


LOL, Patricia, although I'm not the one who cries when pickles are taken away from me...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 9, 2008 11:58 AM

How do I KNOW? How do I know you didn't take the pickle away and EAT it yourself.

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 12:34 PM


How many post-abortive mothers ever tell their full-term children "I aborted your brother or sister?"

Chris,

Mine did. She was 21 at the time and in an abusive relationship. If she'd stayed with that guy and had the kid, she never would have gotten the job where she met my dad, and me and my four brothers never would have been born.

Yeah, it's easy to talk about how many kids will never get to live because of abortion. But remember, there will always be children who exist BECAUSE their mothers had aborted other children.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 12:35 PM


Edyt @ 12:35 PM

Did she tell you recently (as an adult?)

So apparently you see yourself as the beneficiary of your siblings death. Is that a fair assessment?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 12:51 PM


Chris,

No, I've known since I was about 12 or maybe a bit younger.

Beneficiary? Not necessarily.

I'm as much of a beneficiary to abortion as any other kid is to a miscarriage or contraceptive use. What happened, happened.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 1:02 PM


Edyt @ 1:02 PM

Miscarriage and contraceptive use is not the same thing as abortion. Going back to your mom's reasons - she apparently regretted being with that man because of the abuse. Did she ever talk with you about how she would do things differently or such?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 9, 2008 1:16 PM


Edyt,

Correct me if I'm wrong...your mom is an active catholic? How does she feel about her abortion today?

Posted by: carder at June 9, 2008 1:17 PM


I'm sorry that you lost a sibling to abortion, Edyt.

Have you ever wondered about what he/she might have been like?

And when you first heard about your mother's abortion, how did you feel?

Posted by: Bethany at June 9, 2008 1:28 PM


Chris,

Yes, she regretted being with that man, and I think for some time she regretted having an abortion. If she were to do things differently, I have no doubt that she wouldn't have stayed with him. :)

I think she would have still had an abortion. She's quite a happy person today.

Miscarriage and contraceptive use is not the same thing as abortion.

In the case of being a "beneficiary" as you put it, yes, it is. Many couples, if they had not used contraceptives, would have different children today. If they had not miscarried, they would have different children. The context is the same - a life event led to either the life or death of one child over another. And it happens all the time.

Carder,

No, my mother is not Catholic. My father was raised Catholic, but converted when he married my mother. Or that's what he says. But I have some... knowledge... of his college days and I don't think he was a practicing Catholic then, either. ;)

Bethany,

Actually, sometimes I have wondered.

When I first heard about it, I was pro-life, and I thought my mother was a horrible person. But the older I get, the more her decision makes sense to me, and I'm happy that she has the life she has. She is, by her beliefs, blessed. And I'm happy for her. My father is a great, intelligent, wonderful man, and I'm happy that she is with him today. He has stood by her through terrible circumstances, and I think she's very fortunate to have her life turn out the way it did.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 2:08 PM


Edyt, I am happy to hear that your mother found a better man. He sounds like a good guy. I hope that she has found healing since her abortion and the abusive situation she was in.

Posted by: Bethany at June 9, 2008 2:23 PM


Well, it's been over ... what, 30 years? 40 years? She believes God has a plan for her life, and that comforts her.

(It's not my fault I don't know how old my mother is. She always lies and says she's 29)

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 2:35 PM


Hold the phone.....Edyt....you WERE prolife? Did I miss that somewhere?

Do tell.

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 3:34 PM


Patricia,

That was a very interesting article that you posted earlier in this thread! Brave lady indeed! I don't think I could even do that!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 4:30 PM


Hi ElizabethGabriella'sMomma!!!

I just love that picture of the little baby feet. Sooooooo adorable!

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 4:34 PM


Carla,

Yeah, I was pro-life. Then I learned about the concept of reality, put myself in other people's shoes, educated myself on a bit of our country's history and realized that I care much more for women's health than I do about unborn children.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 4:40 PM


Honestly, it's probably better to say I was passively pro-life in that I followed along with what everyone told me to believe rather than actually thinking it through on my own. Once I started dissecting the issue, it was fairly easy for me to take the pro-choice side.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 4:42 PM


Thanks Edyt. So prolifers have no concept of reality?? Never mind. I am not in the mood to play.

