Obama supports abortion tax in Senate healthcare plan

We know there is a disparity between the House and Senate healthcare plans on abortion coverage.

The House plan draws a clear line of demarcation: No public funded abortions either directly or indirectly.

The Senate plan includes an abortion tax, as outlined in the Washington Times piece below (and corroborated by pro-abortion DHHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius):

iwanttaxmoneytofundabortion.jpg

On Page 41 (lines 5-8) of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's manager amendment, the proposed rules mandate that everyone buying insurance through new exchanges or through the new government-run plan must pay a monthly abortion premium to be used for elective abortion services. This fee applies "without regard to the enrollee's age, sex or family status."...

That means that people who have no possibility of wanting an abortion themselves will pay for others to have them.

On Page 43 (lines 1-7), insurance companies will be required to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage, and on Page 43 (lines 20-22) they are mandated to charge a minimum of at least $1 per enrollee per month to cover abortion.

Recall that on September 9 President Obama told a Joint Session of Congress, "And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions":

Right... word parsing... That may have been his plan - that no one ever saw.... Before that, on July 21, Obama told CBS's Katie Couric:

Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.

About that comment I wrote on August 27 that Obama wasn't saying what others interpreted him as saying, which was that he opposed public funded abortions. Obama was only quoting history. He did not say he agreed with it.

Furthermore, Obama was clearly indicating a time would come when we would "wade into that issue."

Well, the time has come. According to ABC's Jake Tapper yesterday:

I asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs off-camera after our interview this morning on This Week which health reform bill comes closer to President Barack Obama's goal, the House or the Senate version?

obama, planned parenthood, abortion, healthcare.jpg

As lawmakers prepare to meet to reconcile the 2 bills before it can be sent to the president's desk, one big difference between the 2 bills are restrictions placed on abortion funding....

I asked President Obama about that last month.

"There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo. And that's the goal," Obama told me in November.

So, does the Senate language come closer to what the president wants than the House language?

Gibbs told me this morning: "Yes."

[HT: pro-abort tweeter ShelbyKnox; tee-shirt graphic via Feministing]


Comments:

I don't understand: when IS the time to "micromanage" what services are covered?

He damn well knows that once abortion is covered by health care, it will be impossible to have it removed.
It's universal access to abortion funded by the taxpayers whether they want it or not.
Obama must really believe the average American taxpayer is either incredibly stupid or just doesn't care....

Posted by: angel at December 28, 2009 7:57 AM


God could not make it more clear to the American people:

Choose Life or Choose Death.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at December 28, 2009 8:32 AM


Well, we already knew he lied like a rug. So, I can't really say I'm all that surprised.

Hopefully the committee will kill it.

Posted by: Keli Hu at December 28, 2009 9:22 AM


Obama is a snake.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 9:41 AM



I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The first and most important rule to remember when you are dealing with a sociopath is to always keep in mind the fact you are dealing with a sociopath. Disregard this at your own risk.

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 9:43 AM


"Obama must really believe the average American taxpayer is either incredibly stupid or just doesn't care....

Posted by: angel at December 28, 2009 7:57 AM"

Sadly Angel, the evidence supports your comment. The vast majority of Americans are more concerned with survival than they are about living by godly principles.

God tells us the road to life is narrow and the road to perdition wide. We should not be surprised that Americans are not exempts from this teaching.

The only solution is for those of us that believe to daily repent and to seek to live godly lives while seeking His face. The rest is up to Him.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 11:04 AM


Not that I want to disrespect the president since he's, well, the president and I have such hopes for him, but that was a "yes" or "no" question. He should answer the question directly.

As for the t-shirt. I would like to make one that says, "F**k abortion- I want my tax dollars to go to Darfur."

Posted by: Vannah at December 28, 2009 11:27 AM


Obama is human trash in a 4,000 dollar suit.

Posted by: xalisae at December 28, 2009 11:38 AM


Not that I'm surprised. He used to be a drug dealer, right? I'm sure he'd lie to anyone to get them to do something which harms themselves to make a buck. Why should his political career be any different?

Posted by: xalisae at December 28, 2009 11:46 AM


xalisae,

I'm always so impressed with the maturity of these smear tactics--as if you don't have a few indiscretions to fess up to. Characterizing Obama as some kind of hood rat doesn't change the fact that few politicians are the moral pillars we make them out to be. It's just too bad Barack doesn't have a good old boy club to help make all those bad decisions disappear.
But for the record, I don't think Obama's taken a firm enough stance on the abortion issue. The answer to the federal abortion coverage question should be a resounding yes. Subsuming all these women currently with private plans under Obamacare, leaving no room for the ab-option, would be a real injustice. Plus it's really unfortunate we're still quibbling about this issue. Low income/universal access to healthcare should be the main priority. Guess what? I have moral qualms about paying into a federal plan that allows you lot to procreate, but individuals have the fundamental right to manage their fertility as they wish.

Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 12:28 PM


testing

Posted by: heather at December 28, 2009 12:45 PM


As for the t-shirt. I would like to make one that says, "F**k abortion- I want my tax dollars to go to Darfur."
Posted by: Vannah at December 28, 2009 11:27 AM

I would buy that shirt. I would buy it and wear it in public. That's hilarious.

Posted by: Keli Hu at December 28, 2009 12:48 PM


Megan: "...individuals have the fundamental right to manage their fertility as they wish."

This fundamental right is called "to have sex or not to have sex, that is the question."

Posted by: segamon at December 28, 2009 12:51 PM


How many abortions per woman should those of us against abortion have to pay for? Many women have had multiple abortions!! I have recently met a record breaker!! 11 abortions and counting!! She's only 33!!! I'd be happy to pay for her, women like her, to get fixed. Sterilization is a choice I would support!

Posted by: heather at December 28, 2009 12:52 PM


Vannah, I WANT that shirt!

Posted by: heather at December 28, 2009 12:54 PM


Also, let's take a deeper look at the destruction that abortion leaves in it's path, shall we? Abortion can cause breast cancer, premature birth in a woman's future pregnancies, emotional problems, etc. How many of us are paying for, or have already paid for, a woman's treatment for breast cancer after a procedure that never should have been legalized? How about all the tax dollars used to pay for the care of their preemies? How about the mental health care providers and their fees?

Posted by: heather at December 28, 2009 1:02 PM


Megan:

As a man, I think the government should take care of my need to have season's tickets to the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB. Lower level please.

Also, don't forget that I have a need for a new Camaro SS and Corvette ZR1.

Also, why isn't the government paying for my cigars?

Look, pay for your own abortions and I'll pay for what I need.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 1:05 PM


I'd like to ask any of you who support promiscuity how well they like paying for my friend's treatment for HIV? Yep. He gets a government check and all the medications money can buy thanks to gay sex!

Posted by: heather at December 28, 2009 1:12 PM


"I'm always so impressed with the maturity of these smear tactics--as if you don't have a few indiscretions to fess up to...."
Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 12:28 PM"

Excuse me Megan, but are you saying that because I'm not perfect, that I should not be against murder or those that conspire to make murder legal?

Faulty logic, faulty logic, faulty logic.......

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 1:15 PM


Breast cancer used to be an "old woman's disease"! I wonder if anyone can explain why women in their 20's and 30's are getting this disease. I'm not saying that every woman who gets breast cancer has had an abortion. I realize it can be hereditary, but it is an epidemic today! PS. That's why Susan Koman won't get a dime from me. They actually GIVE money to Planned Parentless! No thanks!

Posted by: heather at December 28, 2009 1:34 PM


Megan 12:28PM

So Obama doesn't have a good old boy club? LOL, oh cry me a river.

What Obama has always had and still has is a slavish MSM, devoted to him. Put simply they are his lapdogs. Question Obama and his actions and you're a racist.

What's really pathetic is this is of their own free will. At least the media that function in dictatorships have the excuse of having no option but to be lapdogs. Our MSM has no such excuse.

