Breaking News: Lila Rose exposes 7th Planned Parenthood in undercover sting

UPDATE, 7/1, 6:30p: Do you trust 'em? Surrrre. According to CBS42.com, PP plans its own internal audit in the wake of the release of Lila's undercover video. Here's PP's statement:

Planned Parenthood of Alabama provides high quality health care and takes any allegation of this nature very seriously. An essential part of our mission is to protect teens, and to make sure that they get the counseling and medical care they need. We will conduct an internal, fact-based review to ensure that all our high standards of care have been met. PP of AL is committed to following all laws, and regularly makes reports to law enforcement officials. The health and safety of our patients is our top priority and we know that parents trust their teens to get accurate information and quality care at PP health centers. We will continue to work exceptionally hard to maintain that trust.

[HT: LifeNews.com]
_______________

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for breaking.jpgLila Rose and Live Action Films today exposed yet another Planned Parenthood stung in its undercover investigation and video series.

This time it's a PP abortion mill in clinic in Birmingham, AL, caught 2 ways: for covering up rape of a minor and circumventing parental consent laws. According to an LAF statement...

A PP counselor in Birmingham was caught on hidden camera telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim that the clinic "does sometimes bend the rules a little bit" rather than report sexual abuse to state authorities. This is the 7th PP clinic implicated in a multi-state child abuse scandal involving the deliberate and unlawful suppression of evidence of statutory rape.

Lila Rose... went undercover... in Birmingham and told a counselor that she was 14-years-old, pregnant by her 31-year-old "boyfriend," and needed a secret abortion so her parents would not find out about her sexual relationship with the older man.

After telling the counselor that her "boyfriend" is 31, Rose asks, "Is it a problem about my boyfriend?" The counselor, identified as "Tanisha" in the video, responds, "As long as you consented to having sex with him, there's nothing we can truly do about that."

Rose then says that her boyfriend "said he could get in big trouble," and Tanisha acknowledges that "he could, especially if your parents find out that he's 31." She then tells Rose that the clinic manager, OB/GYN Dr. Desiree Bates, "sometimes does bend the rules a little bit" and states that "whatever you tell us stays within these walls" and "we can't disclose any information to anybody."

Alabama Code 26-14-3 requires health professionals to disclose suspected cases of sexual abuse to state officials immediately....

In the video, Tanisha also seems to tell Rose that a signature from an "older sister that's over the age of 18" or someone "with the same last name" could function as a substitute for parental consent so PP could perform an abortion on a minor.

Alabama Code 26-21-3 specifies that the written permission of either a parent or legal guardian is necessary before a minor may obtain an abortion....

The new video is 6th in Live Action's "Mona Lisa Project," a nationwide undercover investigation that documents PP's repeated noncompliance with state mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse of minors. AL is the 4th state to be implicated in the controversy, along with AZ, IN, and TN. Recently, the investigation of a clinic in Memphis, TN assisted state legislators in their effort to successfully divert nearly $1 million in taxpayer subsidies from PP to law-abiding local health clinics....

Read more about Live Action's past videos in my posts here, here, here, and here.

Here's the Birmingham PP video:


Comments:

God bless her. I am sure her work is also becoming more dangerous.
Abortion is "legal" but they don't operate legally.

Posted by: xppc at June 30, 2009 10:57 AM


How many times does she have to do this before people start realizing that PP's policy is to cover up the molestation of young girls.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2009 11:23 AM


keep up the good work exposing these death centers. Praying for you.

Posted by: TJ at June 30, 2009 11:24 AM


Time to defund Planned Parenthood!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 11:31 AM


Will there be any trial with the "clinic"?

Posted by: Eva at June 30, 2009 11:52 AM


Carla, I'm beginning to agree with you. I sent an email to my local planned parenthood the last time a story like this came out. I guess a stronger letter to the National organization is in order.

I just don't understand their motivation. Don't tell me it's money. They truly seem to believe that "bending the rules" is somehow a benefit.

Posted by: Hal at June 30, 2009 11:54 AM


Hal I think the thought process goes something like this:

If they don't turn in the pedophile boyfriend, that girl will tell her friends "Hey, PP is cool. They won't get you in trouble."

They also think that abortion is the most important thing and they don't want to do anything to disuade a girl from having one. This might be cynically about the money, or might be because they;re "true believers" that abortion is the best thing for a teenage girl. Either way, the end result is the same.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2009 12:03 PM


that's probably it. If PP gets the reputation as an organization that follows the law, they might fear that girls who need their services would stay away,try something more dangerous, etc.

They don't get to decide, however, if the law should apply to them or not. They are free to lobby to change the law, but while it's on the books, I expect them to follow it.

Posted by: Hal at June 30, 2009 12:05 PM


Yeah, I'm a donor. And I am going to write to PP too. I can't believe they don't have their act together, KNOWING that they are subject to these undercover stings.

Hal, I DO understand the motivation, though I don't condone it. Try being a teenage victim named as a witness in a sexual assault prosecution. It sucks. It is not unusual for a victim's reputation to be absolutely tarred in front of her friends, family, and community. So I can understand why a counselor would feel reluctant to start that process when the teenage victim is standing in front of her begging her not to do so. (Don't forget the victims don't call the shots on whether a case is pursued or goes to trial. The victim is consulted but prosecutors can and do force trials even when the victim would rather not go forward. Once the process begins, the victim loses all control and all privacy.)

That said, I don't condone covering up statutory rape. And it burns my ass that PP keeps stepping into the same trap over and over again, not only violating the law but playing into the hands of those who would deprive women of choice.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 12:08 PM


"Yeah, I'm a donor. And I am going to write to PP too. I can't believe they don't have their act together, KNOWING that they are subject to these undercover stings.

Hal, I DO understand the motivation, though I don't condone it. Try being a teenage victim named as a witness in a sexual assault prosecution. It sucks. It is not unusual for a victim's reputation to be absolutely tarred in front of her friends, family, and community. So I can understand why a counselor would feel reluctant to start that process when the teenage victim is standing in front of her begging her not to do so. (Don't forget the victims don't call the shots on whether a case is pursued or goes to trial. The victim is consulted but prosecutors can and do force trials even when the victim would rather not go forward. Once the process begins, the victim loses all control and all privacy.)

That said, I don't condone covering up statutory rape. And it burns my ass that PP keeps stepping into the same trap over and over again, not only violating the law but playing into the hands of those who would deprive women of choice. "

What do you mean "have their act together"? Like, are more ambiguous or covert in their attempt to subvert the law? Or do you actually mean not breaking the law in the first place?

You know...your attitude is somewhat counter-productive to removing the stigma from being a sexual assault victim. If more women showed some cojones and stepped up to the plate to actually put these slimeballs in prison, less women would be raped in the first place, testifying in rape cases would be more common and eventually would kinda HAVE to be more accepted (kind of like how the abortion thing became seemingly more accepted because more women were having them), and women would start to get out of this stupid mindset of it being THEIR FAULT. People care too much about reputations and what others think of them (which facilitates abortion, also. Oh no! I'm pregnant! But what if my mom or school friends find out? Better kill it). But thanks for being part of the problem. My daughter begs me not to make her eat her vegetables, but I'm the adult, and I know what is best, and act accordingly.

"deprive women of choice"...The "choice" to do what, exactly? Please, elaborate. I'm so sick of the euphemisms and purposeful obfuscation of what ABORTION (I'm not afraid to say it) is and does...

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 12:22 PM


Prochoicer, I don't deprive women of choice anymore than I deprive men of choice when I oppose rape.

Freedom of choice ends when it invades the freedom of others. I can choose to own a knife but I can't use that knife to harm someone. I can choose to do what I want with my body, but I shouldn't be able to choose to kill a baby living within my body.

I'm so glad to see Lila Rose was in my state, at one of the closest abortion clinics we have.

Time after time they protect the pedophiles, abusers, etc.... completely disregarding the girl's actual needs and failing every time to even attempt to protect her from her abusers! They just give her an abortion and send her back into the situation she was in before, to be abused and taken advantage of again. Sick.

Posted by: Bethany at June 30, 2009 12:29 PM


Xalisae, that was an excellent post.

Posted by: Bethany at June 30, 2009 12:32 PM


"Whatever you tell us, stays within these walls."

That phrase keeps ringing in my head. It is meant to give a false sense of security, safety and protection EXCEPT it is not for the young girl....it is security, safety and protection for the pedophile.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 12:35 PM


Hal and PC,
These are not isolated incidents. You will continue to see these videos. I suggest you buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 12:37 PM


Xalisae and Bethany,

I think it is undeniable that Lila Rose is working to deprive women of choice. There is a reason Lila Rose's anti-rape efforts are not directed at clergymen, psychiatrists, crisis pregnancy centers, or guidance counselors. They are specifically directed at PP because Lila Rose does not want women to have abortions. And yes, obviously, I am talking about the choice to have an ABORTION. (The choice to give birth is just as important to pro-choicers but that isn't what Lila Rose is attacking.)

Look, I have alluded to this indirectly in the past, I will be more explicit now: I used to be a D.A. I have prosecuted many sex offenders, including statutory rapists of teenaged girls, and I have also prosecuted people who have violated mandated reporting laws. I wouldn't have hesitated to prosecute PP or a PP employee if such a case had crossed my desk.

As for sexual assaults, I am GLAD that prosecutors have the ability to pursue prosecution even over the wishes of the victim, because I think it is important to get sex offenders off the street. (By the way, prosecutors can go forward over the wishes of the victim in ANY kind of case, including property crimes.) But I think it would be dishonest to pretend that going forward is always in the best interest of the particular victim. It's not.

And while I too wish that every victim had the brass ovaries to say "This guy is going down no matter what the cost to me," the fact is that rapists often deliberately target the most vulnerable amongst us. I HAVE looked into a reluctant teenaged victim's eyes and said, "I am sorry but I am putting you on the stand and you are going to have to answer questions about what happened to you in graphic detail in a public courtroom." Those conversations were not easy for me, but I did it and I did put young girls on the stand even when they begged me not to. What I am saying is that I can UNDERSTAND why a counselor would be tempted to not put a young girl through that. Didn't say I condoned the counselor's actions, just that I understand it.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 12:53 PM


God bless her. I am sure her work is also becoming more dangerous.
Posted by: xppc at June 30, 2009 10:57 AM

Lila was recently interviewed by Patrick Coffin of Catholic Answers LIVE, and she claims that PP has distributed her picture to its clinics. I have to make a point of praying for her safety. She's doing the Lord's work.

Posted by: djrakowski at June 30, 2009 12:54 PM


"And yes, obviously, I am talking about the choice to have an ABORTION. (The choice to give birth is just as important to pro-choicers but that isn't what Lila Rose is attacking.)"

And this is something I just can't hold my tongue about any longer. Pro-"choice"ers are the ONLY ONES in this debate who use different words to describe what they are talking about, purposefully. We don't say "the choice to give birth and have a baby" when we talk about being anti-abortion. I am PROUDLY anti-abortion, and have no qualms about removing all doubt about it. "Choice" is implied, why do you feel the need to say it? "The choice to have an abortion"...why not just say "deprive women of abortion"...is it because that doesn't sound like such a bad thing? To me it might as well be "deprive a women of the choice to scrape her eyes out with a rusty spoon", and frankly, I don't mind "depriving" a woman of that.

"But I think it would be dishonest to pretend that going forward is always in the best interest of the particular victim. It's not."

You missed my point. Sometimes doing things that are good for a person is hard. Kind of like having a baby! It's harder than abortion, but it's the best and right thing to do. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. But you can't tell me that once the hard part is over, and the sicko is behind bars, that woman won't feel A LOT better. Just like after the baby is born, and the woman who was once pregnant is now back to her former state and the baby is free from her and alive, and vice versa, everyone doesn't feel a lot better (and not dead, which is really never better, is it?)

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 1:20 PM


It'll be interesting to see how the issue of minors and PP plays out with health care reform. The information the feds will be collecting isn't nonidentifiable statistical data for comparative effectiveness research. They want the complete record for every health care visit so that patients can be tracked across multiple providers and health care systems. The plan is to share information among health care providers irrespective of a patient's consent for sharing that information.

So what happens when the 14 year old's mom takes her to the doc six months later? Unless PP is exempt from reporting health care information to the feds, the doc has access to the information that the girl had an abortion or is on oral contraceptives, so he factors that into his plan of care. But can he discuss with the parent the reasons he's doing so? Or must he withhold the information about the abortion or the BC from the parent?