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 4:47 PM


I care about women's health.
I care about unborn babies too. :)

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 4:50 PM


Lol. Thanks for asking. ;)

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 4:53 PM


Patricia,

That was a very interesting article that you posted earlier in this thread! Brave lady indeed! I don't think I could even do that!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 4:30 PM


Thank you Elizabeth with the cutie!


Yeah, I was pro-life. Then I learned about the concept of reality, put myself in other people's shoes, educated myself on a bit of our country's history and realized that I care much more for women's health than I do about unborn children.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 4:40 PM

What reality Edyt. Abortion = dead baby. That's the reality.

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 8:30 PM


reality? I think it's more like psyching yourself up to fail, and making yourself believe a bunch of crap, like you can't work/educate yourself/follow your goals/get out of a bad relationship/etc., if you have a kid. And it's a bunch of bull. Abortion is a placebo, a line that women are fed by an industry that wants their money, by lovers that are afraid of committing to their relationship or don't care to and just want to continue using them, families that feel as though they failed their children and might've, and want to hide their guilt about something they feel is shameful. None of these are good reasons to kill a child. A woman who has killed her child is no better, no smarter, no more capable of success in this life than a mother who hasn't.

I've been there. I have. I have everything I would've had if I had opted to kill my daughter, except the blood on my hands.

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 8:37 PM


I like you xalisae!! :)

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 8:41 PM


Thanks. You're not so bad yourself. :P

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 9:10 PM


X,

I've been there. I have. I have everything I would've had if I had opted to kill my daughter, except the blood on my hands.


Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 9:25 PM


Uhh, xalisae, the "reality" I spoke of was of women dying. Women attempting abortions no matter how illegal it was. Women going to voodoo doctors and taking poisons and committing suicide. A reality you can still see today in countries where abortion is illegal. On top of that, you can also see women in prisons for attempting to kill their children and surviving. Others, not so lucky.

So my priorities are on ensuring women receive adequate medical care. I do not believe abortion is a "solution" to every problem, nor that women who have abortions are necessarily better off because of them. But I do not believe in eradicating the right to choose in light of the very obvious evidence that it is more dangerous for women.

And I do not think it a coincidence that the right has aligned itself with abortion. What better way to keep women from positions of power than to force her to bear children? Contrary to what you believe, there is a lot of workforce discrimination against working mothers.

Worse than that, the Republicans you align yourself with, particularly the pro-life ones, consistently vote against measures that would help children.

So yeah, I may not care if people abort unborn children, but then again, I actually think my politicians are working for better opportunities for both children and their mothers.

Your party is working to ensure that women are always working too hard and having babies to have any power whatsoever. It's maddening.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 9:35 PM


Edyt,

I answered you on the Obscene post...

It's funny, because not 10 minutes ago, I got this email from Rosie...coincidence? I'm not sure...

Contrary to the accusations made that defenders of life are agenda driven and un-scientific, abortion advocates are producing evidence that these accusations actually apply to them.

Fr. Thomas Euteneuer reports on evidence from Nicaragua showing the exact opposite of one of the favorite claims abortion proponents use to justify legalizing abortion. They always focus on the claim that women are dying from illegal abortion. If only it was legal, these women would not be dying. There has never been any evidence to support this claim.
*
Now there is more clear evidence to show that the reverse is true. There are less women dying when abortion is illegal. A recent publication by Nicaragua's Ministry of Health noted that the overall maternal mortality rate decreased by 58% in the year since abortion has been made totally illegal. There were 21 maternal deaths for 2007 compared to 50 maternal deaths the year before.
*
Those are the results after just one year. What happens after a number of years? Well, Poland restricted abortion in 1993 and has seen a phenomenal increase in maternal well-being ever since. Maternal mortality, recorded at 15.2 per 100,000 live births in 1990, dropped to 7.3 per 100,000 by 1999.
*
Going for the long-term case, abortion-free Ireland has the lowest rate of maternal deaths in the world, so abortion advocates were never able to use the maternal death argument there. Ireland experienced only 5 deaths for every 100,000 births, according to 2005 data compiled by the UN Population Division.
*
These statistics totally contradict the favorite argument for legalization of abortion, that legal abortion will reduce maternal mortality. It seems that abortion advocates have no problem denying reality to push their abortion agenda.