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 1:54 PM


"'I have moral qualms about paying into a federal plan that allows you lot to procreate, but individuals have the fundamental right to manage their fertility as they wish"

Apparently Megan is not only pro-choice but anti-people. Typical pro-death-camp mantra. Against a federal plan that *allows* us lot to procreate!?! You know, while we're at it, why not just mandate mass human sterilization? That might resolve your problem, Megan. After all, we're just evil entities ruining this earth for our loving animal friends. *eyeroll*

Yes, individuals have the fundamental right to manage their fertility as they wish. What they don't have the fundamental right to is murder. Regardless of dependency.

Posted by: MaryRose at December 28, 2009 1:58 PM


"God could not make it more clear to the American people:

Choose Life or Choose Death.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at December 28, 2009 8:32 AM"

A very profound comment Chris that kind of sums it all up.

We are on the brink and most don't know it. Yes, most people are somnambulists and haven't got a single clue about the destruction that is about to befall them.

Everything points to it; Iran, terrorism, the economic depression we're in, the moral decline......etc., etc., etc.

The sad thing is that it did not have to be this way. We could have chosen life.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 3:14 PM


Mary: Great posts! We need to keep going to the heart of the problem, which is Obama's narrow ideological perspective made even worse by his narcissism (or is it the other way around?). There is a reason Rush Limbaugh calls him a "man-child."

People used to complain how stupid Bush was. Now the same media who loved to depict Bush as a nitwit, will not touch Obama's gaffes and inconsistencies and outright lies.

Posted by: Jerry at December 28, 2009 4:06 PM


"Everything points to it; Iran, terrorism, the economic depression we're in, the moral decline......etc., etc., etc."

I love fearmongering about apocalyptic doom. You think legalized abortion created this sorry state of affairs? I point the finger at patriarchy and its handmaid, organized religion.

And it's truly insulting for you, His Highness, to toss a reproductive health care procedure in the same category as a basketball game. It's disgusting, and the ultimate marker of unexamined male privilege. But by this token, aren't all medical procedures technically ELECTIVE? Should we have to pay for individuals who smoke and eat fatty foods all the time to get coronary bypass surgery? Or for Viagra prescriptions (oh wait, that used to be more readily covered than birth control pills...)? I'll tell you what. You don't NEED paved roads. Your kids don't NEED public schools or libraries. What is this, a socialist state? Why don't you "pay for what you need"?

"He gets a government check and all the medications money can buy thanks to gay sex!"

This is an abominable, terribly intolerant statement. Promiscuity, hah! In most states gay people can't even marry, i.e. access DENIED to their slice of ever-so-holy, state-sanctioned, marital sex. So by your definition, gayness is sluttiness. What a crock. Wake up--this isn't the middle ages. Girls used to be married off the second they got their first period--there weren't really any sexual decisions to make. Now women have the opportunity to get educated, pursue careers, etc. before even thinking about tying the knot (if they even choose to do so). It's time you dispensed with archaic notions of sexual purity. The abstinence-until-marriage mandate is utterly unreasonable, and confers an inordinate amount of worth on a girl's virginity.

Oh, and rising rates of breast cancer can be attributed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our water and food supplies, as well as the advent of more sophisticated screening and testing mechanisms, to name a few possibilities.

Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 4:18 PM


Whoa, whoa, whoa there, Megan.

I love fearmongering about apocalyptic doom. You think legalized abortion created this sorry state of affairs? I point the finger at patriarchy and its handmaid, organized religion.
Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 4:18 PM

First you say that, but then, in a hilarious change of direction, you finish off with this:

Oh, and rising rates of breast cancer can be attributed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our water and food supplies, as well as the advent of more sophisticated screening and testing mechanisms, to name a few possibilities.
Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 4:18 PM

So, pointing out that a procedure that one in three women have, which has been positively linked to an increased risk of breast cancer (notice I don't say "causes," as proving a causal relationship is a different animal), is glorified in our culture as awesome when it absolutely, scientifically, unarguably, prematurely ends a human life is fear mongering. But saying that floridization of our water is causing breast cancer is not? Your theory is way more tin-foil-hatty than the idea that our society might not have thought this one through. You could as easily blame microwaves from people's cell phones.

Or for Viagra prescriptions (oh wait, that used to be more readily covered than birth control pills...)?

I've said this before, but I'm going to point it out again. How is it that pro-choicers run around half the time saying that abortion is not about consequence-free sex, and then turn around and directly equate abortions to Viagra and manage to think that's not contradictory? Because I really don't understand that one.

Now as to your "free love, free sex, wake up and smell the noughties!" rant, I have one question. Assuming, for the sake of argument, all of that is absolutely 100% true and accurate, how on Earth does that justify killing an innocent human being who is harming no one? Especially when the reason so often claimed for killing that human boils down to "He exists and I don't want him?" So women can wrestle bears and fight wars naked, armed with only flaming swords and we need no men to help us do it. So what? Since when did the fact that we women are absolutely awesome confer on us the right to kill people just because we don't happen to want them around?

Posted by: Keli Hu at December 28, 2009 4:50 PM


Megan:

Evidence of a wide open mouth and closed eyes.

You aren't a truthseeker you a self-seeker.

Good luck.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 5:22 PM


I think he is being talking garbage for so long, I don't think he knows how to tell the truth. When his mother was pregnant with him, she was a prime target for abortion, but she chose life.

You know I was looking at some pictures my brother took of Washington D.C. and saw pictures of George Washington, Lincoln and seeing the inside of our Nations Capital, I could not help but think, look what we did to fight for freedom and now we are on the brink of loosing it all. Abortion was never talked about with our Founding Fathers, to them that was murder and it still is, that will never change.
If this health care passes with abortion included, not only will more babies loose their lives, but those women will never be the same again. Whether you believe this or not, some women years later end up with breast cancer. So saying that, we will have a huge problem, not only we have to pay for the abortions, now we will have to pay to help them with the breast cancer. That is not even touching emotional and all the medication that will be needed!

Posted by: Pati Adams at December 28, 2009 5:25 PM


I wish our leaders would read this poem contained in this article before they charged down the path of making abortion Federally funded

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-28936-Portland-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m12d28-The-Feast-of-the-Holy-Innocents

Posted by: David Jackson at December 28, 2009 5:54 PM


It would be interesting to have seen the bill if Obama had done what many Presidents have done and had a bill drawn to be voted on. What has made it interesting is he provided a general framework and let the House and Senate craft bills - so in regards to the finished products, people are inaccurately calling it "Obama's bill", when in fact the bill was written by others.

I know this is probably neither here nor there, but it does present him with an either/or on abortion instead of whatever he would have worded it as - which we'll never know at this point.

Morally though, I think it is a bit strange to essentially say, "well, as long as we don't have to pay for it". Furthermore, we've all been paying for abortions for years as medical insurance is a payroll deduction - so raising a fit now is a little late. Heck, the GOP's own plan directly covered abortion as of a couple of months ago (ooops).

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 28, 2009 5:58 PM


Megan 4:18PM

You've presented some interesting theories on breast cancer. Why is it PC people and their media lapdogs can say with absolute "certainty" that abortion does not cause breast cancer?
They don't rule out any other possibilities but abortion, why we are just "certain" that does not cause breast cancer.
Why not just in all honestly tell women there is research that both supports and opposes such a link and encourage women to do their own research and draw their own conclusions?
Let's just say if the same evidence that exists connecting abortion and breast cancer instead suggested a breast implants/breask cancer link, the feminists would be howling like banshees.
Didn't they try to destroy Dow-Corning on far flimsier evidence against breast implants?

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 6:39 PM


Hey Megan's back. Great. I can't wait to see if she'll actually answer some questions this time.

Posted by: Lauren at December 28, 2009 6:41 PM


EGV 5:58PM

So Obama throws a bill out to be fought over like a bunch of dogs with a bone. Maybe he's just letting Nancy and Harry write their own tickets. You remember Harry of course, he has this tendency to bribe senators so as to do Obama's bidding.

Is this supposed to be some indication of political brilliance on Obama's part? I don't quite understand your point EGV.

I just hope the senators were a little more sober than Max Baucus, though I'm not staking my life on it.

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 6:50 PM


Does not the Prez have the line-item veto?

