Where to begin...
I've been writing quite a bit on the new pro-abort tactic of wanting to find "common ground" on abortion.
One initial problem is the "common ground" parameters pro-aborts unilaterally set (kind of a "common ground" deal breaker from the get-go, I'd say) disallow any conversation on abortion when discussing "common ground" - on abortion. The closest they will allow is discussion of "reducing the need for abortion," but that cannot mean "reducing the number of abortions," no.
I say we discuss what Americans would consider "common ground" on this topic, such as banning 3rd trimester abortions, sex-selection abortions, and race-based abortions.
Americans by-and-large agree those are bad. Americans also by-and-large agree parental involvement laws are good as are laws mandating informed consent before abortion.
Americans would be surprised to learn the abortion lobby disagrees, which is why we can't discuss abortion when trying to find "common ground" - on abortion. Americans would be shocked to learn hard core pro-aborts even disagree that aborting a baby who would otherwise be born under the wrong zodiac sign is wrong.
But I digress....
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a poll question based on a post Steve Waldman of Beliefnet.com wrote for RH Reality Check's "common ground" site. My question was:
Steve Waldman of Beliefnet wrote: "My 'common ground' fantasy involves a pro-life leader... declaring, 'We will be open to looking at family planning efforts, including contraception, to reduce the number of abortions.'" Do you consider comprehensive sex ed and widespread contraception distribution "common ground"?
~75% of you thought Steve's dream was a nightmare.
Steve responded in an email to me...
Jill, I'm curious about something.... IF family planning could be disentangled from Planned Parenthood funding, would you support it? (By the way, by family planning I mean education and health care that includes abstinence education and birth control education.)
Steve and I engaged in an email exchange about these 2 approved "common ground" topics - comprehensive sex ed and widespread contraception distribution - which pro-aborts non-coincidentally consider winners for them with the public.
Steve requested permission to post our exchange, which I gave. Here 'tis.
Steve then rebutted what I said. He wrote that 1 of 2 of my "most important points... were... [e]ven if she could be convinced that sex ed reduced the number of abortions, she still would not support it."
Actually, that's not what I said. I said:
No, I would only support abstinence training with perhaps an explanation of the harm of contraceptives - the failure rate, that the pill is composed of artificial female steroids, etc.(Hormonal contraceptives are bad for women. They're simply artificial female steroids. If we understand the harm of male steroids, why not the harm of female steroids?)
I meant that. I'd support a discussion of the harm of contraceptives within an abstinence education format, for instance the failure rate, as exampled on the right, taken from the Guttmacher website failure statistics of the 2 most common contraceptives. (Click to enlarge.)
In fact, some of it is already discussed - that no contraceptive prevents STDs...that STDs are morphing in multiple strains - some incurable, at least one, deadly. Others are growing more and more resistant to treatment.
I think we need more of that sort of education. Hormonal contraceptives are much of the reason why there has been a spike in breast cancer over the past few decades (along with abortion).
Most importantly, people should know hormonal contraceptives and the IUD may abort a 5-9 day old preborn baby.
But Steve overlooked my point... which is where the aforementioned RH Reality Check title and post today comes in. Kathleen Reeves made an astounding leap from Steve's false relay of my thoughts. She wrote:
Steven Waldman proposes the following hypothetical situation: more premarital sex and fewer abortions. Would pro-lifers accept this trade-off?Jill Stanek wouldn't, as she explains to Waldman....
Well, wow. I don't know where that came from. Furthermore, what the hypothetical Kathleen proposed is ridiculous, far-fetched and, frankly, as immature as the title she gave her piece. It is statistically impossible to say there is a way to have more premarital sex and less abortions. No matter how many contraceptives one uses and how correctly, more premarital sex will have to result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
There was so much more that Waldman and Reeves wrote that I'd like to address, particularly on Steve's hypothesis of allowing "lesser" sins to prevent "greater" sins. Maybe tomorrow....
Comments:
Did you see the article out today that showed that girls in England who receivd a VERY "comprehensive" sex ed class had more than double the rate of teen pregnancy than girls not taking the class.
It was based on another failed NY comprehensive class.
Here's a link to the story.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198228/6m-drive-cut-teen-pregnancies-sees-DOUBLE.html
Posted by: Lauren at July 8, 2009 9:30 PMHere we go again. The pro-aborts are diverting attention from the real issue - ABORTION - pretending you are the "bad guy". It's not going to work. Pro-lifers are smarter than to get sucked into their little game.
Posted by: Janet at July 8, 2009 9:54 PMJill said:
"Contraceptives are the root of abortion. "Contraceptive" means anti-conception. Contraceptives establish a mindset of hostility toward the blessing of children."