I can't verify where those statistics came from, but it was odd that I had just finished reading it, then read your post...

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 9:49 PM


Yes, and everything you've stated are just the products of weak women, willing to buy the lies, and just as terrible to me as a woman getting a "safe, legal" abortion. Just because a woman falls into some kind of delusional psychosis in which she thinks for whatever reason any of the things you mentioned are actually reasonable options and does something terrible does not mean we should just say "Oh, Okay. Go ahead." to a different terrible act. Seeing someone intentionally try to run over a child with their car because they are convinced it will somehow make their life better even though they may crash that car and die in the process doesn't mean we should give that person permission to take the child inside the car and strangle it instead.

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 10:16 PM


And, this isn't feudal times. I guess courage and conviction enough to stand up and do what one must for themselves and others is just more rare these days than I thought, but I've left jobs that were dangerous/not right for me/not compatible with my family life before. Nobody MAKES you work anywhere, and this is not indentured servitude. But I've found that if I do a good job, don't complain, and don't bring my personal life to the office, I don't have problems at work, and that's been with and without kids. Just because some bad workers use kids as an excuse, and suffer the consequences for doing so, is DEFINITELY NOT a reason to kill babies. Forgive me for failing to see this as a justification.

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 10:28 PM


Should certain things be done differently for the benefit of citizens, be they adult or child? Sure they could and perhaps should in most cases, but I don't think that's the government's job. Make it easier to form non-profits to help other people, give more incentives for people to donate to existing ones, but keep the government out of it. Also, in the future, try not to cite an organization so terrible at hiding their agenda. One does not talk about how "non-partisan" they are and then burst into leftist talking points ("evil guns are killing kids!") without blowing their cover. How about prosecuting people who commit violent crimes against children more fervently instead of blaming guns? Oh, that's right, because lefties don't believe in enforcing laws. Just ask your local democrat-appointed activist judge.

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 10:41 PM


Should certain things be done differently for the benefit of citizens, be they adult or child? Sure they could and perhaps should in most cases, but I don't think that's the government's job. Make it easier to form non-profits to help other people, give more incentives for people to donate to existing ones, but keep the government out of it. Also, in the future, try not to cite an organization so terrible at hiding their agenda. One does not talk about how "non-partisan" they are and then burst into leftist talking points ("evil guns are killing kids!") without blowing their cover. How about prosecuting people who commit violent crimes against children more fervently instead of blaming guns? Oh, that's right, because lefties don't believe in enforcing laws. Just ask your local democrat-appointed activist judge.

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 10:43 PM


X,

I love you. You are one smart and honest cookie. :)

What better way to keep women from positions of power than to force her to bear children?

Paranoid much, Edyt? WHO exactly is forcing women to have sex and bear children they don't want? Ohhh, right, it's a conspiracy for those rich, powerful men to keep women in the house where they belong. You hear that ladies, REPUBLICANS are making you have sex that leads to babies JUST so you can keep your rightful place in the kitchen. PLEASE! I, for one, would loooooove for more women to take their lives seriously and not have sex so they don't have to bear children they don't want. However, this is not the case. People think they can have everything, do everything, and NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH ANYTHING. Get over it. Life doesn't work that way. If you want something, go get it and pursue your dreams, but DON'T do it by climbing over your dead children. It's people on your side selling women a bag of goods that keep them down. See how your side did Hilary? YEAH, they're REALLY the ones trying to lift women up to positions of power. Mhmmmm surrrre.