He can obfuscate but he can't hide.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 6:53 PM


Mary -

All I'm saying is that we can't quite derive, in my opinion, the link from what Obama said about abortion before the bills and his support of the senate language right now. He's choosing between two options that were decided on by other people - and surely he's not going to throw out the whole batch of legislation on this one issue (as a Dem). That's all I'm saying.

It's a weak argument I'm making, quite truthfully - but I think that the case against Obama isn't as tight as it is against the folks who actually wrote the bill.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 28, 2009 6:57 PM


EGV,

You have a far more charitable nature than I do. Nancy and Harry are his puppets. This bill is about his personal glory, and he damned well knows exactly what is going on.
He's good at letting schmucks do his dirty work so as he can smell like a rose.

Hey did you hear AG Holder just got the idea to try terrorists in NYC on his own and "ran it by" the president? If you believe that I've got some oceanfront property near my house here in the midwest to sell you.

He bamboozles you very well EGV. Don't feel bad, we've all been taken in by sociopaths at some time in our lives.

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 7:05 PM


Mary - yes, I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing - and while the ratings these days are pretty low for Pelosi, Reid, and the GOP (new poll on "winners" and "losers" of the year) - Obama has a decent popularity rating still, even after all he's gone through.

It is pretty crazy.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 28, 2009 7:17 PM


EGV,

You better check realclearpolitics.com. His approval rating averages 49.9% his disapproval rating averages 44.6%.
His presidential approval index with Rasmussen is -12 and has been in double digit negatives for some time.
He will be responsible for sending a lot of Democrats over the cliff.

Again EGV, you have a far more charitable nature than I do.

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 7:26 PM


Mary -

I have been labeled an optimist.

Obama has the lowest end of first year rating since...Mr. Reagan. They tied at 49%.

GOP is getting lower ratings than anyone else now. I do think the GOP will pick up seats - natural balance of things. However, quoting Jonathan Chait "The Republicans may gain some more seats in 2010 by their total obstruction, but the substantive policy defeat they've been dealt will last for decades."

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 28, 2009 7:46 PM


EGV,

Again please check realclearpolitics.com. Republicans are plus 2.5 on a generic congressional vote average.
The Democrat controlled congress, in power since 2006 is a -38.4 average.

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 7:52 PM


EGV,

The Republican obstruction?? EGV, the Republicans can't do squat to stop this bill so why hasn't it passed?

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 7:55 PM


Why is it PC people and their media lapdogs can say with absolute "certainty" that abortion does not cause breast cancer?

because abortion is absolutely 100% safe for all women and children (yes children as young as 9!) Did you not know this Mary?

Why not just in all honestly tell women there is research that both supports and opposes such a link and encourage women to do their own research and draw their own conclusions?

because if they did that they might have to admit that maybe abortion isn't so safe for women and children
since most women can't think, the proaborts have to do it for them
remember these are the people that came up with the "scientific" claim that unborn babies at 2 months are just blobs of cells....

does this help you in any way Mary? (sarcasm alert)


I point the finger at patriarchy and its handmaid, organized religion.Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 4:18 PM

I remind Ms Megan that no religion is also a belief system. It's called secular humanism and it's done more harm than any organized religion.
And yes, all men are bad, very bad.... ;)

Posted by: angel at December 28, 2009 9:02 PM


"Why not just in all honestly tell women there is research that both supports and opposes such a link and encourage women to do their own research and draw their own conclusions?"

...because most research showing positive correlation has been conducted by that born-again huckster Joel Brind. Even studies that have found associations between abortion and breast cancer (namely, recent studies conducted in Turkey and China) are problematized by systematic bias, which the researchers themselves discuss in their publications. Different tyes of bias don't automatically discredit a particular research project. In these cases, more research needs to be done to eliminate bias and rule out certain mitigating/confounding factors. Plus studies that show an association between breast cancer and induced abortion must reconcile their findings with many other studies conducted that have found no such association.

Oh, and it's not a lie to say that many people don't have access to clean water in the US--water that contains hazardous, carcinogenic substances. Did I say fluoride causes cancer? Try lead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html

Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 9:15 PM


1. "Whether you believe this or not, some women years later end up with breast cancer."

Check out some studies on breast cancer and women's reproductive capacities...you'll also find a positive association between having more than two children and certain types of breast cancer. But you don't see anybody telling middle class white women not to have more than two children for purely medical reasons. ahahahaha

2. Hello Lauren, are you going to hide behind people far more outspoken and articulate than yourself? Oh, where is Oliver when you need him to provoke?

3. Phil: I'm a self-seeker. What a condemnation.

4. *We women have had the legal right to end our pregnancies as we see fit since...we raised voices for the right to vote, for the right to violence-free homes, the right to contraception, and the general right to a discrimination-free society. I think it's hilarious you people believe we can confer rights on a 4-week-old fetus, subordinating a woman's bodily autonomy to that fetus' apparent "right to life." Guess what? Stepping on a bug is also murder.

Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 9:28 PM


Megan, 9:15PM

Get your facts. Assuming of course you want to. What do you have to be afraid of?? Go to www.abortionbreastcancer.com for information on the extensive amount of research on this subject. It is not limited to Dr.Joel Brind.
I'm sure Megan you would be the first person to advise women on doing their own research into both sides of the issue. If its all bogus, women can certainly determine that.

BTW, I never suggested that it was a lie to say everyone doesn't have access to safe water. I would certainly have no problem advising people to do their research on water contamination.

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 9:46 PM


Mary -

check the latest gallup poll - it isn't a straight up, generic vote, which doesn't make much sense.

You'd have to read the whole article to get the quote in context and his thoughts on the GOP misplay. Want a link, or should I not bother? Either way.

The bill should pass in the next month or so, unless the Dems get in their typical circular firing squad. If anyone is going to screw it up now, it's them - but it looks like they have the votes.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at December 28, 2009 9:52 PM


Megan: "Stepping on a bug is also murder."

Murder of a bug. A bug. Duh. Bug does not equal human. Duh. Your arguments are so thin it's pretty ridiculous.

Posted by: segamon at December 28, 2009 9:59 PM


segamon you are WRONG

a fetus is a bug to people like Megan.

Have a heart will you?

Posted by: angel at December 28, 2009 10:05 PM


of course all these studies are biased too: ;)

1.Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University headed up the study with Vincent Rue of the Florida-based Institute for Pregnancy Loss and post-abortion researcher Catherine Coyle.

The study's findings support previous research that has found higher rates of substance abuse, serious depression and suicide after abortion.

2.In 2005, research conducted in Finland found that aborting women were 3.5 times more likely to die within the next year compared to women who gave birth.

3.Published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the Canadian researchers found that women who had undergone a first or second trimester of pregnancy, when most are conducted, increased the risk of low birth-weight babies and premature babies 35 and 36 per cent respectively.

Those women who had undergone more than one abortion had a 72 per cent increased risk for low birth weight and 93 per cent risk of prematurity.

The figures come from an analysis of 37 studies around the world, carried out between 1965 and 2001, to discover reasons why babies are born underweight and premature.

4.Chinese researchers at the Department of Oncology at the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University who conducted a case-control study examining reproductive factors associated with breast cancer found a statistically significant 17% increased breast cancer risk among Chinese women who had induced abortions.

5.A study conducted by Dr. Vahit Ozmen and his colleagues at the Istanbul University Medical Faculty reported a statistically significant 66% increase in breast cancer risk among women who had induced abortions. The researchers wrote that their finding is similar to the findings of the "majority" of studies, which have "reported that induced abortion was associated with increased breast cancer risk."

of course, as all the above demonstrate, abortion is remarkably safe for the overall health of all women and children (as young as nine years of age)

Posted by: angel at December 28, 2009 10:13 PM


EGV,

Check the Rasmussen poll and you will find Republicans are up by 8.

I was speaking of the averages of all the polls, which has republicans up by 2.5.

Sure the Democrats have the votes. What do you think the bribes were for?

You know what Obama plans to do next? Legalize the illegal immigrants. So you can pay for them too. That will guarantee Democrats stay in power though I have to wonder how black Americans, who now have depression era unemployment but remain loyal to Obama, will feel about competition from these new "Americans".