Excellent points in your email exchange with Stephen. IMHO, Contraceptive Education really should not be a synonym for "Family Planning". "Family Postponement" is more accurate. Family Planning happens when you go off BC.
Posted by: Janet at July 8, 2009 10:25 PMStraining out gnats and swallowing camels.
Here is a even more popular notion among Joe and Jill Six pack americans:
Stop paying for elective surgery for people who are not ill or injured.
If we can't mention the 'a' word then let us discuss public funding of elective surgery for people who are NOT indigent.
If you want less of anything then cease providing it for free or at reduced rate lower than the fair market value.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at July 8, 2009 10:25 PMJanet: "IMHO, Contraceptive Education really should not be a synonym for 'Family Planning.' 'Family Postponement' is more accurate. Family Planning happens when you go off BC."
If I were "party planning," it would mean I wanted to have a party fairly soon, not that I was trying to keep from having one for the next three years.
Posted by: bmmg39 at July 8, 2009 10:36 PMbmmg39,
You caught me off guard for a minute with the party analogy. I think it would make it really hard to not have that party if you went to the party store twice a week for those three years. You might have to abort an unexpected party or two while in "party planning"mode.
Steve and Kathleen are trying so hard to support their own positions, they are blind to what Jill is really saying.
Intellectual honesty is a rigorous discipline, and it requires attention to detail, the checking and re-checking of facts and presumptions, and making sure biases have not clouded one's judgement. It demands an honest, open minded appraisal of things we are not comfortable with, just to make sure we are being fair minded and open to the possibility that we just might be wrong.
Great men and women have been known to change their minds, to acknowledge that the thing they had previously so vociferously opposed was now what they embrace. And they came to those conclusions based upon strength of character, the strength that comes from an inner connection to the truth.
Numbered in the pro-life movement are literally thousands of such individuals, among them the Jane Doe of Roe v Wade, and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL. There are also many members of groups of women who once had been pro-abortion, but came to understand after their own abortions the terrible reality of what they had done.
So it is that we have journalists who are looking more to pluck the gnat out of their opponent's eye, not knowing the beam in their own eye has blinded them to the truth. They ought to study up on the history of the movement, both for and against abortion rights, and ask themselves the hard questions. Why, if abortion is such a grand thing, do people such as Dr. Nathanson disavow his participation in the founding of a major abortion rights organization? Why would the Jane Doe of Roe v Wade come to work tirelessly exposing the duplicity and dishonesty of the maneuverings behind the scenes in that famous case? Why would they be in favor of a tearing apart of a human being? Why would they be in favor of something that hurts countless women?
Also, have they ever read any books favoring the pro-life position, just to test their own position, or are their attitudes formed in classrooms dominated by pro-abort professors, or in front of the TV while watching liberal, one-sided accounts that tout the MSM party line on abortion rights? Surely they will never get a fair rendering of the pro-life position in those situations.
For our part as pro-lifers, we are exposed to the pro-abort position almost every time we see a story about the subject in the MSM. Our position is tested non-stop by the MSM and authorities who are hostile to our position.
Posted by: Jerry at July 8, 2009 11:40 PMAsk any pro abort person if they would have been happy if their mother had aborted them.
Posted by: Andy at July 9, 2009 1:53 AMWaldman's basic premise is that sex education decreases abortions, but he disconnects the mechanical practicalities from the morality of the behavior. Jill attempts to drive that point home and Steve just doesn't get it.
Would we teach students how to shoot, without indicating it's wrong to shoot other students? This is analogous to what is being requested. After all, teaching teens to shoot leads to more pre-military shooting. And we should pass out more high quality guns, so they won't try using dangerous home-made guns.
Accept increases in pre-marital sex in an effort to reduce abortions? Such requests become absurd.
We simply can't dance around the nature of two fundamental questions - which are: 1) "What are the unborn?" and 2) "Why are human beings intrinsically valuable?"
Efforts to avoid these questions are just distractions.
at July 9, 2009 7:08 AMIt is statistically impossible to say there is a way to have more premarital sex and less abortions. No matter how many contraceptives one uses and how correctly, more premarital sex will have to result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
I read somewhere that one of the reasons that teen pregnancies are so high is that a very fertile portion of the population (young men and women) are having so much sex.
And ultimately, Chris is correct. The fact is unborn babies are human beings who are not to be killed.
Posted by: angel at July 9, 2009 7:27 AMNow the pro-aborts can throw up their hands, shake their heads and say, "Well, we tried to find common ground...."
Posted by: carla at July 9, 2009 7:51 AMI love baby Malachi. His life still speaks.