End rant. I'll be stepping off the soapbox now.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 10:56 PM


Yes, because children keep us women down. It's a right-wing conspiracy with toddlers. I've completed more formal education thus far (between pregnancies, of course, since we of the fairer sex have to remove our brains to be able to successfully carry to term)
than has my husband, and the lion's share of what I've completed was done while he and I were separated. If I had a nickel for every time I tried to post on a Fred Thompson website back when he was running and I was active in his campaign and they all just said "Stupid chick, politics is for men! Now either spit out another baby or get in the kitchen and make us sammiches!", I'd be a rich woman. Oh, wait, no I wouldn't. I'm a Republican, and I forgot that the charter clearly states we are to hand any and all daily earnings over to our husbands at the end of the day when we bring him his slippers.

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 11:03 PM


sorry for the double post. my phone browser is wacky sometimes.

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 11:08 PM


Well, I'm lucky X, I don't have a husband, so can I keep mine? I do have brothers, though, should I hand it over to them?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 11:09 PM


*reads the fine print* oh, yeah, it says here, "...husband or closest male relative." Good thing I'm not pregnant and I only have two kids, or I might not have been able to read that! ;P

Posted by: xalisae at June 9, 2008 11:16 PM


xalisae, it is wonderful having you here. Great posts!!

Posted by: Bethany at June 10, 2008 7:04 AM


Uhh, xalisae, the "reality" I spoke of was of women dying. Women attempting abortions no matter how illegal it was. Women going to voodoo doctors and taking poisons and committing suicide. A reality you can still see today in countries where abortion is illegal.

Um, this still happens today in America, where abortion is very much legal.

It also still happens in Britain, where abortion has been legal for 40 years.

Seems making it legal really didn't help matters in that area.

Posted by: Bethany at June 10, 2008 8:33 AM


okay, x, I'll keep you.

I'll just try to stay off the Birth control and religion subject with you and I think we'll get along just fine.

And, curiously, how DO you pronounce your name? za-lis-lay?

Posted by: carder at June 10, 2008 12:21 PM


Yep, that's how I've always said it. :D


I'm kind of weird in a few ways, and there's probably more deviation than just those two things, but overall, I really am rather conservative. Like, I believe in a traditional, life-long, closed marriage between two people-but I think those two people could be anyone.

Posted by: xalisae at June 10, 2008 1:10 PM


Hi Bethany.

Neither of those address prevalence. About 68,000 women around the world die every year from botched abortions, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal. 27 women die every day from botched abortions in Nigeria, while in Latin America that number is about 14 a day.

Admittedly, we have good health care here, but if abortion is made illegal, are you comfortable with even 5 or 10 women dying every day from botched abortions? 2,000 women every year?

I think there ARE good ways to reduce abortion around the country and we haven't really employed them. One way would be to provide counseling for ALL women before they have an abortion, to ensure that this really is their choice and based on their decision. If the reason she doesn't want an abortion is financial, she should be provided with a financial plan for the first 5 years of that child's life. If she can adhere to a budget, be provided with a flexible job, and have educational options, the women who really would like to have a child will be happy choosing this option rather than aborting.

Additionally, health care (including prenatal care) should be provided to each and every child in America, no matter what.

But see, the problem is, both on the pro-choice and pro-life side, we're only providing short term solutions. A packet of diapers. An abortion. A few dollars to spend on food.

Over the long term, those won't reduce abortion. Helping out a woman structure her life around a baby will. But then again, it's the pro-life Republicans you support who keep voting against positive measures for children....

Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 2:15 PM


Hi Edyt,
Did you read MK's post at 9:49pm?

Posted by: Carla at June 11, 2008 3:11 PM


Hi again Edyt,
"Helping out a woman structure her life around a baby."

I like that. :)

Posted by: Carla at June 11, 2008 3:12 PM


There is nothing irresponsable about contraception. Irresponsible is snorting the constitution and snuffing out the lives of innocent men and women in far off lands in the name of oil. Thats irresponsable. I think it takes more than not having an abortion to be a christian. How about not killing actual living people period. Some people have specks in their eye. Looking honestly at what he has done to our country I think george bush has taken up ocular forestry.