The feds also plan to establish treatment guidelines and monitor physician compliance with the government protocol. What will the feds establish as protocol of care for minors? If a 13 year old is on BC or a 14 year old presents for an abortion, will the feds incorporate referrals to law enforcement or social services to rule out possible sexual abuse as part of the standard protocol for care? Will documentation of reporting be one of the compliance indicators monitored by the feds?

Posted by: Fed Up at June 30, 2009 1:24 PM


I am sure all of the clinics involved have been "retraining and relocating" the "counselors." They hold up a picture of Lila Rose and make sure everyone is on The Look Out.

Instead of PP obeying the law they act as though they are above it.

How is an abortion the "best thing" for a 14 year old girl?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 1:51 PM


Xalisae,
I have to disagree that childbirth is harder than abortion. I have to live with the regret of killing my 1st child until the day I die.
Unless you meant something else?

Keep fighting, girl! I love your posts!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 1:53 PM


If I understand you correctly, Xalisae, you are saying that by stressing "choice," I am actually using a different word than what I am talking about, i.e. abortion. I disagree (and for the record, I have never been shy about labeling myself pro-abortion as well as pro-choice.)

But CHOICE is the message. CHOICE is the important thing. CHOICE is what unites pro-choicers. I am not shy about supporting abortion but ONLY in the context of CHOICE. And, no, that word can never be said too often. To say pro-abortion only tells one part of the story, since I am also pro-childbirth, pro-Down's Syndrom Baby, pro-woman and pro-contraception -- all in the context of choice. Choice is the unifying theme.

You say that it is obvious when referring to having an abortion that it is a "choice" to have an abortion, so why say the word "choice." Well, I think it should be obvious, but it is YOU GUYS who are constantly accusing us of pushing abortions on people. This blog has recently had a post accusing us of pushing abortions on black people for reasons of eugenics. This blog has recently had a post accusing us of not liking Sarah because she had a Down's Syndrome baby. So yeah, we have to emphasize that we support the CHOICE to have an abortion, because if not, your will (and does) lump us in with those who, like Communist China, would force abortions on women.


Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 1:53 PM


Oops, the Sarah in the previous post was meant to be Sarah Palin. Accidentally left out "Palin."

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 1:55 PM


Xalisae says: "You missed my point. Sometimes doing things that are good for a person is hard."

But I think I addressed your point head-on. You are saying if I understand you correctly that reporting statutory rape is always the best thing for the victim. I don't happen to agree. It might be, but not necessarily. Once you report it, that is not a train the victim or her advocates can stop. And the prosecutor's obligation is to prosecute the sex offender. As a D.A., I am not the victim's lawyer or her advocate. I am trying to protect the community at large by getting a sex offender off the street. (Of course, ideally one balances the victim's wishes and needs with the needs of prosecution -- but often the victims get screwed by the system.)

So I don't accept your assumption that reporting is what the victim needs for her own good. Again, I do not condone violation of the law and, while ambivalent about mandated reporting, I generally support it. But I understand why from the counselor's perspective it is hard to do -- because she is doing something that might hurt the person who has come to her for help and she is doing so over the wishes of that person.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 2:04 PM


PP doesn't consistently report suspected cases of statutory rape.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 2:08 PM


Prochoicer, isn't it obvious that the counselor has been TRAINED to answer the girls this way? It isn't like the counselor is taken off guard by the girl's situation and wants to help and is confused about what to do- they are trained specifically for this purpose, and this is how they behave virtually every time that this scenario is presented to them.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 2:12 PM


Xalisae,
I have to disagree that childbirth is harder than abortion. I have to live with the regret of killing my 1st child until the day I die.
Unless you meant something else?

Keep fighting, girl! I love your posts!
Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 1:53 PM

It was more the immediate act, that somewhat refuses to consider the long-term implications of their actions. Just as a person refusing to testify to help convict someone who needs to be locked up is not thinking about how many more people that person will hurt in the long-term, abortion refuses to consider the permanent damage done to mother and child, and is just seen as an easier quick-fix alternative to childbirth/child-rearing.

Thanks, carla. :)

"If I understand you correctly, Xalisae, you are saying that by stressing "choice," I am actually using a different word than what I am talking about, i.e. abortion. I disagree (and for the record, I have never been shy about labeling myself pro-abortion as well as pro-choice.)"

Alright then, let's get down to brass tacks and cut the crap, shall we?

"But CHOICE is the message. CHOICE is the important thing. CHOICE is what unites pro-choicers. I am not shy about supporting abortion but ONLY in the context of CHOICE. And, no, that word can never be said too often. To say pro-abortion only tells one part of the story, since I am also pro-childbirth, pro-Down's Syndrom Baby, pro-woman and pro-contraception -- all in the context of choice. Choice is the unifying theme."

Yes, because saying it repeatedly must certainly make it true. How about the CHOICE to live that a fetal human has taken from them? How about the CHOICE that many women feel they don't get when they are coerced by loved ones and significant others into aborting their offspring? How about the CHOICE of a man to kill his offspring even if a woman wants that child? See? I can say "choice" too, and I'll even put it in all caps. Pro-abortion and pro-childbirth? You realize that the choice to have an abortion produces a dead child in THAT birth, right? Maybe you could alter that to say "pro-dead-childbirth", for the sake of accuracy, because how one could support BOTH birthing dead children AND birthing live children...It's kinda beyond me.

"accusing us of not liking Sarah because she had a Down's Syndrome baby."

Umm...no...I've been around the political blogs and PRO-CHOICERS HAVE SAID VERBATIM THAT IT WAS IRRESPONSIBLE OF HER TO HAVE A DOWNS BABY AND SHE'S A TERRIBLE PERSON FOR NOT GETTING AN ABORTION. MYSELF. I READ IT. I'm not "accusing" you of crap.

Also, it's been said about PP because of Margaret Sanger's past. I think the evidence points to that, but I'm still on the fence as to whether it proves causality or not, but you can't blame us for making judgments based on evidence.

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 2:15 PM


Lila Rose..you Go Girl!

May the Lord bless you and keep you for the work you do.

You are in our prayers.

Posted by: RSD at June 30, 2009 2:23 PM


Gotcha, X.
Abortion is sold as being quick, painless, easy and risk-free. It is sold as "better than" childbirth.

The effects of it are life long and one only figures that out the hard way.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 2:24 PM


Dear Hal,
I am praying for you. I know you are being honest when you come here and I am grateful for that. I am also happy that Lila Rose and her Live Action videos are planting the seeds of doubt in your mind.

Thank you for being here.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 2:27 PM


Xalisae,

Well, yes, I am aware that the choice I advocate women should have is not a choice you approve of. The point is that choice not a deflection (which is what you were accusing me of) but rather a crucial part of the message. It is not all choice, all the time, for everyone everywhere. It is reproductive choice for women to have abortions, use contraception, have babies, get pregnant, etc.

Bethany,

Actually I was assuming that the argument is that the advocate was trained to abide by a girl's wishes that her statutory rape be covered up. That's what I was specifically trying to address (i.e. I understand why PP or an individual counselor might think that is the right thing to do, even if it is unlawful. Not that that's an excuse. But the motivations are not as nefarious as people make it out to be.)

However, I am actually not convinced that was what was going on. In listening to the video, my impression is that the PP counselor just totally didn't understand the law -- something for which I hold PP accountable.

Yes, they need to get their act together for 2 reasons: (1) their conduct violates the law; (2) their conduct jeopardizes women's access to abortion, since PP is a major providers of abortion services. And, yes, while I know you all fervently disagree, I believe that the having abortion as an option is in the best interest of both women and girls.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 2:31 PM


"Well, yes, I am aware that the choice I advocate women should have is not a choice you approve of."

Well, I'm glad you reduced everything I said to, "Wow, xalisae doesn't like that." Nevermind what I was actually saying.

"It is not all choice, all the time, for everyone everywhere."

If you're so fond of choice, it can't just be "choice for me but not for thee", and removing another human off the face of the planet to do it with no regard for their choice whatsoever. See...you have to actually give consideration to another person's rights in the same respect if you expect to have anyone give any consideration to your comparable rights, otherwise, you're treading some very dangerous ground, and don't be surprised when bad things happen in regards to YOUR rights when you start diminishing the rights of others.

"..use contraception, have babies, get pregnant, etc..."

except for the fact that other than abortion, the other things you mentioned don't infringe on another human's rights whatsoever. See...it pisses me off when pro-choicers AND pro-lifers equate abortion to contraception.

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 2:51 PM


Yes, they need to get their act together for 2 reasons: (1) their conduct violates the law; (2) their conduct jeopardizes women's access to abortion, since PP is a major providers of abortion services. And, yes, while I know you all fervently disagree, I believe that the having abortion as an option is in the best interest of both women and girls.
Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 2:31 PM

-Ditto and ditto.

I do see the conflict, but I'm still not clear on why they couldn't do both - administer to the girl (abortion, pap smear, STD test, etc) and still report in allegations of statutory rape? I too, wish that PP would stop getting caught with egg on their face re: this issue - it's the only one that I shake my head about.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 2:54 PM


PC'er, are you sure you were a DA and not a defense attorney?

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 2:58 PM


This is a little more serious than egg on their face, Danielle.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 2:59 PM


See...it pisses me off when pro-choicers AND pro-lifers equate abortion to contraception.
Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 2:51 PM
******************

Let me just state for the record here that I am one pro-lifer who does not equate abortion with all methods of contraception. I believe certain types of contraception (IUD, possibly the Pill-as the manufacturers do admit that it can happen, morning after pill) can cause an unborn life to be lost.

Though it is not a chosen act of will like say, a suction abortion, I feel that loss of life may occur when using those methods and I don't see how that can be a good thing, for that life or for the woman's body.

Having said that, I am not against other methods of birth control (in the context of married couples using birth control with mutual consent). Yes, I happen to believe the best place to have sexual relations is in a marriage relationship... so sue me. That belief is not going to change.

In regards to this latest video, when are people going to wake up? Statutory rape is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER beneficial to the victim, whether she "knows" she is a victim or not. If you think a 14-year-old CHILD can fully consent to a relationship with a 31-year-old male, then you're nuts, in my opinion, and the perverted adult male ought to be thrown in jail. It is very easy for an adult male to coerce and cajole a child into a lot of things. This stuff HAS to be reported. Period.

Posted by: Kel at June 30, 2009 3:03 PM


This is a little more serious than egg on their face, Danielle.
Posted by: carla at June 30, 2009 2:59 PM

-I think that depends. Obviously, their national organization needs to be more involved in the operations of these local clinics, and it should cost jobs. But I listened to the video. No, I don't here malicious intent or a conspiracy to assist child rapists, as has been alluded to here. That's the gravity. What I hear is an employee - an incompetant one - tap dancing around questions that she doesn't know the ckear answers to. I also hear her deflecting to a superior and encouraging the 'patient' to come back to talk to someone more qualified, who may or may not have told this young lady something totally different about what her options were.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 3:07 PM


Xalisae, I am not reducing what you said. I understand your argument against abortion perfectly. But my point is that you don't get to define my message. My message is reproductive choice for women, "choice" being the central world. You argued that was a deflection. I am saying it is not a deflection, because "abortion" is not the important thing. The important thing is the "choice to have an abortion."

You are correct that I haven't engaged your arguments against abortion. This is mainly because I feel I have argued the central issues of abortion numerous times on this blog with others. So at this point, I am more interested in the side issues rather than the central issues. The central issues have been gone over and over and over, and I don't think there is any common ground.

But here are my views in summary:

My belief is that a zygote/embryo/fetus in the earlier stages is not a person whose rights should trump the woman's choice. You say to-ma-to, I say to-mah-to. But even if the zygote/embryo/fetus should be considered a full-fledged person, I STILL think the woman's rights come first. Pregnancy is a unique situation in which one "person" lives inside, and sort of takes over, another person's body. I don't think anyone, even an innocent "baby" has the right to do that against the woman's will.

There are no direct analogies to pregnancy, but here is the closest one I have ever heard of. Say, you are a man who has fathered a child. Your child is suffering cancer and needs a bone marrow transplant to live. Your child desperately needs a donor and you are the match. If you do not donate your bone marrow, your child will die. Guess what? The law does not require you to donate your marrow because your body is sacrosanct. Why is this same principle not extended to women undergoing pregnancy? I think it is because we think women are SUPPOSED to subordinate themselves to others. It is just natural course of things, right?