Posted by: Mary at December 28, 2009 10:17 PM


Angel, do you have the link/text to the journal you mentioned published in BJOG in number 3? In nursing school I heard of cases of incompetent cervix due to therapeutic abortions which also correlated with what one of our nursing instructors taught us. This source coincides with that information.

I have wrote about this on my blog: http://theunbornvoice.blogspot.com/2009/10/incompetent-cervix-linked-with-abortion.html

Posted by: segamon at December 28, 2009 10:44 PM


Well said Angel. In response to another thread, yes, I'm a Sigrid Undset fan. Regina gave me Kristin Lavranstatter for Christmas. What's the title of her work on Catherine of Sienna? (Don't tell me "Catherine of Sienna" or I'll die.)

Megan,

Hi there. Hope your Christmas was a good one. Your statement:

"Oh, and rising rates of breast cancer can be attributed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our water and food supplies, as well as the advent of more sophisticated screening and testing mechanisms, to name a few possibilities."

Come on now Megan. I really admire you; your quick wit and keen mind, and I've come to expect much better from you than this statement. Rising rates of breast cancer have NOTHING to do with more sensitive screening. Rising SURVIVAL RATES have everything to do with more sensitive screening and early diagnosis.

Women would have died younger with less sensitive and later screening, because cancer is progressive in nature. The fact that we are picking it up in greater quantity in women much, much younger than before points to an etiological shift.

Environmental factors may well play a part, and you are right to point that out. However, the literature also clearly points to estrogen overload via birth control and abortion.

Listen to the makers of the pill talk of how much safer it is now, with lower doses of hormone.

I know what the objections are to this literature, which is why I've begun a series of posts over at my place which systematically approach the literature on this topic, beginning with the objections to the literature. I'll probably take the better part of a month to do so. If you click on "Breast Cancer" under the Categories side-bar, it's all there.

If people feel that the arguments are not clear, let me know. If you believe that my analytical methods are not in sync with yours Megan, tell me. Then we can all come back to Jill's place and shoot it out ;-)

We're all after truth here, and that's a beautiful common ground. If we proceed with civility and good faith coupled with sound methodology, we'll all draw closer to the truth, and in the process, closer together.

God Bless,

Gerry

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 29, 2009 1:23 AM


Let me clarify: when I say "bias," I'm talking about methodology, or how the study was conducted (not the researchers' own political ideologies). In in the "discussion" section of research studies, any credible researcher will acknowledge potential sources of bias.

1. Priscilla Coleman, in conclusion of her Sept. 2008 study: "The data pertaining to the number of women who experience post-abortion mental health problems may be somewhat inflated by the failure to account for multiple diagnoses in one individual." Even a self-proclaimed pro-life researcher knows enough to acknowledge flaws in her study design. Disregarding comorbidity is definitely an oversight. Also, her selection of variables to analyze is problematic. First, she doesn't ask about mental health problems PRIOR to the abortion procedure. Second, her "mental health risk factor" gauge is really flawed, assuming that some traumatic life event (sexual molestation, victim of violence, etc.) is necessary and sufficient to cause a mood disorder. That's often not how depression works, and she makes little reference to genetic predisposition. Big red flag.

2. Finland: you've gleaned the study for convenient evidence. Here's some nuance for you (from Gissler et. al):
"Women who underwent an induced abortion had a pregnancy-associated mortality rate from natural causes that was one third higher than that of women who had given birth. These deaths included both terminations in early pregnancy (indicating most often an unwanted pregnancy) and in late pregnancy (included practically all cases for medical reasons). AFTER EXCLUDING ALL terminations for medical reasons, the pregnancy-associated mortality rate from all natural causes declined from 22.3 to 15.9 per 100,000 induced abortions, A RATE LOWER THAN THE MORTALITY RATE AFTER A BIRTH. The same finding was true for cancer mortality (decline from 6.5 to 2.7 per 100,000 induced abortions) and deaths from diseases of the circulatory system (decline from 7.4 to 5.7 per 100,000 induced abortions). This calculation, however, does not take account the fact that some early terminations for other reasons, may be performed because of women's preexisting medical reason(s)."

--Okay, so women who receive a late-term induced abortion for medical reasons are more likely to die because, well, they're not healthy enough to support a pregnancy in the first place (an example of comorbidity). Since most abortions occur during the first trimester, it's a huge distortion of information to say that abortion=death.

3. couldn't find BJOG article.

4. Chinese study: while certainly a worthwhile endeavor, this claim that abortion causes a "17% risk" in post-abortive women is false. Looking at the data, researches analyzed several different subtypes of breast cancer. They found statistical significance between induced abortion and breast cancer in ONLY ONE of these subtypes. Now this increased risk is certainly something to look into, but let's see, the researchers didn't control for lifestyle factors, like smoking or obesity. Instead of sounding the alarm for women, the next step is to rule out the possibility of chance with this association, meaning taking a comprehensive look at all known/assumed risk factors.

5. Turkish article: Let me clarify: when I say "bias," I'm talking about methodology, or how the study was conducted (not the researchers' own political ideologies). In in the "discussion" section of research studies, any credible researcher will acknowledge potential sources of bias.

1. Priscilla Coleman, in conclusion of her Sept. 2008 study: "The data pertaining to the number of women who experience post-abortion mental health problems may be somewhat inflated by the failure to account for multiple diagnoses in one individual." Even a self-proclaimed pro-life researcher knows enough to acknowledge flaws in her study design. Disregarding comorbidity is definitely an oversight. Also, her selection of variables to analyze is problematic. First, she doesn't ask about mental health problems PRIOR to the abortion procedure. Second, her "mental health risk factor" gauge is really flawed, assuming that some traumatic life event (sexual molestation, victim of violence, etc.) is necessary and sufficient to cause a mood disorder. That's often not how depression works, and she makes little reference to genetic predisposition. Big red flag.

2. Finland: you've gleaned the study for convenient evidence. Here's some nuance for you (from Gissler et. al):
"Women who underwent an induced abortion had a pregnancy-associated mortality rate from natural causes that was one third higher than that of women who had given birth. These deaths included both terminations in early pregnancy (indicating most often an unwanted pregnancy) and in late pregnancy (included practically all cases for medical reasons). AFTER EXCLUDING ALL terminations for medical reasons, the pregnancy-associated mortality rate from all natural causes declined from 22.3 to 15.9 per 100,000 induced abortions, A RATE LOWER THAN THE MORTALITY RATE AFTER A BIRTH. The same finding was true for cancer mortality (decline from 6.5 to 2.7 per 100,000 induced abortions) and deaths from diseases of the circulatory system (decline from 7.4 to 5.7 per 100,000 induced abortions). This calculation, however, does not take account the fact that some early terminations for other reasons, may be performed because of women's preexisting medical reason(s)."

--Okay, so women who receive a late-term induced abortion for medical reasons are more likely to die because, well, they're not healthy enough to support a pregnancy in the first place (an example of comorbidity). Since most abortions occur during the first trimester, it's a huge distortion of information to say that abortion=death.

3. couldn't find BJOG article.

4. Chinese study: while certainly a worthwhile endeavor, this claim that abortion causes a "17% risk" in post-abortive women is false. Looking at the data, researches analyzed several different subtypes of breast cancer. They found statistical significance between induced abortion and breast cancer in ONLY ONE of these subtypes. Now this increased risk is certainly something to look into, but let's see, the researchers didn't control for lifestyle factors, like smoking or obesity. Instead of sounding the alarm for women, the next step is to rule out the possibility of chance with this association, meaning taking a comprehensive look at all known/assumed risk factors.

5. Turkish article: certainly curious that the article disproves just about everything already established about breast cancer risk. For one, researchers have concluded that hormone replacement therapy actually DECREASES a woman's risk for breast cancer, though many studies have concluded that HRT is associated with higher breast cancer risk. Turkish researchers conclude their study by saying, "The discrepancies between our findings and other studies in the literature might be due to the different characteristics of Turkish women that merit further investigation." So before sounding the alarm that ABORTION=BREASTCANCER=DEATH, wouldn't it be more prudent to look again at this supporting evidence, asking whether a study that produces such widly differing results from the previous literature is truly credible?