PS: If you think all liberals are communists, sadly that is not so, we only wish. And furthermore, those who use "communist" are ignorant, communism the flipside of capitalism, not democracy. If you really want to compare two like things how about democracy and fascism. But then again wedon't have pure capitalism in this country and we don't have pure capitalism in this country, so even those comparisons fall flat.

Posted by: Yo La Tango at June 11, 2008 3:40 PM


Carla,

I didn't, thank you for pointing it out to me.

MK,

I don't know who wrote that article, but there were actually more than 80 reported deaths by October of 2007, according to the Human Rights Watch. (The law was passed in November of 2006)

The law also led to a lot of other unsafe measures for women. Nicaraguan doctors no longer treat women for hemorrhaging, even if it is post-menopausal. If a doctor saves a woman's life after her attempted abortion, he or she will go to jail. So often, they don't even help.

In the report, one medical doctor testified:

"Here [at this hospital] we have had women who have died.… For example, [name withheld] came here and had an ultrasound. It was clear that she needed a therapeutic abortion. No one wanted to carry out the abortion because the fetus was still alive. The woman was here two days without treatment until she expulsed the fetus on her own. And by then she was already in septic shock and died five days later. That was in March 2007."

So because doctors don't know for sure how much at risk the life of the mother is, they have been letting women die to stay in their professions, and denying women care for days or weeks, rather than go to jail. Even if the mother did NOT attempt to abort her child, if she is just going through a miscarriage or not pregnant at all, they have been denying care.

Here's another poignant story:

The case of 24-year-old Olga María Reyes illustrates how doctors’ fear of being perceived to have provided an abortion can contribute to deadly delay in access to emergency obstetric care. Reyes died in a public hospital in León in April 2007 when she was six to eight weeks pregnant, due to the delayed removal of an ectopic pregnancy, according to the doctors who spoke to her family. When Reyes finally presented the public hospital in León with an ultrasound result from a private clinic that diagnosed her with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, she was left unattended for hours despite the fact that Health Ministry regulations require immediate attention
to ectopic pregnancies. Reyes was eventually operated upon, but too late. She died of cerebral arrest due to excessive hemorrhaging.

According to UNICEF, the adjusted maternal mortality ratio in Nicaragua is estimated to be 170 deaths for every 100,000 live births, one of the highest in the region.

If there truly were 50 maternal deaths in 2006, there has been a 60 percent increase of death since the ban on abortion was enacted.

Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 3:44 PM


Also, the reason Ireland doesn't have a lot of illegal abortions is because most women go to England for abortions. (Which is also why England has such a high abortion rate)

According to estimates, anywhere between 1,500 and 10,000 Irish women travel annually to England for abortions. The official figure is 45,000 since 1967.

Some abortions are legal, however, and about 70-80 abortions take place every year in Northern Ireland.

Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 3:51 PM


Poland:

Polish NGOs estimate some 200,000 women are having backstreet abortions every year.

If anything, these countries are underreporting the number of deaths due to illegal abortions. But certainly, women are still getting them.

Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 3:52 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7uZFN7jhpc

(Boogie Down!)

Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 7:02 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3J-XYnZHfU

Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 7:06 PM


Poland:

Polish NGOs estimate some 200,000 women are having backstreet abortions every year.

Wow, Everybody must know who the abortionists are. Why haven't they been arrested? (I think abortion is still illegal in Poland)

Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 7:07 PM


But remember (regarding Polish backstreet abortions) that the doctor at the head of efforts to convince Americans to legalize abortion later admitted having made up figures (greatly inflated them) of back-alley abortions in order to make it seem like there was a problem.

There's no way to really estimate backstreet abortions because... well, because they're supposed to be kept secret. Any guess is just that, a guess. The only thing we know for certain is the real figures are quite a bit less than the interested "health organizations" claim they are (because they have reason to inflate the figures).

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at June 11, 2008 8:36 PM


Janet,

I found this link earlier today: http://www.federa.org.pl/english/report96/rap96_1.htm

If you scroll down a bit there's a big part about the "abortion underground" and "abortion tourism." Apparently there's a pretty big market for it, and it's done mostly by doctors in secret. Tourism is where people go to other neighboring countries for abortion, and I guess it's much more dangerous.