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 3:07 PM


In regards to this latest video, when are people going to wake up? Statutory rape is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER beneficial to the victim, whether she "knows" she is a victim or not. If you think a 14-year-old CHILD can fully consent to a relationship with a 31-year-old male, then you're nuts, in my opinion, and the perverted adult male ought to be thrown in jail. It is very easy for an adult male to coerce and cajole a child into a lot of things. This stuff HAS to be reported. Period.
Posted by: Kel at June 30, 2009 3:03 PM

Completely agree with that portion of your statement.

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 3:07 PM


"And I am going to write to PP too. I can't believe they don't have their act together, KNOWING that they are subject to these undercover stings."


Not much "sting" when the state and local authorities just ignore it because they are friends with PP.

Remember, there are real girls out there being molested and those creepy guys move on to the next girl because they never get caught. One guy can do a lot of damage to many women if the rest of society just ignores it. The rest of society includes a bunch of feminists who don't give a rodents rear end about these girls being abused by these guys so long as no one is punished by having a baby. PP is a perp's best friend and ally.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 3:08 PM


Kel,

I don't think anyone is saying that statutory rape is beneficial to the victim.

But it doesn't follow from that statement that prosecution of the rapist IS beneficial for the victim. (I think such prosecution is good for society, but the victim herself is often traumatized by the process.)

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 3:12 PM


Well Danielle take your pick of videos. I think this is the 7th.

http://www.liveaction.org

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 3:16 PM


PC,
You are putting the cart before the horse. PP doesn't report suspected cases of statutory rape. That is the point of Lila's work is it not??

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 3:19 PM


Well Danielle take your pick of videos. I think this is the 7th.
Posted by: carla at June 30, 2009 3:16 PM

-I got it, Carla. I never said I don't think this is a problem...it is, and I want them to fix it.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 3:21 PM


"Yes, they need to get their act together for 2 reasons: (1) their conduct violates the law; (2) their conduct jeopardizes women's access to abortion, since PP is a major providers of abortion services."

2 Reasons, that's it huh?

What about some interest protecting girls from creepy guys?

Wow, do these guys totally have your sympathy or what?

Is there not one abortion advocate who is against women being exploited by these guys?

Why don't you want these guys off the street?

These girls are too young to be pregnant or mothers but not to young to be used for sex by these creepy guys?

Not one drop of sympathy for these girls being abused like this?

You are sorry she is pregnant but not sorry some guy is using her?

Pregnancy is THE only real problem, not abusive men, no of course not. The men have rights, you know, to use young women. Kill the kid. Problem solved. The guy just goes on to the next victim. No problem. Once the kid is dead, it is all fine and dandy. Everybody just lives happily ever after.

Make me sick.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 3:24 PM


I know, Danielle. Fixing it means two totally different things to you and I, I'll bet.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 3:24 PM


"My belief is that a zygote/embryo/fetus in the earlier stages is not a person whose rights should trump the woman's choice."

And I insist that any definition of what constitutes another human person outside of a definitive biological construct is an arbitrary philosophical notion which it is foolish and dangerous to base public policy on given that it can potentially set a precedent to deny any group rights under the law due to the potential to revoke that groups "personhood" due to any real or perceived lack of ability or development.

"But even if the zygote/embryo/fetus should be considered a full-fledged person, I STILL think the woman's rights come first. Pregnancy is a unique situation in which one "person" lives inside, and sort of takes over, another person's body."

With this, I'm simply going to say that I have been pregnant twice, and have never lost my ability to function or run my own life in any way, shape, or form as a consequence of this "taking over". Your idea of pregnancy is ludicrous. In pro-life terms, there is no trumping of one individual's rights over another. Both parties are given EQUAL consideration and rights prioritized according to temporary vs. permanent frustration of said rights.

"I think it is because we think women are SUPPOSED to subordinate themselves to others. It is just natural course of things, right?"

Ha. Hardy har har. I'm sorry, but considering this a "women's liberation" issue to me has a personal tinge of irony, considering that I've only had one "crisis" pregnancy in my life, during which the father believed it to be appropriate to consider abortion, and it just so happened that I was pregnant with a girl...so putting this in the context of the rights of females is just so deliciously absurd to me, considering that had I aborted, any rights my daughter had would've been taken from her. Which women's rights should be considered in an abortion? (oh, and also in the context of women subordinating themselves to others...had I done that, I would've gotten the abortion according to my significant other's wishes, so 2 women would've been forced to subordinate to one man. Funny how that works, huh?)

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 3:27 PM


Consider that PP's response to this is to distribute Lila's photo. That, to me, indicates they are NOT concerned about adhering to reporting laws, but just about "getting caught". A responsible (if one could expect such a thing from a blood-shedding industry that lies to thousands of women daily) reaction would be across the board mandatory training, or re-training, as the case may be. If PP were really serious about this (& they're not, they know they can buy their way out of it), they would have announced LOUDLY that that is exactly what they are doing, no later than the second time this was revealed. I was in the military when the Tailhook scandal occurred and you'd better believe we were ALL subjected to hours of training as a result.

Posted by: klynn73 at June 30, 2009 3:29 PM


I know, Danielle. Fixing it means two totally different things to you and I, I'll bet.
Posted by: carla at June 30, 2009 3:24 PM

-Indeed: I want them to improve, you want them to stop.

If only our desired outcomes weren't so vastly different, we may have actually walked into one of these so called 'common ground' solutions.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 3:32 PM


Defund PP and shut them down!!

Nope. No common ground here. :O

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 3:35 PM


This is a little more serious than egg on their face, Danielle.
Posted by: carla at June 30, 2009 2:59 PM

"-I think that depends. Obviously, their national organization needs to be more involved in the operations of these local clinics, and it should cost jobs. But I listened to the video. No, I don't here malicious intent or a conspiracy to assist child rapists, as has been alluded to here. That's the gravity. What I hear is an employee - an incompetant one - tap dancing around questions that she doesn't know the ckear answers to. I also hear her deflecting to a superior and encouraging the 'patient' to come back to talk to someone more qualified, who may or may not have told this young lady something totally different about what her options were."
Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 3:07 PM

"More involved" is an understatement. If this were " ABC Republican Hospital" instead of PP, the media and would be screaming for the firing of upper level management and the authorites would be taking legal action. Where are the charges against PP? All I hear is silence.

* * *

"I think it is because we think women are SUPPOSED to subordinate themselves to others. It is just natural course of things, right?"

prochoicer,
xalisae makes an excellent point. Being pro-life is not anti- woman.


Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 3:36 PM



But it doesn't follow from that statement that prosecution of the rapist IS beneficial for the victim. (I think such prosecution is good for society, but the victim herself is often traumatized by the process.)

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 3:12 PM

Is prosecution beneficial to the victim in the case of a homicide?

Such astute reasoning. Sure a quiet victim dealing with her pain silently is so much easier on the rest of society who don't want to look at what is really happening to these women.

Maybe suffering in silence is why women who have had an abortion have a five times greater incidence of suicide than women who give birth.

Sure the rest of us feel much better ignoring what happens to these women and just pretending everything is fine. Wow, that sounds just like how it was before the women's movement when people just ignored domestic violence and covered it up. Women were just expected to suffer in silence. Divorce is more traumatic than abuse, it was thought. Wow, how little has changed. No one wants to SEE women suffer. Better if it is behind closed doors than that people see it in a court.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 3:38 PM


"Defund PP and shut them down!!"

"Nope. No common ground here. :O"

Posted by: carla at June 30, 2009 3:35 PM

Take away PP's abortion license, today,

Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 3:39 PM


A responsible (if one could expect such a thing from a blood-shedding industry that lies to thousands of women daily) reaction would be across the board mandatory training, or re-training, as the case may be.
Posted by: klynn73 at June 30, 2009 3:29 PM

-How do you know they're not? I mean, I know you've already demonized them in your head, but how do you know that right this very minute they are not doing the exact thing you suggested?

Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with training AND alerting their staff about Lila Rose. She DOES have malicious intent against the organization. The end goal is to shut them down, period. The 'altruism' of her 'work' is simply a by-product of a larger objective. The people caught by this are simply too stupid or lazy to understand that the war against abortion is greater than them, the women in the clinic or the boyfriends and there will NEVER be a time to let your guard down. They need to smarten up, tighten the ranks and follow the law for everyone's sake.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 3:42 PM


But to follow the law Danielle for PP could mean a loss of business. Can't have that now can we?? I have read every ex abortionists book I can get my hands on. They all say the same thing. Abortion is big business, do whatever you can to keep the girls coming in and buying what you are selling. Lie, cheat, don't tell the parents and for the love of Lila don't report!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 3:47 PM


They need to smarten up, tighten the ranks and follow the law for everyone's sake.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 3:42 PM


Especially for the sake of men who like to use women for sex but don't want to love and care for their own children. These men need to be sure they have a safe place to take their pregnant girlfriends. You know the kind of place that understands how these guys feel scared and trapped about having to take responsibility for their actions. They need a way to fix their girlfriend's "problem" before it becomes their problem.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 3:48 PM


Hippie --

OK, my point is getting lost here.

Let me repeat myself: I spent years of my life working my ass off to put sex offenders in prison, okay? I am not here to say that we should sweep these cases under the carpet. I am proud of the work I did, evne when it meant subjecting victims who didn't want to testify to further trauma on the witness stand.

But anyone who thinks that running the gauntlet through the criminal justice system is the best thing for a young victim is hopelessly naive. I still believe that cases need to be reported for the greater good of society. But I can understand why people in the helping professions hesitate to betray a young girl's trust by putting herself on a prosecution train that will not stop no matter how reluctant she is.

And it is not just PP. There are ministers, rabbis, guidance counselors, psychologists, and doctors who fail to report sexual assault. I know this because I have prosecuted these people.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 3:58 PM


But to follow the law Danielle for PP could mean a loss of business. Can't have that now can we?? I have read every ex abortionists book I can get my hands on. They all say the same thing. Abortion is big business, do whatever you can to keep the girls coming in and buying what you are selling. Lie, cheat, don't tell the parents and for the love of Lila don't report!
Posted by: carla at June 30, 2009 3:47 PM

-Well breaking the law could mean a lot more loss of business than following it could. And again, there are a lot of other services that PP provides that add profit - they don't just rely on abortions. From my experience there is a lot more time in a day for check ups, BC fills and STD tests than abortions.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 3:59 PM


Danielle at 3:42 p.m.
How do you know they're not? I mean, I know you've already demonized them in your head, but how do you know that right this very minute they are not doing the exact thing you suggested?

I know they are not, Danielle, because several of us monitor PP and if you re-read my post, you'll see the part about announcing LOUDLY that they are taking care of such matters, even if it is just feigned outrage. If PP were truly pro-woman, that is an expected reaction to perverts preying on little girls being protected by their workers.

As for "demonizing them in my head" as you put it, sorry, but it just might be the dismembering of children within their walls that likens PP to Molech worshippers? Just a guess.

Posted by: klynn73 at June 30, 2009 3:59 PM


What Danielle at 3:42 said.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:00 PM


Especially for the sake of men who like to use women for sex but don't want to love and care for their own children. These men need to be sure they have a safe place to take their pregnant girlfriends. You know the kind of place that understands how these guys feel scared and trapped about having to take responsibility for their actions. They need a way to fix their girlfriend's "problem" before it becomes their problem.
Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 3:48 PM

-Hippie, PP is really not about the guy, no matter how much you want to believe. It really isn't.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:00 PM


As for "demonizing them in my head" as you put it, sorry, but it just might be the dismembering of children within their walls that likens PP to Molech worshippers? Just a guess.
Posted by: klynn73 at June 30, 2009 3:59 PM

-So I was right, then.

And further more, unless you're confirming that you're a mole sitting in and recording executive level meetings at PPFA, you cannot know that they are not addressing this issue internally.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:05 PM


Danielle,

Yes, I know. PP helps women with all of those other things so that the public puts trust in them so they can say "See, we do all of these other wonderful things besides killing babies and hurting women."

Now we can both roll our eyes at the same time.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 4:06 PM


Yes, I know. PP helps women with all of those other things so that the public puts trust in them so they can say "See, we do all of these other wonderful things besides killing babies and hurting women." Now we can both roll our eyes at the same time.
Posted by: carla at June 30, 2009 4:06 PM

*sigh*

That's my final response, after the eye roll.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:08 PM


Danielle, The way I see it, you (pro-choicers) are doing everything in your power to shut the pro-lifers down. The pro-lifers are just trying to do what is right - bring pedophiles and rapists to justice. What is wrong with investigative reporting? It is done every day. There's nothing malicious about it. It exposes the truth.

Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 4:09 PM


I would like to change my moniker to Fed Up. Wait, that's taken. FED UP 2!!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 4:09 PM


Xalisae at 3:27 p.m.: I am sorry but forcing someone to give birth against her will IS a taking over of someone's body for the benefit of someone else.

I am glad you took to your pregnancy so well and were happy to see it through. Tell it to my friend who is on 2 months of bed rest. Tell it to my other friend who was rushed to the hospital for an emergency C-section.

"oh, and also in the context of women subordinating themselves to others...had I done that, I would've gotten the abortion according to my significant other's wishes, so 2 women would've been forced to subordinate to one man."

Just a couple comments ago, you were complaining about my emphasis on choice. Now you are arguing against my position because if you had gotten an abortion, you would have been doing so against your choice. But any pro-choicer worth her salt would SUPPORT your choice to give birth over your significant other's wishes. It's about YOUR choice, which includes your choice to give birth.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:10 PM



-Hippie, PP is really not about the guy, no matter how much you want to believe. It really isn't.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:00 PM

Sure Danielle, we all know that these guys are begging these girls to marry them and promising them that they will do whatever it takes. These girls are just so hardened they reject these wonderful men who want to be good husbands and fathers.

These girls just don't want to give up their "dreams" of long work hours and careers to marry even the most awesome guy that just last week was pledging his love as they got into bed.

PP just wants to empower women who just can't be satisfied by one man who wants to love them and their baby and provide for them. Even though he was so excited about the baby and fatherhood, she decided, she just couldn't commit.

It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe these guys can find $500 bucks for an abortion, but not $50 bucks for a marriage license.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:11 PM


Hippie at 4:11 p.m.

Do you really think that most women who seek abortion would choose otherwise if their boyfriends would only marry them?!? (Don't you realize that many women expressly want to avoid the scenario of the shotgun marriage?)

And what about happily married women who seek abortions? Do they not exist?

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:20 PM


The way I see it, you (pro-choicers) are doing everything in your power to shut the pro-lifers down. The pro-lifers are just trying to do what is right - bring pedophiles and rapists to justice. What is wrong with investigative reporting? It is done every day. There's nothing malicious about it. It exposes the truth.
Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 4:09 PM

-And that's unfortunate you see it that way, Janet. I just explained the difference between the intent and outcome of this undercover work. You and I both know what the real goal is.

Bottom line, I will work to shut down anyone or anything that stands in the way of a woman's reproductive freedom, whether it is to have children or not. If that's not you, then we don't have a problem.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:22 PM


Say, you are a man who has fathered a child. Your child is suffering cancer and needs a bone marrow transplant to live. Your child desperately needs a donor and you are the match. If you do not donate your bone marrow, your child will die. Guess what? The law does not require you to donate your marrow because your body is sacrosanct. Why is this same principle not extended to women undergoing pregnancy?

While a nice try and slightly more sophisticated than most pro-abortion arguments, this one doesn't hold water, either. Here's why:

In the case of a pre-born person, he/she is only dependant on the mother's body because the mother herself put him/her in that situation. The only way to equate your blood marrow donor to pregnancy is if the father purposefully gave the daughter cancer knowing she would require his marrow to survive. Women know that unborn children are dependent upon them to live BEFORE THEY CREATE THE CHILDREN INTO A STATE OF DEPENDANCE. For that reason, they willingly consent to share their bodies when they choose to create a human being that's dependent upon them.

Now, let's take your original example a step farther and ask ourselves what we think of this man that would sooner let his little girl die than share his body with her. The law aside, wouldn't we all agree that this man is a horrible, disgusting selfish crap of a human being? I, then, turn your question right back around to you: Why is this same principle not extended to women undergoing pregnancy? If a parent not donating their body to save the life of their child indicates that he is a horrible, selfish person- how does a mother whose actions put their child in a state of dependence who refuses to share he body with her own child not that much worse?

So even if you defend abortion on this principle: that the body is sacrosanct thus children be damned, you are still supporting an objectively selfish and disgusting practice, regardless of legal rationalizations.

Posted by: Jacqueline at June 30, 2009 4:26 PM


Sure Danielle, we all know that these guys are begging these girls to marry them and promising them that they will do whatever it takes. These girls are just so hardened they reject these wonderful men who want to be good husbands and fathers.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:11 PM

-I'm sorry, I have no idea how this relates to what we are discussing. The tone was pretty precious, though. I'm afraid I got lost in the sarcasm. When you're ready to discuss without the self-righteous indignation, I'm around.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:27 PM


"Xalisae at 3:27 p.m.: I am sorry but forcing someone to give birth against her will IS a taking over of someone's body for the benefit of someone else."

"I am glad you took to your pregnancy so well and were happy to see it through. Tell it to my friend who is on 2 months of bed rest. Tell it to my other friend who was rushed to the hospital for an emergency C-section."

These are valid reasons to abort? Just when you think you've heard it all.
Pro-choicer, how old are you?

Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 4:27 PM


"I am sorry but forcing someone to give birth against her will IS a taking over of someone's body for the benefit of someone else."

I'm sorry, but I just refuse to believe that women could be so ignorant as to not understand that if you have sex, you can get pregnant, and if you're pregnant, you can give birth. There is no "against her will" about it. If you had the will to have sex, you have the will for everything else entailed. I'll steal a car. I have the will to own the car, but not the will to pay for it. I also lack the will to get caught and serve a jail sentence, so we'll forget about that too, m'kay?

"I am glad you took to your pregnancy so well and were happy to see it through."

Nice assumption! Actually, it might not have occurred to you...but being in a relationship when you're pregnant and adamant about not killing your kid with a guy who wants you to get an abortion IS NOT FUN. No...actually...considering his mom was/is pro-choice and he was raised to consider abortion as not that big of a deal...Yeah, it was kinda hellacious. Not to mention the fact that I had to move out of where I was living because if my grandparents found out I was pregnant and not married, the would've kicked me out. Oh, and also the fact I had to quit my job-the only source of income between us at the time-because it was dangerous for my baby and myself. I mean, I could've stayed, but I wanted to consider the safest route for both the baby and myself. Funny how that "being considerate of others" thing works. But making concessions for someone else because you are considerate of them is not them taking over your body. You are viewing pregnancy as a "Us Vs. Them" situation when it is not, it's a "What is best for us both" situation. Or rather, would be, if the SCOTUS hadn't decided it would be just peachy to pit mothers against their young in a court decision.

"Now you are arguing against my position because if you had gotten an abortion, you would have been doing so against your choice. But any pro-choicer worth her salt would SUPPORT your choice to give birth over your significant other's wishes. It's about YOUR choice, which includes your choice to give birth."

And again, I can't see the "choice" side as anything but nonsensical and arbitrary. Some choice is great, but not all the choices, and some peoples' choices matter more than others, but just the ones WE decide actually matter. Baby's choice = doesn't matter. Men's choice = we don't care. Sorry if I think that ALL choices should be considered, and to truly have equality for EVERYONE-not just pregnant women-we have to take one of those choices off the table. It's this damn ability to see things from the perspective of others that keeps getting in the way of me seeing your point.

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 4:30 PM



Do you really think that most women who seek abortion would choose otherwise if their boyfriends would only marry them?!? (Don't you realize that many women expressly want to avoid the scenario of the shotgun marriage?)

And what about happily married women who seek abortions? Do they not exist?

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:20 PM

I think most guys who use women for sex, want them to get the abortion and are glad that places like PP are around to help men of that sort.

Obviously everyone has a different reasons for abortion, but summarily dismissing the reasons behind the majority of cases is absurd.

The fact is men now feel they have a right to child free sex.

I recently read an article at RH Reality Check where a man wrote that men should have the right to tell a woman they got pregnant that they didn't want the kid and that should be enough to satisfy the court that since she knew he didn't want the kid she thereby accepted 100% of the responsibility for the financial support of the kid or to have the abortion. It was not in the comment section. It was one of the writers at RH Reality Check.

Men want no consequences sex. Society expects women to get with the program. PP makes it happen. PP enables these men.

The majority of women who get abortions do not have the option of being supported by the father of the baby. He wants her to have the abortion. He will find the money. He will drive her to the clinic. He will feign concern. Small price to avoid buying the cow.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:33 PM


And what about happily married women who seek abortions? Do they not exist?

My numbers could be old but somewhere like 88% of abortions are performed on single women, and those single women oft-cite not wanting to be a single parent as their reason for aborting.

So that gives 12% that could include women divorcing, separated or hiding an affair- and several others could be aborting because their husband desires or coerced it (one abusive husband kept punching a woman I know in the stomach and saying, "If you don't get rid of it, I will") or the opposite, the husband said nothing and left them feeling dejected- OR, in some cases, threatening to leave her if she doesn't abort. So somewhere in that 12%, minus all of these other scenarios that I've personally seen, are the "happily married" women you think crawl into the stirrups to kill their baby that she and her husband happily made.

If such a low percentage of married women abort to begin with, and we see all the horrible scenarios that a married woman could face, it just reinforces that women abort because they don't want to be abandoned with a child. So abortion just becomes a preferred evil to abandonment or violence. How about none of the above? Women deserve better than those two disgusting choices.

Posted by: Jacqueline at June 30, 2009 4:36 PM


Janet,

I am 38. How old are you? And why do you ask?

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:38 PM


"(Don't you realize that many women expressly want to avoid the scenario of the shotgun marriage?)"

Don't you understand that you don't have to have an abortion to not marry the guy you procreated with? It's quite easy, actually. Just don't go through the proceedings to get married. No killing necessary!


"Bottom line, I will work to shut down anyone or anything that stands in the way of a woman's reproductive freedom, whether it is to have children or not. If that's not you, then we don't have a problem.
Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:22 PM"

Excellent! Then we don't have a problem! Because, see, I only have a problem with women who've ALREADY reproduced killing the offspring inside her. So we're good, right?

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 4:38 PM


Jacqueline,
How incredibly sad.

xalisae,
I'm so sorry you went through so much difficulty, but totally amazed at your courage.

Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 4:43 PM



Sure Danielle, we all know that these guys are begging these girls to marry them and promising them that they will do whatever it takes. These girls are just so hardened they reject these wonderful men who want to be good husbands and fathers.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:11 PM

-I'm sorry, I have no idea how this relates to what we are discussing. The tone was pretty precious, though. I'm afraid I got lost in the sarcasm. When you're ready to discuss without the self-righteous indignation, I'm around.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:27 PM

Sorry you got lost.

I think you just want to pretend that these women have real choices when in fact it is their boyfriends (far from loving and supportive) who leave them without a choice. These men sure are glad that PP is there when they need them.

I also think you can't bring yourself to criticize the way men use women these days because it brings into sharp focus how little the women's movement has done to help many women.

Abortion gives men a lot of freedom.

It gives women a lot of heartbreak.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:44 PM


Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:33 PM:

"The fact is men now feel they have a right to child free sex."

-So do I.

"I recently read an article at RH Reality Check where a man wrote that men should have the right to tell a woman they got pregnant that they didn't want the kid and that should be enough to satisfy the court that since she knew he didn't want the kid she thereby accepted 100% of the responsibility for the financial support of the kid or to have the abortion. It was not in the comment section. It was one of the writers at RH Reality Check."

-Makes sense to me. Either both parties are needed to consent to parenthood, or they're not. If a woman is able to make a decision to have or not have a baby regardless of the man's choice, than he should be able to relinquish his parental rights and obligations without legal consequence (child support). Harsh, but fair.

"Men want no consequences sex. Society expects women to get with the program. PP makes it happen. PP enables these men."

-PP enables everyone, men or women, to not be parents if they choose not to be. The unseemly men you describe could technically fall into that category.

"The majority of women who get abortions do not have the option of being supported by the father of the baby."