Posted by: Megan at December 29, 2009 2:41 AM


*We have much better cancer surveillance systems in place now (SEER registry, for one) that allows researchers to collect better, more complete evidence (rather than relying on death certificates). Over the past half-century or so, better screening methods have contributed to higher rates, since more cases of the disease are detected and recorded (and hopefully better screening measures result in decreased mortality rates). This IS NOT TO SAY, however, that rising rates of breast cancer can be attributed SOLELY to better surveillance mechanisms. I agree-something else is definitely at work, and if I can hazard a guess, a lot of it has to do with issues of poor diet, lack of exercise, obesity, environmental pollutants, and delayed age of first pregnancy (thanks to the availability of education, jobs, etc) in westernized countries.

Barbara Ehrenreich offers some insight into the breast cancer movement. I'm not saying I agree with everything she argues, but this article makes a good case for why so much focus on the abortion-breast cancer link (which has been proven null over and over) detracts attention from other much-needed areas of concern:

http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland.htm

Posted by: Megan at December 29, 2009 3:13 AM


Megan,

It has not been proven null over and over. It is still debated and researched. Women have a right to know what is out there, do their research, and draw their own conclusions. It is a grave disservice to women to say there is no link. As of now it cannot be said for certain either way.

Certainly as an advocate for women your first concern is not politics, but the lives and safety of women.

If certain eating habits put a woman at risk she has a right to know. If certain chemicals put a woman at risk she has a right to know. If abortion puts a woman at risk, she has a right to know.

A good comparison is the debate over immunizations and autism. Again research is out there for and against this link. I know people who are adamant there is a link. A friend of mine who teaches special ed. reviews the same literature and is adamant there is not a link.
I would strongly urge parents to review the research and draw their own conclusions. Wouldn't you?

So, why are women not strongly encouraged to do the same concerning the abortion/breast cancer link? If its bogus, women will figure it out quickly enough and you certainly have no reason for concern, right?

Posted by: Mary at December 29, 2009 6:15 AM


Megan,

Barbara Ehrenreich? The same Barbara Ehrenreich who is a feminist, democratic socialist, pop sociologist, political activist, and a prominent figure in Democratic Socialists of America?
She currently contributes to "The Progressive", a buzzword for liberal. She is an Obama supporter.

No where do I read of her credentials as a researcher or having any medical background.

This is your idea of well informed totally unbiased source??

Posted by: Mary at December 29, 2009 6:26 AM


Megan,
WE do not confer rights on a 4 week old fetus. The rights of a child are inherent. Just like yours and mine.

Someday maybe you will be pregnant with a "Wanted" baby, I mean fetus. You will get ultrasounds of the fetus, get many congratulatory cards about the fetus and be thrown many fetus showers. A fetus is born!! Unless of course a wanted fetus is called a baby??!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 29, 2009 6:50 AM


4. *We women have had the legal right to end our pregnancies as we see fit since...we raised voices for the right to vote, for the right to violence-free homes, the right to contraception, and the general right to a discrimination-free society. I think it's hilarious you people believe we can confer rights on a 4-week-old fetus, subordinating a woman's bodily autonomy to that fetus' apparent "right to life." Guess what? Stepping on a bug is also murder.
Posted by: Megan at December 28, 2009 9:28 PM.

Murder according to whom? PETA? Since when do we listen to them? But since you raised the issue, I looked it up for you. From dictionary.com we read: "noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." So, no, you can't murder a bug. Unfortunately, as it stands now, killing the unborn is not murder being as it is legally permissible, which is why I don't like the slogan "abortion is murder." However, as any fool can tell you, there is a difference between what is legal and what is moral.

I think it's depressing that you can laugh at the right of a human being not to be killed by another human being. If women don't have the right to live, then it doesn't matter what other rights we do or don't have. We would never live to exercise them. Our culture really does glorify death.

Posted by: Keli Hu at December 29, 2009 7:19 AM


1. Women certainly do have a right to know what's out there--beyond what few flimsy studies Joel Brind's cobbled together. Here's something interesting: the national cancer institute says THERE IS NO LINK during an international convention on the subject and review of existing literature:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

...but I'm sure Planned Parenthood, with its mighty, mighty political clout, has effectively gagged all "truth-oriented" breast cancer-abortion research. If your anti-abortion crusaders respected women's intelligence, why would they publish articles with decontextualized, inflated statistics? As far as I'm concerned, women SHOULD read up on the literature. Then they'll be able to clarify for themselves the nature of this [weak] link that abortionbreastcancer.com has taken pains to distort.

2. Did I claim Barbara Ehrenreich's a scientist? No, she's definitely a politico--and also a breast cancer survivor. Abortion-breast cancer conspiracy theorists might want to read her testimony to see FRUITFUL directions in which they can take breast cancer activism.

3. Gerard: I have no issue with organizations like Rachel's Vineyard. "Because of the emotional numbness and secrecy that often surrounds an abortion experience, conflicting emotions both during and after the event may remain unresolved." --a quote taken from the first page. I agree. Abortion's taboo, and women aren't encouraged to talk about it as they would other reproductive events. So the Vineyard's rendering a particular service, but I don't see it written anywhere that post-abortive women universally feel grief and sadness, except (obliquely) with the website's links to the Elliot Institute.

By the way, there are post-adoption support groups out there for birth mothers, too: http://www.spence-chapin.org/post-adoption-services/c1_counseling_support.php

4. Carla, again, your loss must be difficult, but you can't project your feelings and emotions onto all post-abortive women. You're universalizing grief. You're entitled to your sadness, just as women are entitled to get abortions and move on with their lives without being labeled sociopaths.

Posted by: Megan at December 29, 2009 7:48 AM


Megan,

Again get your facts. One organization says there is no link and the issue is settled? Since when? So, if one organization says there is no vaccine/autism link the issue is settled? If one organization says there is no chemical/breast cancer link the issue is settled?
Megan Joel Brind is NOT the only researcher. If you would take the time to get your facts, you would know this.
Put aside your biases and research. You are being blinded by your politics.

Barbara Ehrenreich is no unbiased source. While her story is certainly interesting and informative, she should be far more concerned with women researching all the possibilities and not being influenced by what are her very biased politics, by any standard.

Also Megan, no one is focusing on one cause for breast cancer, all possibilities should be and are researched and I hope will continue to be. Its your side that is determined to eliminate a possible cause for purely political reasons.
Like I said encourage women to research, be completely honest about the research that is out there.

As a medical person, I have no problem advising people to look into the research on the possible vaccine/autism link.

What do you have to be afraid of?

Posted by: Mary at December 29, 2009 8:04 AM


Not universalizing grief. Not labeling you or any other post abortive woman a sociopath.(Unless you can find the post where I said that I will eat my words.) So not "projecting."

You are certainly NOT the first postabortive commenter here who is hunky dory with her abortion, and you won't be the last. You are textbook in the way you write and think and feel about it. We have all seen and heard it before too, you know.

Life has a lot to teach you, Megs. With experience comes wisdom. I hope and pray that one day you will know the truth. Otherwise you will end up a militant pro abort like Cecile Richards.
Or screaming at me on the other side of the street waving a sign with a wire hanger on it.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 29, 2009 8:14 AM


And what good is a woman's right to vote if that baby girl doesn't even make it out of the womb alive??

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 29, 2009 8:23 AM


Women certainly do have a right to know what's out there--


if you honestly believe what you've written then you should have NO problems with women receiving ALL the information about the risks of abortion

You should have not trouble with a woman being shown an ultrasound of her baby so that she is aware of how far along in development her baby is PRIOR to the abortion

we do this sort of disclosure for ANY other medical procedure.

EXCEPT ABORTION? Now why would that be Megan?


@ Gerard: Caterina av Siena is the only other name I know it published by.
You should read Jenny and also Gunnar's Daughter which is my favorite. Master of Hestviken is more suited to men readers - it's about a man who is great need of redemption. Very very dark but very good. God bless.

Posted by: angel at December 29, 2009 9:00 AM


my goodness, cannot I type today? sheesh!!