Posted by: carla at July 9, 2009 7:52 AMSomeone please direct Mr. Waldeman in my direction. I would like to have a word or two with him.
(also, safely back in Arkansas, looking for work and enrolling in school. Take care, everyone)
Posted by: xalisae at July 9, 2009 8:18 AMYou're misinformed about IUDs. They work by killing sperm. Look it up.
But that won't stop you from spreading lies, will it?
Posted by: reality at July 9, 2009 1:12 PMIUDs work by killing sperm:
http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v20_1/NWvol20-1IUDsperm.htm
Posted by: reality at July 9, 2009 1:13 PMFrom the IUD manufacturer's website:
How does ParaGard® work?
Ideas about how ParaGard® works include preventing sperm from reaching the egg and preventing the egg from attaching (implanting) in the uterus. ParaGard® does not alter your body's natural menstrual cycle.
Posted by: hippie at July 9, 2009 1:18 PM"You caught me off guard for a minute with the party analogy. I think it would make it really hard to not have that party if you went to the party store twice a week for those three years. You might have to abort an unexpected party or two while in 'party planning' mode."
Exactly! Usually, when we speak of planning something, it means we look to have it or do it in the not-so-distant future. Most usages of the phrase "family planning," therefore, don't really work too well.
Posted by: bmmg39 at July 9, 2009 1:23 PM
You're misinformed about IUDs. They work by killing sperm. Look it up.
But that won't stop you from spreading lies, will it?
Posted by: reality at July 9, 2009 1:12 PM
Hilarious!
I looked it up at the manufacturer's website.
"How does ParaGard® work?
Ideas about how ParaGard® works include preventing sperm from reaching the egg and preventing the egg from attaching (implanting) in the uterus. ParaGard® does not alter your body's natural menstrual cycle."
http://www.paragard.com/custom/q-and-a
Why would the manufacturer lie? Most doctors say they aren't really sure how IUD's work. However there are a limited number of possibilities. Which is why the manufacturer calls them "ideas".
However, the "idea" of the manufacturer automatically becomes a "lie" when a prolife person repeats it. That is reality's bizarre reasoning process in action.
Posted by: hippie at July 9, 2009 1:27 PM"Common ground" is nothing more than a transparent attempt to provide cover for the faux-lifers who don't really want to offend anyone, even while they are killing babies, and really don't care about stopping abortion.
Just as many, many women actually want to be lied to about abortion (so they can have a paper thin rationalization to justify their act), many faux-lifers despeately want to be lied to about the "other side" so as to avoid confrontation.
It's the old "please lie to me and I'll pretend to believe you" routine.
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at July 9, 2009 1:38 PMAmerican Papist has an excellent post on Kathleen Reeves, a notorious anti-Catholic bigot, and her trashing of Jill.
Ms. Reeves needs to learn a little tolerance and respect.
So much for common ground. :P
Here's the link:
http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/07/kathleen-reeves-doesnt-want-to.html#links
It is statistically impossible to say there is a way to have more premarital sex and less abortions. No matter how many contraceptives one uses and how correctly, more premarital sex will have to result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions."
That's not true at all. for a simple example, imagine 100 women having premarital sex and only 10% of them using contraceptives and then imagine 200 women having premarital sex with 90% using contraception. In which case would there be more unwanted pregnancies? The one with more premarital sex.
Posted by: Hal at July 9, 2009 1:50 PMcorrectly, more premarital sex will have to result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions."
That's not true at all. for a simple example, imagine 100 women having premarital sex and only 10% of them using contraceptives and then imagine 200 women having premarital sex with 90% using contraception. In which case would there be more unwanted pregnancies? The one with more premarital sex.
Posted by: Hal at July 9, 2009 1:50 PM
The states with the very highest teen pregnancy rates have about 6% teen pregnancy rates. Oral contraceptives have an annual failure rate of 9% and condoms 25%. So how can you reduce pregnancy by moving to a strategy with a higher failure rate?
You're misinformed about IUDs. They work by killing sperm. Look it up.
But that won't stop you from spreading lies, will it?
Posted by: reality at July 9, 2009 1:12 PM
Looked it up at the manufacturer's website.
How does ParaGard® work?
Ideas about how ParaGard® works include preventing sperm from reaching the egg and preventing the egg from attaching (implanting) in the uterus. ParaGard® does not alter your body's natural menstrual cycle.
http://www.paragard.com/custom/q-and-a
I guess reality thinks the manufacturer is lying.