-You can say some or many, but not the majority. You cannot assume to know the intimate details of why each couple chooses to abort unless you've spoken to ALL of them.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:45 PM



"Bottom line, I will work to shut down anyone or anything that stands in the way of a woman's reproductive freedom, whether it is to have children or not. If that's not you, then we don't have a problem.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:22 PM"

Nice to know that Danielle supports women who want to have 20 kids. Not too many pro abortion folks who will say that.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:47 PM



"Janet,"
"I am 38. How old are you? And why do you ask?"
Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:38 PM

Because ones age reflects their life experience to a degree.
Your arguments are very 1970's-ish, IMHO, so I would have guessed you were either just out of school, or quite a bit older than you actually are. I'm about yen years older than you. I remember when Roe v.Wade was passed. It was quite devastating to think that women wanted to kill their own children. It changed my world view for the worse at a very impressionable age.

Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 4:48 PM


"ten", not "yen".

Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 4:49 PM


Excellent! Then we don't have a problem! Because, see, I only have a problem with women who've ALREADY reproduced killing the offspring inside her. So we're good, right?
Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 4:38 PM

-I said standing in the way of choosing to have children or not to have children. The women you describe have yet to have children. They will if they continue with their pregnancy. But they don't have to. So if she decides to end it and you don't stand in her way, then we're good.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:50 PM


I get sick of people assuming that just because I opted not to kill my daughter during my crisis pregnancy, everything magically turned lolipops and rainbows. No, it sucked. Hard. But guess what? Life sucks, and then you die. I'm still not about to kill someone else, particularly my child, because I think it might make mine suck a little less. I'm not about to advocate taking anyone else's rights that I wouldn't waive myself, either. I KNOW abortion isn't necessary. Heck, I'll say that my own crisis pregnancy was a social experiment in how necessary abortion is to the continuing rights of women. RESULT: No matter how crappy one's circumstances are, it's not necessary.

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 4:50 PM



-You can say some or many, but not the majority. You cannot assume to know the intimate details of why each couple chooses to abort unless you've spoken to ALL of them.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:45 PM

Sure I can. It is based on data. Women tell the reason for the abortion when they get the abortion. Then the results are tabulated. Lack of support is the number one reason for abortion. Translation: The guy is not going to help me with the kid!

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:51 PM


Janet, I will admit to having had a poster of Gloria Steinem on my wall as a little girl circa 1978. But I only came around to the pro-choice point of view a few years ago (since turning 30 and since having experiences with women whose lives weren't all sunshine, puppies, and affordable birth control like mine).

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:53 PM


Nice to know that Danielle supports women who want to have 20 kids. Not too many pro abortion folks who will say that.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:47 PM

-Yes, you are right there. Now, I might talk about you 12 different ways to Sunday, but I'm not trying to stop you from doing it.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:53 PM



"-Makes sense to me. Either both parties are needed to consent to parenthood, or they're not. If a woman is able to make a decision to have or not have a baby regardless of the man's choice, than he should be able to relinquish his parental rights and obligations without legal consequence (child support). Harsh, but fair."


Sure, nothing is too harsh for women to bear.
Anything is too harsh for men to bear.

Double standard against women. You betcha.

Still can't criticize the men. Can you?

Let me guess. It's society's fault.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:55 PM


Main Entry: fetus
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: unborn young
Synonyms: embryo, blastosphere, blastula, DEVELOPING INFANT


Main Entry: infant
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: baby
Synonyms: babe, bundle, CHILD, kid, newborn, suckling, toddler, bairn, bambino, bantling, little one, neonate, small child, tot


"-I said standing in the way of choosing to have children or not to have children. The women you describe have yet to have children. They will if they continue with their pregnancy. But they don't have to. So if she decides to end it and you don't stand in her way, then we're good.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:50 PM"

So no, she already has a child, and yeah, if she wants to "end" that child, I'd certainly be opposed to that. Sorry we're not cool. I shall forever lament the friendship we could've had that simply wasn't meant to be. ;_;

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 4:57 PM


Abortion gives men a lot of freedom.
It gives women a lot of heartbreak.
Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:44 PM

Abortion gives women a lot of freedom.
It gives men a lot of heartbreak.

Abortion gives women a lot of freedom.
It gives men a lot of freedom.

Abortion gives women a lot of heartbreak.
It gives men a lot of heartbreak.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:58 PM



-Yes, you are right there. Now, I might talk about you 12 different ways to Sunday, but I'm not trying to stop you from doing it.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:53 PM


Why?

Why don't you think that whatever I want is the best idea ever, just because I want to?


Would you talk to me 12 different ways to Sunday to gently persuade me not to have an abortion? Or would you suggest abortion yourself?

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 5:00 PM


So no, she already has a child, and yeah, if she wants to "end" that child, I'd certainly be opposed to that. Sorry we're not cool. I shall forever lament the friendship we could've had that simply wasn't meant to be. ;_;
Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 4:57 PM

-Oh well, we tried.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:00 PM


Xalisae, I am sorry you faced so many crappy circumstances during your pregnancy. I admire you for choosing to go through it. I don't believe you should have been forced to do so. Sorry!

Jacqueline, Good responses to my bone marrow question -- best of I have seen on this site yet. The fact remains tht we do not legally require dad to give up his bone marrow for his own child! I would note that lots of women face crises and difficulties in their pregnancies that they don't foresee either. I also think it is worse to provide lifesaving measures to a sentient child who knows what is happening to him than to terminate the life of a zygote, embryo or fetus whose lifesaving measures include living for months inside my body.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 5:01 PM


Sure, nothing is too harsh for women to bear.
Anything is too harsh for men to bear.

Double standard against women. You betcha.

Still can't criticize the men. Can you?

Let me guess. It's society's fault.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:55 PM

-Where are you getting this stuff??

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:01 PM


Oops that should say:
I also think it is worse to NOT provide lifesaving measures to a sentient child who knows what is happening to him than to terminate the life of a zygote, embryo or fetus whose lifesaving measures include living for months inside my body.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 5:02 PM


xalisae,
I'm so sorry you went through so much difficulty, but totally amazed at your courage.
Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 4:43 PM

-Me too.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:03 PM


I only came around to the pro-choice point of view a few years ago (since turning 30 and since having experiences with women whose lives weren't all sunshine, puppies, and affordable birth control like mine).

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:53 PM

Did you ever get to the point where you could criticize men for what they did to these women? Or do these women just deserve to be abused by men? Or is it society's fault?

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 5:04 PM


"Janet, I will admit to having had a poster of Gloria Steinem on my wall as a little girl circa 1978. But I only came around to the pro-choice point of view a few years ago (since turning 30 and since having experiences with women whose lives weren't all sunshine, puppies, and affordable birth control like mine)."
Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 4:53 PM

You were seven. Is GS also your mother? (just kidding.)

I think x makes an excellent point, that our lives aren't meant to be easy. I won't be content on my deathbed if the best I can say is, WOW, my life was easy. I hope to say something like my life wasn't easy, but I made it to this point, with God's grace. (Leave out the part "with God's grace" if you are so inclined.) Make sense?

Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 5:06 PM



-Where are you getting this stuff??

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:01 PM

From you.

This post is about PP covering up what men do to young women but not turning them in to the cops. I am criticizing the men for abusing women. I am criticizing PP for their part in enabling men to abuse women. You are not. You seem to think all is fair in love and lust.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 5:08 PM


Women tell the reason for the abortion when they get the abortion. Then the results are tabulated. Lack of support is the number one reason for abortion. Translation: The guy is not going to help me with the kid!
Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:51 PM

-That's the #1 reason. That's not the reason for 100% of the cases. You said 'all.'

Why? Why don't you think that whatever I want is the best idea ever, just because I want to? Would you talk to me 12 different ways to Sunday to gently persuade me not to have an abortion? Or would you suggest abortion yourself?
Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 5:00 PM

-Why would I talk about you? Uh, because I can find nooooo reason in my right mind why anyone would want to have 20 kids. Does this mean I would say something like that to your face? Of course not. Would I think it? BELIEVE IT! But that's still not stopping you from exercising your reproductive choice. As for whether we would have an adoption/abortion talk, that would totally depend on the nature of the relationship, and whether you asked me for my opinion. Otherwise, I'm staying out of it...

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:09 PM


Wow, there is a lot going on in this thread:

1) I certainly imagine that many women get abortions because they don't want to be single mothers. Doesn't mean they want a shotgun marriage though. I suspect many coathanger abortions occurred because women desperately wanted to avoid shotgun marriages.

2) Both men and women want consequence-free sex. I am a woman and I sure do! Doesn't mean men are "using" women. I have willingly and enthusiastically participated in consequence-free sex for 20 years! Please don't insult women by characterizing us as stupid dupes.

3) I am a feminist. This is the first time I have been accused of letting men off the hook!

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 5:14 PM



-Why would I talk about you? Uh, because I can find nooooo reason in my right mind why anyone would want to have 20 kids. Does this mean I would say something like that to your face? Of course not.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:09 PM

Okay, now I am lost. First you say you would talk to me, then you say you wouldn't. Which is it?

I can't reply anymore, my little one just woke up.

Everyone have a great rest of the day.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 5:18 PM


This post is about PP covering up what men do to young women but not turning them in to the cops. I am criticizing the men for abusing women. I am criticizing PP for their part in enabling men to abuse women. You are not. You seem to think all is fair in love and lust.
Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 5:08 PM

-Ugh, so not the point. At all. That jerks who leave women high and dry are the secondary 'beneficiaries' of legal abortion is so beside the point, but for some reason you're trying to make it the whole point, which is falling short. Somehow you've equated supporting abortion rights with supporting rape and lotharios who prey on women. I don't even know how to begin to unpack that lie.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:18 PM


Ah...the coathanger. Has to come up eventually.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 5:21 PM


Please don't insult women by characterizing us as stupid dupes.


Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 5:14 PM


Were Bernie Madoff's victims stupid dupes?
Even smart people get a raw deal sometimes. And remember half of women are below average intelligence and one guy can victimize many women.

Posted by: Hippie at June 30, 2009 5:22 PM


Yes, I was a 7-year old second wave feminist. Even my parents thought I was a weird kid.

(Full-disclosure, my parents said positive things about feminism in passing, but they didn't expect me to run with it to the extent I did.)

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 5:24 PM


Okay, now I am lost. First you say you would talk to me, then you say you wouldn't. Which is it?
I can't reply anymore, my little one just woke up.
Everyone have a great rest of the day.
Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 5:18 PM

-Understood that you can't reply - just to clarify: I said talk 'about' you, not 'to' you! So yes, it's still your decision and right, but I'd just have all kinds of commentary running in my head (not very nice, I know). Just sayin'.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:24 PM


In terms of men abusing women, I don't think every unwanted pregnancy that results in abortion means a man has abused a woman. It just means two people had sex when they weren't ready to have a child. Except in cases of rape, I don't see how the woman is any less than a full participant in the choice to have sex. Women don't all want to marry everyone they sleep with.

That said, I do think men are a bit too cavalier about contraception, assuming it is the woman's isuse. And I myself had an experience with a boyfriend who tried to talk me out of him having to use a condom. Angers me to this day a gazillion years later.

So yeah men aren't blameless, but I don't think forcing women to give birth solves the problem of men who behave badly. In fact, I think if anything women are treated worse when they don't have the abortion option. I seem to recall in the old days your choices as an unwed pregnant teen were (a) shotgun marriage; (b) yanked out of school and forced to give child up for adoption; and (c) massive public shaming. Now, at least some unwed pregnant teens like Bristol Palin are sometimes treated like heroines because everyone knows they CHOSE to continue their pregnancy.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 5:33 PM


xalisae,
I'm so sorry you went through so much difficulty, but totally amazed at your courage.
Posted by: Janet at June 30, 2009 4:43 PM

-Me too.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 5:03 PM


I am not courageous, just headstrong, stubborn, and really really convicted (to a fault, just about). I firmly believe that I am not special, and anyone can do what I have done in my lifetime, and better than I've done it. That's part of the reason I don't think women will suffer without abortion. I think women without abortion will make us better (and men), because I think people will be more inclined to think about what they do before they do it, and make better decisions as to "Is this really worth it?"-decisions which I don't think are being made right now. Unplanned crisis pregnancy certainly was a learning experience in my life, and I'm sure it was in Magdalena's father's life, too. He eventually came around, and now wouldn't have it any other way. He loves his little girl more than life itself. And she's just as stubborn as I am. :P

"I suspect many coathanger abortions occurred because women desperately wanted to avoid shotgun marriages."

But you don't have to get married. I think this is a huge lack of assertivness in feminist ideals...it's a shortcoming. Women not wanting to be pushed into marriages just should be strong enough to not get married. Being intimidated into marriage or abortion by societal stigma placed on an unwed mother is a sad thing. But the answer is teaching women to do what is right for THEM, society be damned, not forced marriage or abortion.