(sorry for the mostly incoherent post above)

Posted by: angel at December 29, 2009 9:15 AM


Carla @ 8:23 AM

GOOD POINT!!!!!!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 29, 2009 11:53 AM


"You're entitled to your sadness, just as women are entitled to get abortions and move on with their lives without being labeled sociopaths.
Posted by: Megan at December 29, 2009 7:48 AM
"

Says the woman, right after seeming proud to be called a "self-seeker" and then equating ending another human's life cycle to stepping on an insect. I think "psychopath" would be the appropriate term here.

Posted by: xalisae at December 29, 2009 12:51 PM


I forgot a good point I wanted to make yesterday. I thought it was the pro aborts who used to yell "keep your politics out of my uterus." Well then keep our tax dollars out of it as well.

Posted by: heather at December 29, 2009 3:29 PM


I don't want my tax dollars going to the destruction of human life. This means both women and their unborn children.

Posted by: heather at December 29, 2009 3:32 PM


Just to remind everybody: it's a double whammy...unborn kids die at the hands of abortionists AND Planned Parenthood gets our tax dollars...

...Obama HAS to pay the piper...with OUR tax dollars..

Posted by: RSD at December 29, 2009 3:45 PM


heather 3:29PM

Good point. I well remember when medicaid funding of abortion was cut off. The PAs howled like banshees!
The PAs always wanted the gov't to stay out of the abortion decision....until the time came to foot the bill. Then watch what happens when the gov't decides to stay out of it.

Posted by: Mary at December 29, 2009 4:29 PM


"Says the woman, right after seeming proud to be called a "self-seeker" and then equating ending another human's life cycle to stepping on an insect. I think "psychopath" would be the appropriate term here."

Hm, bitterness always seems to be at the root of self-righteousness. Do you want me to return the gift and do some of my own projecting? Sweetheart, stop brandishing your "life experiences" like a set of brass knuckles. You didn't HAVE to give up your "dream job" and "move across the country." And no, I'm not talking about abortion--I'm sure there was a loving, warm, friendly family who would have been willing to adopt your daughter. You could have, you know, had the kid and just moved on. Right?

Posted by: Megan at December 29, 2009 4:47 PM


HEATHER!
How have you been??

Totally agree with you!! I will NOT pay for anyone else's abortion! I will NOT pay for the killing of the innocent and 70% of the US population agrees with me!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 29, 2009 4:52 PM


Mary, did you even read what I wrote? I posted a link not to a particular study, but rather to the conclusions reached by a panel of 100 researchers from around the world who came together to analyze all these previous studies (including Joel Brind's). Big difference. Plus, you're avoiding a huge issue: these "woman-centered" organizations of yours take information from epidemiologic studies and distort/inflate the statistical findings. Beyond not even acknowledging methodological errors, claiming that post-abortive women are at a "17% increased risk for breast cancer" is much different than saying "a 17% increase for one particular type of cancer, also depeendent on other conditions." But it's easy to dispense with all the nuance when you've got a political agenda. Right?

Posted by: Megan at December 29, 2009 4:53 PM


carla:

"Otherwise you will end up a militant pro abort like Cecile Richards. Or screaming at me on the other side of the street waving a sign with a wire hanger on it."

Where do you think all that anger comes from? For one, it is profoundly insulting to have your reproductive experiences invalidated. It's paternalistic and the exact OPPOSITE of compassionate. I'm thankful that I am not surrounded by pro-life harpies constantly insisting on my "tragic delusion"--otherwise, I probably WOULD go crazy.

It's really funny how terrified you all are of the capacity to control your own fertility, beyond simple abstinence (try preaching abstinence to a married couple). Do any of you find it convenient that "fetal personhood" became an issue after women started demanding for expanded reproductive rights, like access to contraception? Before Roe, before the rise of "christian family values," discussion of fetal "personhood" wasn't even on the tables. The abortion issue was centered around policing female sexuality--ultimately, the argument was won based on the "right to privacy" aspect of due process, and didn't even open up the opportunity for discussion of "fetal personhood" before the third trimester.

You can crusade on and on about the "fetus' rights," but look at what else has defined the anti-abortion movement: efforts to control female sexuality. Do you find it curious that many anti-choicers also oppose sex education, even though girls will certainly need this knowledge when they're married? But no, it's expected that married women would keep churning out kids, regardless of her own desire. Because that's what women are for--making babies!

Before you jump on me about being a baby killer or a crazed feminist, take a look at the history of women's reproductive rights yourselves.

Posted by: Megan at December 29, 2009 5:15 PM


Megan,

Read what YOU wrote..."the National Cancer Institute says there is NO LINK during an international convention on the subject and review of existing literature.

That would suggest that one organization made this statement at an international convention.

100 researchers from around the world? Again that proves what? Go to www.abortionbreastcancer.com and you will find an equally large number of researchers, also from around the world, who say just the opposite.

Why are you PAs so desperate to disprove a breast cancer/abortion connection? Are you this desperate to disprove a connection between the type of food a woman eats and breast cancer? I've never seen people so desperate to prove research wrong. Well, maybe the tobacco companies are an exception there.

Its easy to dispense with all the nuance when you've got a political agenda, right? Well Megan, who better than you to answer that question?

Posted by: Mary at December 29, 2009 5:27 PM


Hi Megan,

We need to parse some of your language here. You're muddling terms.

"You can crusade on and on about the "fetus' rights," but look at what else has defined the anti-abortion movement: efforts to control female sexuality. Do you find it curious that many anti-choicers also oppose sex education, even though girls will certainly need this knowledge when they're married? But no, it's expected that married women would keep churning out kids, regardless of her own desire. Because that's what women are for--making babies!"

First, when we talk about "sexuality" in common usage, conversations revolve around the issue of sexual preference: gay/straight.

What you are describing is really sexual behavior. No one in the pro-life movement is too wrapped up in people's sexual behavior. I'm sure not a few pro-lifers lead some pretty adventurous lives in bed. But we're not entangled in positions and places, or even the use of birth control for many in the movement.

The greatest objections to birth control in the pro-life movement revolve around the methods that kill embryos: the pill, IUD's...

By the time a woman gets pregnant, the ground rules change. We're no longer talking about when, where, how with sex.

Your argument at this point is the slaughter of a new human so that women can continue their lives OUTSIDE of the bedroom as they have. It isn't about sex and sexuality. Plenty of women have great sex right up until delivery day.

You've even said as much yourself. Your abortion afforded you and your partner continued education, sans distraction from baby, as well as greater economic freedom. That's not sexuality in even the broadest terms.

It's despair.

There is no such thing as sex without consequences, be they physical or emotional. For the baby, it's life and death.

Regading your oft-stated claim that we worship the fetus, we don't. That's idolatry.

We worship God and praise him for the greatest of all gifts, new life.

As for sex being only about procreation, that's usually aimed at my Church. For the record to teach that sex is exclusively EITHER for pleasure OR for procreation is heresy. Sex is for both, though the couple is not obliged to maximize the probability of pregnancy. That arises from the mistaken notion that the Church teaches that it is wrong to plan a family. It isn't.

But family planning describes the behaviors that are antecedent to pregnancy. Once a woman becomes pregnant, the behavior is no longer family planning, but killing.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 29, 2009 7:58 PM


It's really funny how terrified you all are of the capacity to control your own fertility, beyond simple abstinence (try preaching abstinence to a married couple).

excuse me! BUT, I have had complete control of my fertility through natural family planning. yes that's right Megan! COMPLETE CONTROL!

ANd guess what I didn't need to abort any of my babies or even take any pills to do this.
I spaced my children through NFP and breast feeding. I spaced my children through self control and understanding how my fertility and my body works. That takes courage, effort and responsibility.
Your way needs none of this. You pop a pill and that's it. If it doesn't work, you cop out and get your womb scraped. How chic!


And many many married couples practice abstinence. However, the way you use the term, one would think that married couples might be required to have YEARS of abstinence. You couldn't be more wrong.
But of course, people like you Megan want the world to think that the only way a woman can control her fertility is through drugs and killing her babies..
This way is dehumanizing and defeminizing..
It destroys the integrity of womanhood. It destroys women and their are plenty of studies to prove it so.