Posted by: hippie at July 9, 2009 2:19 PMPosted by: Hal at July 9, 2009 1:50 PM
------
Hal - you're making the same case I provided over at BeliefNet that Waldman isn't making a valid argument. He's drawing some sort of weird correlation between the frequency of pre-marital sex and sex education, without acknowledging that one must provide some fact (any fact!) that makes his argument rational.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 9, 2009 3:23 PMPosted by: hippie at July 9, 2009 2:14 PM
-------
Reread what Hal wrote - he's joking.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 9, 2009 3:25 PMSorry Chris, I wasn't joking. But I agree the issue can't be reduced to simple calculations, when human behavior is involved, life is complicated and predictions are hard to make
Posted by: Hal at July 9, 2009 3:57 PMAmerican Papist has an excellent post on Kathleen Reeves, a notorious anti-Catholic bigot, and her trashing of Jill.
Ms. Reeves needs to learn a little tolerance and respect.
So much for common ground. :P
Here's the link:
http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/07/kathleen-reeves-doesnt-want-to.html#links
Hal,
Couldn't help but notice in your example you referred twice to 'women having sex'. Hmmm. Its that kind of sexism that caused me to wonder and ultimately reject contraception. The responsibility, adverse health effects, and consequences fall on the woman. No thanks.
Thank you for your post about IUDs, Hippie. IUDs do not 'kill sperm', they make the lining of the uterus 'inhospitable' for a FERTILIZED EGG (i.e. embryo/pre-born human being)to implant. THAT'S 'Reality'.
Posted by: Pamela at July 10, 2009 12:37 AMThat precious little baby!!!!!
Posted by: Robyn at July 10, 2009 12:58 AMI've been watching the MTV series "16 and Pregnant." In just about every episode so far, the parents say to the boy or girl or both, "But we've been talking to you about sex since you were 10; we've shown you how to use condoms, etc., etc.,"
I guess no one quite gets the concept that we should be talking to kids about not having sex, and that condoms have dismal failure rates when used by teenagers.
Posted by: Luana at July 10, 2009 3:10 AMPosted by: Pamela at July 10, 2009 12:37 AM
------
Pamela - I believe that by the time the zygote is ready to implant, it is no longer an egg. Read this:
http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/03/fertilized-eggs-vs-zygotic-human-embryos/
Chris, by the time a zygote is a zygote, it is no longer an egg. It is not even a "fertilized egg", it is no longer any kind of egg.
Fertilization is the end of it's "egg status".
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at July 10, 2009 6:24 AMAccording to the following article at Science Daily, by the time the fertilized egg implants, it has reached embryo status. If that makes any difference to those who want to hair split, parse and make semantic arguments.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701082919.htm
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at July 10, 2009 6:24 AM
------
Doyle - that's precisely my point, if you read my post. It's also a very common (and damaging) term that's wielded too quickly by abortion-choicers, HESCR advocates and pro-life advocates.
Robert George's book Embryo lays out those facts completely and clearly. And he deals with all the objections.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 10, 2009 8:31 AMI got pregnant on the pill! yes, I took it every day, and no, I was not on antibiotics! I did not know the pill can cause an abortion and no longer take it, but yes ladies! you CAN get pregnant on the pill! My friend got pregnant on the pill AND using condoms!!! it happens!
With one in four Americans infected with an STD why would you want to play Russian Roulette?
Posted by: Sydney M at July 10, 2009 8:48 AMSydney,
I have heard your story from several of my friends! Pregnant on the pill, IUD, diaphragm etc.
I really do have to wonder why abstinence is considered so wrong?! OH, I know. Duh. There is no money to be made in abstinence.
My children are all "indoctrinated" with the abstinence until marriage message. I don't want them playing Russian Roulette.
Posted by: carla at July 10, 2009 9:17 AMSydney, I have a friend whose mother got preganant (in her 40s!) while on the pill, using condoms, and using the morning after pill.
The condom broke, so she decided to be "extra careful" and get EC.
God had other plans.
Posted by: Lauren at July 10, 2009 1:13 PMFertilization is the end of it's "egg status".
Hmm.....zygote ... zygote ... zygote......
Hopefully I'll remember that. It's hard to get away from fifth grade biology terms!
Posted by: Janet at July 10, 2009 2:41 PM"God had other plans."
Posted by: Lauren at July 10, 2009 1:13 PM
Yep, if you want to make God laugh, just tell him your plans.
("Bella" - the movie.)
Janet - go to Endowment for Human Development www.ehd.org
They have great, non-controversial information backed by multiple doctors about human development.
They also have some amazing embryoscopies!
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 10, 2009 8:38 PMWow, Chris. Great site.
Posted by: Janet at July 10, 2009 10:17 PM
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