"2) Both men and women want consequence-free sex. I am a woman and I sure do! Doesn't mean men are "using" women. I have willingly and enthusiastically participated in consequence-free sex for 20 years!"

I agree, and support you 100% in that endevor, however, there really is no such thing as "consequence-free sex" if you keep the reality of the biological process in mind, and until we have 100% effective contraception, I cannot stress enough how part of the abortion problem is people not being mindful enough of the possiblities involved in a sexual relationship. Congrats on your success thus far though. I wish you nothing but happiness and continued success in this. :P

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 5:36 PM


Isn't it strange how many PC'ers talk constantly about the right to choose and insist that a woman (even a minor) decides what is BEST for her AND then speak about forcing a minor rape victim to testify in open court AGAINST HER WISHES. Why is a minor correct in one choice, but not in the other so as to make her not victimized yet again? ...... please read several Prochoicer's posts above.

Month's ago I got into this with Doug: Basic rights are not person-rights/rights endowed AT BIRTH when a human is designated as a person. Basic rights are called HUMAN RIGHTS, underline 'human'. No matter the stage of development such rights are not dependent on age - personhood; viability; intellectual competence; the ability to feel pain; 'quickening'; etc, but on being alive. Rights in this context are species-specific. Abortion ends this 'aliveness'. A baby's HUMAN rights are extinguished via abortion.

In conclusion: rights are species-specific. Even medical words like 'fetus' means 'young one Latin, [of any animal]'. To be more precise we should say canine(dog)-fetus, or equine(horse)-fetus and HUMAN-fetus.

Posted by: John McDonell at June 30, 2009 5:46 PM


I prefer "fetal human", but it doesn't make much of a difference. /sigh

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 5:56 PM


John,

There are certain obligations all citizens have to make the court system work. This includes reporting for jury duty and testifying truthfully when subpoenad.

You could be minding your own business, and if you happen to witness a crime, yep, you can be subpoenad against your will to testify at the trial. And yes, victims of theft, burglary, bar fights, etc. are sometimes subpoenad to testify agains their will as well.

I don't see any way around if we want a functioning court system and a functioning criminal justice system.

(By the way, I should note that there are many victims and witnesses who are cooperative, including sexual assault victims.)

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 5:57 PM


Xalisae,

I agree that you can have a baby without getting married in this day and age. (This may not have been quite so feasible 50 years ago, at least not if you wanted to keep the baby.)

I was responding to a commenter who was arguing that abortions wouldn't be so common if men would only just propose marriage. I disagree with that assertion. I think there are women who get abortions because they don't want to be single mothers but they don't want to marry their boyfriends either.

Xalisae, you're my kind of chick. I like your feisty, women-are-tough-and-capable philosophy. I have a feeling we agree on a lot except the issue of abortion.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 6:04 PM


"I am glad you took to your pregnancy so well and were happy to see it through. Tell it to my friend who is on 2 months of bed rest. Tell it to my other friend who was rushed to the hospital for an emergency C-section."
------------------------------------
Well if thats the case, I should have aborted when my mom found out about my hidden pregnancy at 15 & later on in the pregnancy got toxemia @ 30 weeks & had to be on bed rest(my now wonderful son Jadon) & I should have aborted when my second son was born at 37 weeks and stopped breathing & I should have aborted because my last son...oh wait my last pregnancy was pretty text book perfect. But those first two......those where a doozie!
Bed rest happens, c-sections happen too! Complications happen all the time in pregnancy but there are ways to help yourself be healthy as well as the baby be healthy. I've done this TWO times and both of my sons entered this world with some minor emergent situations but they're alive and healthy.
But I don't think I'd EVER abort b/c the doc put me on bedrest....thats pretty stupid to me.

My point is that woman shouldn't abort b/c life gives them a hard situation. If that was the case then I'd be with out two of my babies.

Posted by: AK Krystal at June 30, 2009 6:18 PM


*raises hand*

I bled from 6 weeks til 23 weeks. Sometimes to the point where I had to be rushed to the hosptial. I had a liver disorder that made me itch like crazy. We're talking tear my skin off itching. Then my water broke at 23 weeks and I was on full bedrest for 7 weeks. Then we got an infection and had to do an emergency c-section.

Pretty much everything that could go wrong, went wrong. But guess what? That STILL isn't a reason to kill.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2009 6:25 PM


"I agree that you can have a baby without getting married in this day and age. (This may not have been quite so feasible 50 years ago, at least not if you wanted to keep the baby.)"

And this is part of the reason I love being alive in the age I am now. The only other periods I can think of that I probably would've liked might have been ancient Egypt (temple priestess job sounded pretty cool), and possibly during the Civil Rights movement in 1969(I think certain aspects of the movement could've stood to have been tempered with responsibility, personal accountability, and restraint, which probably would've helped not only the protestor's case, but also created a better society as a whole with greater freedoms AND greater consideration of one another within the context of those freedoms)

"I think there are women who get abortions because they don't want to be single mothers but they don't want to marry their boyfriends either."

That's just a kind of irrational statement to me, but I've always had a very realistic understanding of sex ===> children because of how many younger siblings I have. When you see the progression so many times, eventually it's just the natural flow of things. But I have to learn that not everyone had this benefit in life, which is why a more realistic dialogue about sex in general needs to be established, we need to continue working on contraception methods, and in the meantime any gaps need to be filled with a completely overhauled and reformed foster care/adoption system.

"Xalisae, you're my kind of chick. I like your feisty, women-are-tough-and-capable philosophy. I have a feeling we agree on a lot except the issue of abortion."

Thanks, and you're not so bad yourself. We probably do, and hopefully one day society, science, and technology will intersect in such a way that abortion will simply fade away as an issue of contention between -anyone-.

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 6:27 PM


Nope it wasn't a reason to kill, Lauren I think we both understand how hard it is to carry a baby when your body feels like its working against you.
But what doesn't kill you (or your baby) makes you stronger.

Posted by: AK Krystal at June 30, 2009 6:28 PM


I agree that you can have a baby without getting married in this day and age. (This may not have been quite so feasible 50 years ago, at least not if you wanted to keep the baby.)

yes you certainly can, but it's not the best way for the child who deserves a mother and a father.
But then when are we ever concerned about what's best for the child these days? :(

Lauren, you are a tough cookie! Glad you made it through all your difficulties!

Posted by: angel at June 30, 2009 6:59 PM


Well, I must check out for now. I have been in kind of a rut in my real life lately and slacking off more than I should (just for a couple weeks). Tomorrow I am back in action guns blazing so I may not be commenting as much (though may check in from time to time). Thank you all for engaging with me, despite our disagreements.

Posted by: Prochoicer at June 30, 2009 7:00 PM


This is how it should have happened, IF PLANNED PARENTHOOD CARED:

If PP was genuinely concerned with the 14 year old, they WOULD have made the appointment for her.

Then, in the process of making the appointment, PP would have taken all of her personal information, including her parents names, etc. as an emergency contact, and information about the father, her stated reasons for wanting the abortion, etc.

THEN, if PP cared, they would have gone out of the girl's sight and locked up the filled-out forms, taken her aside, and handed her some brochures with titles like, "How To Tell My Parents I'm Pregnant", "How To Have An Abortion (Even If My Parents/Boyfriend Disagree With My Choice)", "How To Keep My Baby (Even If My Parents/Boyfriend Disagree With My Choice), and anything else they usually give out.

THEN, regardless of whether PP cared or not, they should have explained to the girl they have DECEIVED her - that she needs parental consent because of her age, and the circumstances require mandatory reporting, and that they would be notifying the police (and turning over her forms) as soon as she leaves the room, and NO, she can't talk them out of reporting.

THEN, if PP cared, they would ask her if she feels safe regarding parents/boyfriend finding out and would she like to wait in their "safe room" until the authorities arrive (and parents, presumably, once the detectives shows up). They would also let her know that she has many resources, legal and therapeutic, available to help her as this thing unfolds around her.

BECAUSE, if PP cared, they would recognize that they are AT BEST only ONE facet of this girl's solution.

BECAUSE, (at least in CA) most of the above is fully or partially reimbursable by the government.

BECAUSE, while the legal system is not the right vehicle to help her psychologically, there are many other vehicles that are specifically designed for that purpose.

And, BECAUSE, oh yeah, her "boyfriend" is a freakin' child molester!

I'm still trying to figure out why, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we wouldn't hold her against her will in order to prevent her from walking out and back into the power of such a person. THAT would be caring for the girl!

Posted by: JP Prichard at June 30, 2009 7:43 PM


Jacqueline, Good responses to my bone marrow question -- best of I have seen on this site yet. The fact remains tht we do not legally require dad to give up his bone marrow for his own child!

I didn't dispute that. That *is* the law. What I said that your analogy is invalid because the mother puts the child in the state of dependence. There is a difference between me refusing you my kidney just because you need it and my purposefully sabotaging your kidneys, knowing you'd need mine to live and then denying you my kidney. To make that even worse, you and I are strangers, but every aborted baby is the son or daughter of the mother that kills him/her. I'd like to think that there is a level of obligation not just to the children you MAKE- but the fact that abortion is family killing family.

I would note that lots of women face crises and difficulties in their pregnancies that they don't foresee either.

Woah- I thought this was about bodily autonomy, about how a woman has the right to kill anyone she does not want to share her body with. How then do any circumstances or difficulties weigh in at all? Do you then oppose women killing their children simply because they don't want a baby bump under their new dress? Because they don't like the astrological sign the baby will be born under? So women can not kill their kids for the circumstances they did forsee, only for those they did not? And what circumstances are grave enough to justify killing a child?


I also think it is worse to provide lifesaving measures to a sentient child who knows what is happening to him than to terminate the life of a zygote, embryo or fetus whose lifesaving measures include living for months inside my body.

Your logic is all over the place. So it's a combo of arguments- It's not that a woman has ultimate rights to not share her body with her baby that she conceived, but that the baby is not "sentient" in your opinion. So if that 12 year old were in need of a womb, would circumstances change? If the baby were sentient, would it then be wrong to kill her?

You at least recognize that you are terminating a life- do you justify this by thinking that certain developmental phases are less worthy of life, or that mom can kill anyone in her uterus regardless of his/her characteristics?

What I don't understand is how it's somehow feminist that women have the special right to kill their offspring and deny themselves parenthood after conception. Men, can't. Since childbearing is unique to women, women get the unfair advantage over men of killing children conceived at an inconveinent time. How is that equality?

Posted by: Jacqueline at June 30, 2009 7:58 PM


What people may not realize is PP is an INTERNATIONAL organization in agreement with policies of population control, to the extreme of depriving clients of civil rights we see as minimal in our country in order to operate in more brutal regimes. Abortion & birth control for white slave trafficking, pedophilia, young girl "brides", polygamy, government enforced population control are part of the international services rendered by PP on other continents. They believe they are above the American justice system and under the shield of the New One World Order. Under Obama, this protection will be further sealed.

Posted by: Marian Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 8:11 PM



Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 4:51 PM

-That's the #1 reason. That's not the reason for 100% of the cases. You said 'all.'

Why? Why don't you think that whatever I want is the best idea ever, just because I want to? Would you talk to me 12 different ways to Sunday to gently persuade me not to have an abortion? Or would you suggest abortion yourself?
Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 5:00 PM

No, I didn't say 'all'. I outlined the general case of abortions. According to the reasons women give for having abortions, they have been left high and dry by the guy. I'll bet it is very similar to single moms. Most women want to get married and have kids. Sure some don't of course, but in general they do. 80% of women have a child by the time they are 44. How many, do you think, want to be single moms? How many little girls grow up dreaming of being abused and ending up as single moms or just plain choosing to be single moms? How many single moms are living the dream? Get real. Typically women want to marry a nice guy and have kids. Some want careers as well or instead but most don't. Most only work if they have to or after the kids are older.

The big benefits of birth control and abortion are for men.

How many happily married couples who basically want kids and end up pregnant a year or two before they ideally planned to, choose abortion? Far fewer than the typical woman dumped or coerced by a boyfriend. Data clearly shows abortion is lower within marriage.