The whole report (click on Index and it will take you to the rest) is really sad. The first part is about women being so terrified of getting pregnant that they abstain from sex altogether.

Above all sexuality is not treated as a source of satisfaction and pleasure but a source of fear and danger. This aspect of human life stopped being private and became public issue on which one has to report, for example in the Church. Samson says that fear of unwanted pregnancy and usage of ineffective natural methods of family planning promoted by the Church caused avoidance of sexual life by women out of fear of unwanted pregnancy. It seems that Poles have sex less frequently than before and less frequently than they would want to. The fear of unwanted pregnancy is so strong also because those patients who are catholic refrain from using any other contraceptives than the natural methods of family planning but at the same time they do not believe that they are effective. Thus, on the one hand they do not use effective methods of family planning and on the other, using the methods recommended by the Church, they live in permanent fear. Those women who, against the order of the Church, use a pill or an IUD are bothered by guilty conscience. There are cases when priests force them to remove the coil in order to obtain absolution (forgiveness of sins at the end of confession).

So the fear of contraceptives must be why so many women get pregnant and have abortions.

The study also notes that while infanticide has gone down since 1992, the number of abandoned children has gone up.

The Polish also seem to have an almost unreasonable fear of priests.

Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 8:45 PM


Edyt,

We have had women here on this very blog who had the resources available, but just didn't want to be bothered with pregnancy, childbirth, and the rest of the story. Their continuing education was more important than structuring their life around a baby. Didn't matter that they could have chosen adoption, delaying their higher education for a short amount of time. It was bodily autonomy all the way.

It's sad because these women are bright, intelligent, and have much to offer. They couldn't get beyond themselves.

Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 8:48 PM


Carder,

That's okay. I'm not suggesting the end of abortion. But I am thinking about some of the reasons people have chosen to abort, and finding long-term workable solutions.

I believe there will ALWAYS be women no matter what the circumstances who do not want to give birth to a child. And you know what? They're going to get it, whether by stabbing themselves in the uterus or going to another country or by ingesting poison. They're going to do it regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal, even if it kills them.

Those aren't the women I'd be targeting though. I'd be targeting people who are middle of the line, unsure of what they want, scared, desperate, and lonely.

Those people can be brought out and told, "Look honey, if you want this baby, we're going to help you out and make sure you and your baby make it through this world okay."

Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 9:26 PM


Edyt, 9:26 p.m.

I agree with all of that.

Tears came to my eyes when I read this part, though:

"Look honey, if you want this baby, we're going to help you out and make sure you and your baby make it through this world okay."

Having been there and knowing ALL the feelings of girls who feel SO alone, THIS is the most wonderful thing anyone can say to them. It's even more wonderful when people mean it. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 11, 2008 10:01 PM


Edyt,
Tearing up along with Elizabeth.....

IF I had heard those words by someone, anyone who cared my girly would be 17.

You are not sounding very PC. Whazzup??

Don't you dare make me like you. :)

Posted by: Carla at June 11, 2008 10:20 PM


Edyt: 8:45: Well that's a looong article. I read a bit and skimmed the rest. I get the gist of it.
Since Poland is probably the most Catholic country in western Europe, adherence to teachings of the Church are going to dominate. For that reason, I'm sure you are a bit more critical of the situation in Poland than I.

(From:http://www.federa.org.pl/english/report96/rap96_1.htm)
Above all sexuality is not treated as a source of satisfaction and pleasure but a source of fear and danger. This aspect of human life stopped being private and became public issue on which one has to report, for example in the Church. Samson says that fear of unwanted pregnancy and usage of ineffective natural methods of family planning promoted by the Church caused avoidance of sexual life by women out of fear of unwanted pregnancy.

A source of fear and danger may be a bit exaggerated all through this article blamed on the Catholic Church, IMO. What percent of women are affected this way? 5%? 50%?
Calling NFP an ineffective method of family planning is wrong. It is very effective if done properly.

It seems that Poles have sex less frequently than before and less frequently than they would want to.

That happens if you don't want to get pregnant during fertile times.