"Do any of you find it convenient that "fetal personhood" became an issue after women started demanding for expanded reproductive rights, like access to contraception? Before Roe, before the rise of "christian family values," discussion of fetal "personhood" wasn't even on the tables.

it became an issue after the pill and abortion because BEFORE contraception and abortion became widespread, it was automatically assumed that the unborn child was a person.
A woman who got pregnant, KNEW she had made her choice PRIOR to getting pregnant. She now carried a human being with the right to live. To kill it was considered murder.

Now the only one who gets to decide if the unborn baby is a person is the woman carrying that baby. If she wants it, it's a person.
If she doesn't, it's garbage, or as you people like to say, "a bunch of cells".
It's not rocket science, Megan.

Posted by: angel at December 29, 2009 8:35 PM


Megan,
That whole post was for me? ::blushes:: I hope I can give it the ol college try for you too!! :)

What about commenting here makes you so angry?

Your own reproductive experiences are invalidated here? No. You did not reproduce. No wait. You did reproduce. You are capable of reproducing but your offspring was killed in an abortion. That is not reproduction.

What were you terrified of when you sought to end the life of your child? No college, no career, no boyfriend, no support, no money, no future? That does not exactly describe an empowered woman does it?

You won't have an easy ride here Megan, I will tell you that. It is out of compassion that many of us would love for you to see what you cannot seem to see right now. Compassion for someone who has yet to realize the depth of her deception. Seriously. How far along were you? Did you have morning sickness? Did you feel your baby kicking? Did part of you get just a little excited but you knew you could not get excited? Did you want your baby? Did someone force or coerce you?

I can speak to you as no one else can, sweets. I have done what you have done. I have been relieved too. Then angry, pro choice, ashamed, depressed and suicidal. But that is neither here nor there I guess, Megan.

You won't answer my questions and that's ok. Some are just food for thought.

I love women. Women deserve better than abortion.
You deserved better. So did I. I deserved to know the truth about how far along I was and that my baby was fully developed. I deserved to see an ultrasound and know that depression, anxiety, shame and suicidal thoughts and attempts are all risk factors after an abortion. I deserved to know that after an abortion one cannot simply "get on with her life." What does that even mean?

Another Christmas goes by and my eldest daughter is not here.

Oh and in case you want to take a jab at my grief know this....the last stage of grief is acceptance. That is where I live.

PS I just received an email from a woman who had an abortion in 1969. Yikes. Before Roe V Wade. She wrote that what happened to her was totally horrifying and humiliating and she wanted that baby. Her son. She wanted him but was forced by her parents. She told me he would have been 40 years old last month. Now I get the privilege of carrying that with her as we walk the road of abortion recovery.

What's one more question??!!
How was your abortion experience?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 29, 2009 9:53 PM


Carla,

My heart aches so much for you. This is the Christmas my eldest daughter has finally come home.

Posted by: Mary at December 29, 2009 10:21 PM


Hi Carla,

Maybe you can help me better understand something. In college, a fellow student told me of her horrific experience with illegal abortion.
"Ginny" had become pregnant in high school by a drug addict. Her father, who had his "image in the community" to protect beat her with a 2x4 and forced her to have an illegal abortion. She says they did not speak for months afterward. In fact she threatened to kill him if he ever touched her again.
As a college senior she was a strong advocate of legal abortion and spoke of her father as if he were an alabaster saint. He had made the right decision for her and the issue here was illegal abortion! If it was legal, no woman would face the risk she did. Ginny, so women being forced to have legal abortions isn't quite as bad as women forced to have illegal ones?

Do you see this as some kind of coping mechanism? It seems a little twisted to me. I would appreciate your perspective. Thank you.

Posted by: Mary at December 29, 2009 10:41 PM


Prolifers, I do admire your patience dealing with Megan and responding to all of her endless arguments. I think Biblically it is called "casting your pearls before swine" not the individual person (who is valuable and God's creation) but the ideology and pro-abortion mentality. I do indeed find it so sad that a post-abortive woman (if this truly her experience) spends so much of her time and energy posting how unregretful and better off she is since she had her vagina entered, cervix dialated, her own child dismembered and mutilated with a curette and then suctioned with powerful vacuum. I think she said it is not a "child" unless she wanted him or her, it is only a "fetus". I think you have expressed very well the importance of valuing life and not destroying it but I don't think you will probably get anywhere. But you definately get an "A" for the effort.

I think if the statistics I have heard are correct less than 1% of abortions are for medical reasons. I was thinking how devalued, disposable men and women make it easy to have devalued, disposable sex, with devalued, disposable sexual partners which makes the byproduct of that sex become devalued, disposable babies suctioned into vacuum canisters and then thrown into medical waste containers to be incinerated. In the United States alone, 49 million devalued, disposable aborted babies since Roe v. Wade whose innocent blood cries out for justice and vindication. Wow! You know that is really what this so-called "right to choose" to abort babies is really about, the "right to continue to have sex as much as I want, whenever I want, with whoever I want and to get rid of the consequences of my sexual activity" because if I say that I don't want a baby I deserve to get rid of my live baby and have a dead one. No matter what any ultrasound, doppler, DNA test, blood type, or any other tests says about this being a separate unique, human being or how many women are being hurt (oh, I forgot no sane woman before her abortion has any mental/emotional consequences after her abortion). I am so glad you guys are so patient, but I think you are probably dealing with a troll who gets a kick out of taking you in circles. God bless and good night.

Oh Xalisae how are you and the family doing? Good to see your posts. I am still keeping you in my prayers.

Posted by: Prolifer L at December 30, 2009 12:30 AM


Thanks, L. We actually just the other day got our money situation sorted out and found out in the process that we had 3,000 dollars saved up in a bank account we thought had been closed, so we ended up having a nice Christmas and are going to be able to pay off some bills of ours. Thank you everyone for your thoughts and prayers. :)

Megan, first of all, where does bitterness come into play here? I'm simply giving back things you've said yourself and comparing those to the definition of a psychopath (one who engages in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse). It's a match, no bitterness on my part needed. You've been letting your true colors shine all along, baby. I'm just upping the contrast.

And, you're confusing 2 separate ideals here to suit your purpose. I understand your parents failed you miserably in their task of instilling you with the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, but I shouldn't have to explain everything. Sheesh.

1.) It is wrong to kill other humans, ESPECIALLY one's own offspring, because a parent has a biological, (in most cases except abortion, and hopefully one day not even that) legal, and moral obligation not to bring harm to their children, but on the contrary, to protect and nurture those children. This is only to rule out ABORTION, and ensuring one's child maintains at the very least the right to live must be considered paramount by every parent in a functioning society.

(This is where Rule #2 comes in, which you're throwing in here to try and muddle things, but it's a cute attempt, I'll give you that.)

2.) In the event that those children CANNOT (not "Meh, I don't FEEL like providing for a kid right now, and that'd REALLY put the old monkey wrench in MY plans"...there's that psychopathy again...) be adequately cared for by a biological parent, that parent then has an obligation to ensure that at the very least that offspring is provided for by another means. This is WORST. CASE. SCENARIO. I knew I would be able to manage to care for my daughter SOMEHOW, and am obligated to at least TRY to do so. Welcome to functioning society, Megan. Most other situations can't be solved by 500 dollars, a doctor, and a trashcan. Motherhood should be no exception.

So let's recap:

1.) Don't kill your kids.

2.) Obtain resources as best you can to provide for your own needs and the needs of those you are obligated to provide (children, pets, etc.). Dumping your responsibility off on someone else because you would be inconvenienced by it is generally frowned upon by society as a whole.

Am I going to have to teach you how to pump your own gas next?

I know what you're about to say, too. Let me head you off at the pass:

No, I'm not down on people who give their kids up for adoption as a whole. There's no way to know who dumped their kids off just because they didn't feel like having kids anymore or mistreated them and had them removed and those who legitimately could no longer provide for them and really wanted to do so but just couldn't due to circumstances beyond their control. Therefore, it's impossible to think ill about anyone in that situation, and at least they didn't kill their kid. I mean, I recently went to a friend's wedding, and he was adopted in an open adoption. His biological mother didn't know who his father was, was a messed-up kid at the time, and just kinda went along for the ride. But she eventually grew up, got to know him as a person and as his mother, and was at his wedding with his adopted parents. She was beaming with pride the entire time. It was beautiful. And at least she didn't have him killed.