The shotgun marriage idea is hilarious. When was the last time you heard of someone pressuring a guy to marry the girl? Ridiculous. He knows he can pressure her into abortion. The families don't have to know. It's not like the old days where you can't hide the pregnancy and baby. He isn't going to go home and tell his parents his girlfriend is pregnant, and he sure isn't going to tell hers. He is going to get the first crack at her and coerce her to abort before she goes home crying to mom and dad. No guy is in favor of parental notification. Duh,

Why do you think young men are the single most pro abortion group? It hits them where they live.

Young women are not as pro abortion as young men. Think about it.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 8:16 PM


Well, I'll have 20 kids if God sends them, and may end up with that many over the years once I finish the classes to medical fost-adopt.

I'm right here. Go ahead. Try to talk me out of it.

Posted by: Elisabeth at June 30, 2009 9:16 PM


Danielle,
I hope you come back to this thread. I also hope and pray that someday you walk away. Walk away from PP. I want you to know what I know. When a woman chooses LIFE for her baby and you get to walk her through her pregnancy and beyond there is just no other feeling like it.
Exhilarating hardly describes it. There are two lives saved!!

Instead you believe what you are doing is "helping" and in reality you are not. You are there for her when it is over. Her baby is dead.
She will never be the same but you won't know that Danielle cause she may or may not go back to the scene.

I think you are honest and spunky and would love to hear your voice for the voiceless.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 30, 2009 9:40 PM


Prochoicer,

I noticed you frequently reference that a woman should not be forced to give birth.

What you really mean is that women should not be denied the legal opportunity to pay someone to forcefully make them unpregnant via surgery involving dismemberment of an unborn human. There is no outside force making someone give birth; after conception, the unborn child will develop until the pregnancy naturally terminates, resulting in the birth of the child. It doesn't make sense to say that someone was forced to give birth, as they will give birth unless force (abortion) stops that from happening.

Posted by: Janette at June 30, 2009 10:07 PM


"And I myself had an experience with a boyfriend who tried to talk me out of him having to use a condom. Angers me to this day a gazillion years later."


How long after did this incident did you stay with this guy who obviously had no respect for you? Don't answer just think about it.

Posted by: hippie at June 30, 2009 10:14 PM


I still think it's cool that Live Action Films has the same initials I did before I was married.

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 10:22 PM


Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 4:45 PM,

"Either both parties are needed to consent to parenthood, or they're not. If a woman is able to make a decision to have or not have a baby regardless of the man's choice, than he should be able to relinquish his parental rights and obligations without legal consequence (child support). Harsh, but fair."

Harsh, but fair? More like intolerably cruel. A man should be absolved of his duty to provide at least monetary support for his child, that he willfully consented to create by having sex, if he wants the mother to kill the child and she refuses? I'm actually shocked that you would consider that in the same universe as "fair." Abandoning one's child is completely unfair. Threatening a woman and her unborn child with abandonement if she is unwilling to undergo surgery that will take the life of her son or daughter is completely unfair.

Posted by: Janette at June 30, 2009 10:30 PM


Meh. That was the breakdown I gave my daughter's father when he wanted me to abort. I said that I was just as much a party to her being created as he was, and if he didn't want her, then fine, but I did, and I was going to have her. I told him I'd move back to where I came from (more than half way across the country) and raise her by myself, and he could just pretend it never happened, we'd never contact him again, and we'd be fine with or without him. He decided to come with us, pouting all the way. And the rest is history. But everyone in this house knows that momma is always right. *grin*

Posted by: xalisae at June 30, 2009 10:37 PM


Danielle,
I hope you come back to this thread. I also hope and pray that someday you walk away. Walk away from PP. I want you to know what I know. When a woman chooses LIFE for her baby and you get to walk her through her pregnancy and beyond there is just no other feeling like it. Exhilarating hardly describes it. There are two lives saved!!

Instead you believe what you are doing is "helping" and in reality you are not. You are there for her when it is over. Her baby is dead. She will never be the same but you won't know that Danielle cause she may or may not go back to the scene. I think you are honest and spunky and would love to hear your voice for the voiceless.
Posted by: carla at June 30, 2009 9:40 PM

-I'm baaaaaaaaack!!

Well you know Carla, I just don't know how to rectify our impasse. I think I've been pro-choice my whole girlhood and womanhood, so I'm not sure what will ever change that. We've talked ad nauseam about soooo many different scenarios and you're right, I try to keep it honest even if it's not pretty!

The only piece of information I'll add here is about the joy of "choosing life" as you say...I know that too! I am not a mother but I'm surrounded by them as friends and family start their own families. I enjoy them. I enjoy their joy and happiness and their chub. And yep, I've been front row and center for PLENTY of births (too many if you ask me...long story). It's pretty damn amazing if you ask me. Bodies at work. I get it. I get the joy.

I also get being in a not-so-great situation and deciding to be a mom, anyway. My younger cousin just went through this. Unmarried. Too young. New boyfriend. New job. Cramped apartment. Family had a collective coronary. I thought FOR SURE she'd have an abortion. Well guess what? She dug in her heels and said "I'm having my baby." I respected that. Never talked to her about another choice. Never. Bought her quite the deluxe diaper bag and Diaper Genie for the shower. She chose, made a big girl decision and had a daughter. Delight!

Just know that I see and get the full spectrum. I understand how there is no way you could have a child...and how there is no way you could NOT have a child. Pro choice people are not myopic to the joys of babies and pregnancy and parenthood. Many of them are parents. Or midwives, or NICU nurses or day care owners. Obstetricians. Covered all day in babies. Yet, we still come out on a different side in terms of what we should be in charge of in terms of our bodies. Personally I don't want that choice taken away, for anyone. No one can be in charge of that decision but her. That's just where I am.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 10:44 PM


Harsh, but fair? More like intolerably cruel. A man should be absolved of his duty to provide at least monetary support for his child, that he willfully consented to create by having sex, if he wants the mother to kill the child and she refuses? I'm actually shocked that you would consider that in the same universe as "fair." Abandoning one's child is completely unfair. Threatening a woman and her unborn child with abandonement if she is unwilling to undergo surgery that will take the life of her son or daughter is completely unfair.
Posted by: Janette at June 30, 2009 10:30 PM

-I didn't necessarily mean that the conversation is 'abortion or else.' Rather, it is a means of balancing the authority. A woman can choose to either have or not have the offspring of an affair (or whatever word you choose), regardless of the man's opinion. Right or wrong. If she doesn't want to be a mother, she doesn't have to be a mother. The same balance is not there for the man, its unfair, but frankly, not a lot can be done about that. That said, I do not believe that a man should be forced into fatherhood if a woman cannot be forced into motherhood. If he announces that he does not want to be a father and has no intention of doing so, then he should not be legally obligated to pay for the care of the child after the fact. The woman knows that by moving forward with the pregnancy, she does so without the father. As X mentioned above. Her decision is her decision. I don't know how to formalize the process, and I know it will likely never happen - but this double standard has never made sense to me.

Posted by: Danielle at June 30, 2009 10:52 PM


"Her decision is her decision."

Yeah, but I don't want it to be a matter of choice. In which case, the laws we have now as far as child support make perfect sense.

Posted by: xalisae at July 1, 2009 12:19 AM


Danielle,
You support a woman's right to kill her own child. So did I.

And we do not talk ad nauseum. We discuss and argue and debate and try to help you SEE that it is not the childs fault that the mom doesn't want to let him/her live. But the child pays with his/her life because of career, finances, lack of support, and other changing circumstances.

Abortion will not continue. Maybe it will not be in my lifetime but it will end. Legalized abortion will end.

It makes me shake my head even more than that you, surrounded by babies, seeing births and loving children think that somehow what you do is
noble, right, and good for women and children.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 1, 2009 7:21 AM


Janette at 10:07
What an excellent comment to one of the dumbest lines I've heard so far
Force a woman to be pregnant......

Thanks!! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 1, 2009 7:23 AM


Danielle,
You support a woman's right to kill her own child. So did I.
Posted by: carla at July 1, 2009 7:21 AM

-And you know I also support a woman's right to have her own child.

Posted by: Danielle at July 1, 2009 8:46 AM


Whatever helps you sleep at night, babe.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 1, 2009 9:13 AM


Go Lila- and I loved the way your investigation was mentioned in that new documentary on Planned Parenthood - Maafa21. For those who have not seen it- this film will close Planned Parenthood. Get several copies and pass them around. View SHORT clips here: www.maafa21.com

Posted by: Rapnsum at July 1, 2009 9:29 AM


Whatever helps you sleep at night, babe.

Posted by: carla at July 1, 2009 9:13 AM

-I sleep quite peacefully. Not one toss or turn. I feel good. I hope that's ok.

Posted by: Danielle at July 1, 2009 9:58 AM


Hi Danielle,

For some time THE focus for you seems to be that a woman has made the decision to abort and such a decision is immutable ... somehow perfect! This is despite known coercion (statutory rape of a minor) and emotionally questionable mood predominance like depression at the time of this decision. If a woman chooses to allow her baby to live, I would assume she is also practicing freedom according to you. Therefore, either way she still experiences 'freedom'.

If she 'chooses' life, is this because of pro-life rhetoric or to a regrettable thought that someone else is involved by her decision. If her 'freedom' is expressed either way by her decision, then we must look at how such a decision influences the lives of others. Is a pro-abortion decision one that denies the rights and life of her unborn living human?

Posted by: John McDonell at July 1, 2009 10:12 AM


Danielle, can you not see that we're for elevating everyone to a responsible level to care for their children, while you're for tearing everyone down? Yes, maybe making men able to skip out on child support would be more "fair" for them men. Their own version of abortion. However, what about the child? Is it fair for him?

Posted by: Lauren at July 1, 2009 10:18 AM


Posted by: John McDonell at July 1, 2009 10:12 AM

For some time THE focus for you seems to be that a woman has made the decision to abort and such a decision is immutable ... somehow perfect!

-Perfect? I'm not sure about that, but I do believe its her decision to make.

This is despite known coercion (statutory rape of a minor) and emotionally questionable mood predominance like depression at the time of this decision.

-Coersion and mental illness is not choice.

If a woman chooses to allow her baby to live, I would assume she is also practicing freedom according to you. Therefore, either way she still experiences 'freedom'.

-Yes. The freedom to choose her own future and of her family.

If she 'chooses' life, is this because of pro-life rhetoric or to a regrettable thought that someone else is involved by her decision.

-I have no idea. Everyone's journey is different. If you decide to include others in your process and you decide to keep the baby, that's fine. And vice versa. That's not the same as force.

If her 'freedom' is expressed either way by her decision, then we must look at how such a decision influences the lives of others. Is a pro-abortion decision one that denies the rights and life of her unborn living human?

-It's got a big impact on others. You're right. But there's someone at the center who has to choose the path, and that's her. Sucks for everyone on the sidelines who want her to do what THEY want her to do. If you believe that unborn humans have rights too, then yes, they are being denied.


Posted by: Danielle at July 1, 2009 10:30 AM


Posted by: Lauren at July 1, 2009 10:18 AM

Danielle, can you not see that we're for elevating everyone to a responsible level to care for their children, while you're for tearing everyone down?

-No. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that everyone on this board is for the elevation of responsible parenting.

Yes, maybe making men able to skip out on child support would be more "fair" for them men. Their own version of abortion. However, what about the child? Is it fair for him?

-If you decide to have a child, knowing full well that the man you're with doesn't want this kid, then you are choosing single parenthood. Which is fine. Tough, but fine. No different than a mother choosing to give a child up for adoption. She's relinquished rights. The adoptive parents aren't looking for check each month, they are raising the child on their own. Is it nice? No. Fair? Yes. She'll need to sort out how to explain that to her children in her own way and time. The point is, don't get mad when a man decides not to be a father if a woman can decide not to be a mother.

Posted by: Danielle at July 1, 2009 10:38 AM


I haven't heard yet one person on this thread address the many men who longed to be there for their child. There are men that wanted to do the right thing, stand up and be there for the new life they helped create and the woman who would carry that child!! He had no choice, no say, no voice as his child died.

God help us.


Danielle,
I'm tired. So flippin tired of the twisting of words and the mental gymnastics it takes to support the killing of innocent children. Someday you will understand.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 1, 2009 10:44 AM


Oh, and a woman is a mother when she conceives. She walks into the mill a mother with a growing child and she leaves, still a mother but, of a dead child.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 1, 2009 10:46 AM


"-I have no idea. Everyone's journey is different. If you decide to include others in your process and you decide to keep the baby, that's fine. And vice versa. That's not the same as force."