The fear of unwanted pregnancy is so strong also because those patients who are catholic refrain from using any other contraceptives than the natural methods of family planning but at the same time they do not believe that they are effective. Thus, on the one hand they do not use effective methods of family planning and on the other, using the methods recommended by the Church, they live in permanent fear. Those women who, against the order of the Church, use a pill or an IUD are bothered by guilty conscience. There are cases when priests force them to remove the coil in order to obtain absolution (forgiveness of sins at the end of confession).
(end of quote)*****

Being bothered by a guilty conscience is usually a sign of sinful/wrong behavior. Confession and absolution are logical steps in the Catholic Church.

So the fear of contraceptives must be why so many women get pregnant and have abortions.

No, I think the main reason they get pregnant is because they are having sex. :) And It's probably more complicated than just that...

The study also notes that while infanticide has gone down since 1992, the number of abandoned children has gone up.

Infanticide, meaning what? Abortion? Murder? Abandoned children - horrible.

The Polish also seem to have an almost unreasonable fear of priests.

That's completely subjective. Unreasonable to who? I don't mean to be short with my answers, but the article is way too long!!!


Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 11:10 PM


I forgot to highlight the last sentence where the word fear was used in the article. At least six times in this short section.

Seems a bit biased and alarmist, no? I have a good Catholic friend who grew up in Poland. I'll ask her how she would compare the situation in the US and there.

Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 11:14 PM


Infanticide, meaning the killing of infants. So people aren't necessarily killing their babies, they're just abandoning them.

Janet, I wouldn't be so critical of the Catholic Church if these sorts of guilt/shame reactions didn't come from it. I understand that's within your realm of beliefs, but to me, it does seem a bit sad to have a bunch of people afraid to live their lives, or even have sex with their husband, out of fear.

The priest fear, btw, was noted because the doctors mentioned being reported by priests for doing abortions, and doctors often consulted priests as to whether someone should or should not have one. In the back section, with personal stories, one woman recalls being approved for an abortion and then the doctor consults a priest and is denied. I said it was a bit unreasonable, because I don't think of priests as dangerous individuals, personally, but some people seem to feel that way, so I didn't want to insult someone by saying they should or should not have such a fear.

Calling NFP an ineffective method of family planning is wrong. It is very effective if done properly.

I wonder if they've been properly educated about NFP? The article mentioned that people wouldn't be given BC unless they specifically asked for it. So it might be the same situation with NFP... but I can't say for certain.

And I agree, the article does seem alarmist, but I stumbled across it while looking for the underground abortion topic, and the rest of it interested me. I think the reason it sounds so repetitive and simple is that it was actually translated into English.

I'd love to hear what your Polish friend thinks about it!

Posted by: Edyt at June 12, 2008 12:59 AM


Edyt: I'll let you know if I hear from my friend on it..I'm guessing she'll feel the same as I do....

Posted by: Janet at June 12, 2008 2:43 PM


Carla,

I'm pro-choice. I want each and every woman to have the ability to choose for herself without outside pressure as to whether to have or not have a baby. And with every scenario, I believe she should have a support system of people who will trust that she is doing the right thing.

If she gets an abortion, she should have people there ready to support her decision, even if it makes her sad.

If she puts her baby up for adoption, she should have people keeping her spirits up, making sure she's taking care of herself, and letting her know the baby will go to a good home.

If she decides to keep the baby, she should have access to health care during and after the pregnancy, and have people supporting her throughout that child's life. I'm not talking about handouts either. I mean providing her with opportunities - work if she needs it, childcare if she is working, a group of friends or family members, or a support group of some sort if she has neither.

I don't want to see people feeling like they have no choice. Like they either have to give a baby up for adoption or have to get an abortion, or even have to have the baby. Right now, there's a lot of pressure in our society to go one direction or another, and that's more harmful to pregnant women than helpful. If we really want to work to reduce abortion in America, we have to reduce the factors which make a woman want to get an abortion - especially financial reasons. In my eyes, if you have an abortion because you cannot afford a child, you don't really have a choice.

Posted by: Edyt at June 12, 2008 3:09 PM