You know what? In my unique and beautiful journey, I've learned how to drive. Now, I don't know if I should include others in my process of driving. Should I consider braking for pedestrians crossing the street? I mean, only I can make that decision, really, as it is me driving, and it is my car...

Posted by: xalisae at July 1, 2009 11:25 AM


. The point is, don't get mad when a man decides not to be a father if a woman can decide not to be a mother.

I'm rightfully mad when any parent, mother or father decides not to be a parent. It's one thing to place the child with new parents, so that child is still given the basic human right of a mother and father, it's quite another to leave a child motherless or fatherless or worse, kill that child. You promote abandonment via murder for mothers- and extend abandonment to fathers by suggesting that since mom can murder, dad can at least just walk away. Do you not see how you are advocating for the selfish wants of adults with no regard for children, who deserve life and parents? Rather than supporting abortion for women and bringing men down as close to that level as you can by supporting legal abandonment, have you considered raising your standards for the good of children? I can unequivocably say that abandonment from any parent is unacceptable- but you support it so that you can feel better about women abandoning their children via abortion. Children deserve better than this, and I'll take the side of the children over the irresponsible and selfish wants of the parents anyday.

By the way, your attempts to make things "fair" for men by allowing abandonment doesn't even things out. Mom can kill her child and never wonder what happened, never fear unexpected reunions or live with the knowledge that she has a child- A father that abandons a child always has this hanging over him, regardless of how depraved he is. This is a reason women give for choosing abortion over adoption- not wanting to know they have a child alive and wondering how that child is. You don't give men that option. Why can't men kill the child just like the woman can and never have to wonder about what happened to their son/daughter? Why can Mom kill but Dad can only leave? Dad should be able to kill too!

Where does this stop, Danielle?

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 1, 2009 11:38 AM


Xalisae, also, a pedestrian might be getting in the way of you being able to get where you want, when you want to get there.

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2009 1:37 PM


The point is, don't get mad when a man decides not to be a father if a woman can decide not to be a mother.


Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2009 1:38 PM


Posted by: Jacqueline at July 1, 2009 11:38 AM
-This has gotten derailed. I brought up this issue up top as a response to another poster who was astounded that this discussion was ongoing at a PC site, and I responded to comment that it's not that astounding, really - its a logical response to both parties having agency surrounding becoming a parent. A wobbly notion on a rather immoveable double standard - that ultimately, the mother decides. Somehow that's been construed that I support the notion of arbitrarily abandoning children, which is ludicrous. I DON'T. It's not an idea that's going anywhere outside of debate (at least I don't think so), but it should be discussed.

I think I have officially exhausted every possible scenario surrounding parenthood, sex and abortion. Never get to talk about this stuff or challenge it, so thanks for that, I guess.

Posted by: Danielle at July 1, 2009 1:54 PM


@Bethany - that illustration is EXACTLY my point.

Posted by: Danielle at July 1, 2009 1:56 PM


Somehow that's been construed that I support the notion of arbitrarily abandoning children, which is ludicrous. I DON'T.

How is abortion not the arbitrary abandonment of children? Actually, how is abortion not worse? I know many abandoned children who have been adopted and since lived wonderful lives. Abortion ensures that these abandoned children never get that option.

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 1, 2009 2:00 PM


The point is, don't get mad when a man decides not to be a father if a woman can decide not to be a mother.

Posted by: Danielle at July 1, 2009 10:38 AM

This is a social shift.

Originally men were held accountable as soon as he had sex with a woman.

Then he was held accountable when she got pregnant.

Now some feel he can choose whether he has to be responsible for his own behavior.

Why is wrong for him to change his mind after the kid is born?

What if he wants the child while she is pregnant but then the child has a birth injury and ends up handicapped? Can he run off then?

How do you draw the line?


Posted by: hippie at July 1, 2009 2:45 PM


Good questions, Hippie.

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2009 3:02 PM


Danielle,

Your earlier post is full of quotable quotes but I'd like to comment on a few of these. And thanks for responding:
You said: "-Coersion and mental illness is not choice. " This is SO true, that in every medical procedure that involves patient consent, the criteria of depression is grounds to cease all medical activity, until the depression is dealt with first.

Coercion is an absolute no-no in law because it nullifies freedom. Then any decision involving coercion ... the pregnant woman is victimized too.

Dr. Patrick Dunn a New Zealand gyn/ob decided to trace mood swings of his pregnant patients. Of those who chose abortion: 80% chose between 8-11 weeks, when the 1st-trimester depression peaked. Now contrast this with the KNOWN statistic that 82-83% of all abortion are in the 1st-trimester and you have nearly all decisions to abortion are made in a state of depression = (as you pointed out) is not free. She may make a decision, but can she be freed by a decision made in depression. I can see her being free to make such a decision, but if pregnant there are very distinct periods of depression. The only conclusion would be to cure/fix her emotional aspect first, then ask her for a decision.
ABORTION = POOR MEDICINE = POOR LAW = POOR FEMINISM

QUOTE #2 "If you believe that unborn humans have rights too, then yes, they are being denied. " Strange thing is that ALL humans have human rights. Rights are species-specific and not age-specific. 'Unborn' is a period of aging and therefor, cannot be a context for denial.

Posted by: John McDonell at July 1, 2009 3:25 PM


Danielle,

"I didn't necessarily mean that the conversation is 'abortion or else.' Rather, it is a means of balancing the authority."

It is more like "abortion or complete abandonement." And the authority, aka responsibility, should be balanced, aka shared between the two parents who willfully consented to engage in an act with life-creating capacity. There is no legislative action that could transform either party into a responsible parent, but there is action that can require both of them to provide at least some level of support, and there should be action that stops both of them from killing their child. That's my idea of balance.

"A woman can choose to either have or not have the offspring of an affair (or whatever word you choose), regardless of the man's opinion. Right or wrong. If she doesn't want to be a mother, she doesn't have to be a mother."

As Carla rightfully noted, she is already a mother. As the law currrently stands, the mother can have her child killed to avoid carrying out the duties motherhood entails.

"The same balance is not there for the man, its unfair, but frankly, not a lot can be done about that. That said, I do not believe that a man should be forced into fatherhood if a woman cannot be forced into motherhood."

Actually, what can be done about that is that neither of them should be permitted to kill the child. No one can force anyone to be parents - they are already are fathers and mothers, and only force (abortion) will relinquish them of their duties as parents.

"If he announces that he does not want to be a father and has no intention of doing so, then he should not be legally obligated to pay for the care of the child after the fact."

If a man has no intention of being a father and unwilling to provide support in the event he becomes one, then he should refrain from sex. His wishes and feelings about the fact that he has become a father are irrelevent to the fact that he knowingly engaged in an action that made him a father. I don't find it unreasonable to require him to provide some level of care for a baby he created.

"The woman knows that by moving forward with the pregnancy, she does so without the father. As X mentioned above. Her decision is her decision. I don't know how to formalize the process, and I know it will likely never happen - but this double standard has never made sense to me."

This double standard has never made sense to me either. But I propose that we balance this out by neither parent being allowed to kill or abandon their child. There are still some wrinkles to iron out when it comes to adoption disputes, but I think it's a good starting point.

Posted by: Janette at July 1, 2009 3:33 PM


"The woman knows that by moving forward with the pregnancy, she does so without the father."

I should've also pointed this out - the woman doesn't do anything to move forward with the pregnancy. A healthy pregnancy moves forward regardless of what anyone thinks about it. Someone has to use forceps or suction to dismember the developing baby in order to stop the pregnancy from moving forward.

(Yes, I am often intentionally graphic, but the truth remains the truth rather anyone acknowledges it or not. I prefer to acknowledge it.)

Posted by: Janette at July 1, 2009 3:42 PM


I love you, Janette. So very much.

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 1, 2009 4:16 PM


Interesting article about PP:

Exposing Truth: Primary Care Less Than One Percent of Planned Parenthood Business

...“As Obama pushes toward national health care, Planned Parenthood is desperately trying to position itself as a mainstream health service organization,” said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. “Planned Parenthood has always been a master of word games and numbers manipulation. This is just its latest thinly-veiled attempt to get more taxpayer funding for abortion and contraception.”

Planned Parenthood’s 2007-2008 Annual Report accounts for 3,020,651 unduplicated clients in 2007. Only 21,247 of them received “primary care,” according to the business’ own definition.

This means that only 0.7 percent of Planned Parenthood’s customers receive primary care services...
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=12000


Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2009 5:36 PM


This double standard has never made sense to me either. But I propose that we balance this out by neither parent being allowed to kill or abandon their child. There are still some wrinkles to iron out when it comes to adoption disputes, but I think it's a good starting point.


Posted by: Janette at July 1, 2009 3:33 PM


Exactly the point I tried to make before (that Danielle seemed to choose to ignore)...

""Her decision is her decision."

Yeah, but I don't want it to be a matter of choice. In which case, the laws we have now as far as child support make perfect sense.

Posted by: xalisae at July 1, 2009 12:19 AM"

I simply applied the rules of the game already in play to my life. Because abortion was an option to me, or he considered it one at least, I held him to that standard. Part of the reason I consider myself a Republican is because I choose to operate as the world really is rather than how I wish it were (much the same reason I am pro-life. I understand that no matter how convenient for me it would've been to ignore the humanity of the fetal human, they are human none the less). I harbor a great deal of resentment of the Roe VS. Wade decision because I feel that NO woman should ever be put in such a position that killing one's offspring is considered a viable legal decision, and to some her opting NOT to kill her child is considered unreasonable. Making it illegal once again will restore the illogic such a terrible action should be looked upon as.

Posted by: xalisae at July 1, 2009 6:34 PM


As I have said numerous times before, I don't wish to enact any rules restricting the actions of any other person that I would't first be willing to follow myself, and, I am bound to follow any rules already on the books until I and those like me would be able to get them changed-and to the letter whenever possible.

Posted by: xalisae at July 1, 2009 6:38 PM


I am George Tiller by Richard Speck


There are some liberals I genuinely like.

Juan Williams of FOX news and PBS is one. He subscribes to liberalism but he is not blinded by his policitical philosopy. When liberals screw up he does seek creative ways to excuse their misbehavior.

PP is not just a 'corporation'. It is an conglomerate of individuals who select 'leadership' who they believe reflect their worldview.

There is a 'colloquialism' that says, 'A dead fish always stinks at the head first.'

I do not know if that is a literally true statement, but PP is stinking at the head because the leadership has adopted an attitude of indifference to the to practices of it's affiliates.

The tail is just reflecting the attitudes of the head.

PP reflects 'liberalism' in general.

Truth is only uselfull when it helps to promote the agenda. If a lie will do just as well or better, then use the 'lie'.

This also reflects the dilectic of the Marxist humanist.

People who do not wince at murder will find lying no obstacle at all.

Juan Williams will not labor to find some reason, no matter how implausible, to excuse the 'lawlessness' of PP.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at July 1, 2009 7:43 PM


I love you, Janette. So very much.

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 1, 2009 4:16 PM

Aww :)

Posted by: Janette at July 2, 2009 11:52 AM


I harbor a great deal of resentment of the Roe VS. Wade decision because I feel that NO woman should ever be put in such a position that killing one's offspring is considered a viable legal decision, and to some her opting NOT to kill her child is considered unreasonable. Making it illegal once again will restore the illogic such a terrible action should be looked upon as.

Posted by: xalisae at July 1, 2009 6:34 PM

I agree. Abortion being considered a viable option adds to the disgust towards already marginalized mothers. Single moms, teenage moms, low income moms, moms with disabled children, moms with several children. The attitude used to be: "Why didn't she just not have sex?" Now it's: "Why didn't she just have an abortion?" I have personally heard several friends, who are otherwise intelligent and caring people, say that other friends' children should not be here and that it was irresponsible of the mothers to not abort (regardless of the fact that all the children mentioned are happy, healthy and loved). So abortion is the new responsible, and motherhood is the new irresponsible? Illogical indeed.

Posted by: Janette at July 2, 2009 12:16 PM


"So abortion is the new responsible, and motherhood is the new irresponsible? Illogical indeed."

Great point. You'll never get a pro-choicer or pro-abort to say that in so many words.

That might be good to put on a T-shirt:

"ABORTION is the NEW responsible. NOT."

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2009 1:54 PM


Petition: STOP Planned Parenthood Tax Funding
http://www.stopplannedparenthoodtaxfunding.com/

Posted by: RooForLife at July 2, 2009 4:06 PM