Posted by: xalisae at December 30, 2009 1:44 AM


I am reading Obama's book 'The Audacity to Believe'. When the president of the United States od America falls short on protecting the unborn the Constitution falls. A christian believes that birth starts at conception and with conception a soul and a body is born. We cannnot decideon our own when a child becomes human. Is it at three months? Five months? Seven months? It is an unaliable right for all to be protected from conception on. Everything falls apart when a 'commander in chief' will not lift his hand to protect his own people, his own children, the smallest and most defenseless in his country. The book that I am reading at the moment should be entitled "The Audacity to Deceive". Obama must be defeated in the next election and replaced with a 'commander in chief' that will defend life and respect God's creation as the Founding Fathers intended. Life is sacred and cannot be snuffed out or classified as inconvenient; this is not a choice. When the president publically states that he is 'pro choice' he is in essence 'pro death' condoning, facilitating and giving his blessing for the mass murder of the children of North America. When life itself is disregarded from the onset all politics fall apart; all other statements, good intentions fall, becomes an empty void of substance. Again, life is scacred. Abortion cannot be disguised as a choice, it is murder.

Posted by: Rene mercier at December 30, 2009 3:06 AM


Hi Mary!!
All is well with me and mine. I am glad your daughter is home to you!!

I know it is so hard to understand the actions of those having had horrifying abortion experiences and then going on to defend them like it was just what they needed. It defies logic!!! In that sense YES your friend was coping the only way she knew how. What was her alternative? Upset her father, bring shame on the family? Seriously look at how that experience scarred her? We can't have that now can we?

There is so much that doesn't make sense to those who don't take the time to try and understand.
I used to have friends that would get into these huge debates about "How can any mother kill her own child? What kind of woman does that? What kind of women have abortions?" I would just sit there wearing my cloak of shame. Me. Women like me.

I used to wonder how in the world women go on to have 5 or 6 abortions. I never understood that. Until I read Forbidden Grief by Dr. Theresa Burke.
A pattern of behavior, a pattern of self-preservation, a longing to be the hero but not finding the resources AGAIN to have a child.

The human psyche is amazing and the brain tries to protect what someone simply cannot handle. I am still remembering things from my experience that I guess I am now ready to handle.

I hardly made sense out of what doesn't make any sense huh Mary? I do know that what we think is the most detestable thing we have ever done is brought out into the open and told in the presence of loving, non-judgmental friends we begin to heal.
The alternative is anger, bitterness, rage, a hardness and coldness, an attempt to justify our abortion to everyone, try to convince others to have abortions, self-destructive behavior to dull the pain of what is KNOWN. Our child has died and we are responsible.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 30, 2009 7:52 AM


"I hardly made sense out of what doesn't make any sense huh Mary? I do know that what we think is the most detestable thing we have ever done is brought out into the open and told in the presence of loving, non-judgmental friends we begin to heal."

So very true Carla. That's because those non-judgmental friends are in touch with their own faults and failures as human beings.

About those detestable things, I honestly believe that most of us don't really understand what we do when we do it. Only through the lens of hindsight and maturity do we come to know what it is that we have done.

That's when it's so important to avoid despair and turn to the Lord, allowing our worst sins and failings to be burned away by the fire of His Love and Mercy. For Moms who've had abortions, you have the greatest of all intercessors before the Father.

Your witness is powerful. Be at Peace.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 30, 2009 8:11 AM


Hi Carla,

Thank you so much for your kind words about my daughter and the insight you offered.

Your point about the human psyche being a strange thing is so true, and something I should have thought of. People do not always behave in what we see as the rational manner. Heck, look back in life and I always didn't either! In fact I seldom did :)

It certainly makes sense that what seems twisted to me is her coping mechanism. In her mind, despite the horror, it was the best thing. Her parents are her parents, they're her family. They would only do what is best. If women can have legal abortions they will not experience the horror she did, so the issue is not her father. Its easier to put it all in a neat box.

As you pointed out Carla she had to cope. I was surprised she even spoke to me about it since we weren't that close, but as you said, this is the beginning of the healing process. There were likely few people she could speak to as she came from a small town and her father's "image in the community" was of such great importance, so much so his daughter "had" to be beaten with a 2x4 and forced into a dangerous situation. Makes me hope someone took a 2x4 to him somewhere along the line.
I appreciate your insight Carla. Thank you.

Posted by: Mary at December 30, 2009 8:31 AM


You are so welcome Mary. So glad you are here! You have taught me so much.
My own sister had an abortion at the urging of my mother. There was a level of Protect Mom and Protect Dad and don't ask, don't tell. Get rid of it. My sister believed my mother when she said abortion was the best thing they could do. My mother is very abusive but my sister would deny that. Defend her to the end. Twisted.

Gerard,
God knew I would have an abortion. He knew that my brokenness over it would eventually lead me to Himself. Amazing Grace. Can you imagine the reunion I have waiting for me?? :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 30, 2009 9:05 AM


Mary, I am so glad that your daughter is home! I remember you speaking about her before and I always keep the two of you in my thoughts.

Posted by: Alexandra at December 30, 2009 9:12 AM


Alexandra 9:12am

Thank you for your kind words and the support and concern you have always shown for my daughter and me, along with so many others on this board.

I have so much to be grateful for, mainly that she found her niche in acadamia. This confined, controlled, focused and limited world is ideal for someone with her condition, just like the dangerous paratrooper situation and rigid military life was ideal for her borderline grandfather. The danger, risk, and quick witted intelligence it takes to work as an undercover police officer is another example of an area a borderline would do well in.

These people are usually highly intelligent and for the most part can function, of course there are extremes. If they find the right niche they do very well. Someone has to do these jobs, right?

An interesting and tragic note. Once my father left the discipline, risk, and danger the military offered, his life fell apart. My mother always maintained he should have stayed in it.

Posted by: Mary at December 30, 2009 11:23 AM


Xalisae, I am so glad to hear you and your family are doing well and had a wonderful Christmas. You are indeed precious to God and to fellow prolifers here.

Mary, Carla, Angel, Gerard and Xalisae your posts are right on the mark. God bless you all and Happy New Year!

Posted by: Prolifer L at December 30, 2009 1:58 PM


NFP? The rhythm method? What century are we living in?! Breastfeeding as a way of spacing out pregnancies is fine...if you have the means to stay at home all day and breastfeed seven or eight times. I think I'll take a condom over the basal body thermometer, thanks.

"I knew I would be able to manage to care for my daughter SOMEHOW..." Um, no thanks. If I were to have a baby, I'd want to do more than merely scrape by. Gerard writes that a baby would have been a "distraction," but that's absolutely wrong. Baby=life. Goodbye education, goodbye current means of support. Did I want to burden my parents by moving back in with them? No way. People have the right to bear children, of course, but I believe it's selfish to bring kids into the world when there's a question of whether the person can even provide for them.

You call abortion murder, and amoral, but the right to abortion has been legalized--codified in national law--in many western countries within the past half century. We're supposedly living in a progressive age, so why has abortion become an acceptable practice in most metropolitan nations? Have pro-choicers, women, activists, and lawmakers across the global suddenly become seized with complete moral bankruptcy? No. Abortion is legal BECAUSE WE HAVE COME TO RESPECT WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND UNDERSTAND HOW RIDICULUOUS THE CLAIM IS THAT AN EMBRYO MERITS THE RIGHTS OF PERSONHOOD.

You say it's very clear when life begins. Okay, then why is there so much debate? Speaking of a baby as a "consequence" instead of, say, "result"--a word with far less of a negative connotation--implies that pregnancy is punishment for (unsanctioned) sex. Sounds like policing of female sexuality to me.

Carla: I'm sorry you were lost and confused when you had your abortion. I wasn't. I would appreciate it if you would just drop that shtick thanks. The pregnancy test confirmed I was six weeks pregnant. I talked it over with my partner (who was standing next to me when I took the test). He had expressed interest in having children sometime in the near future--this was last year. We discussed the pros and cons of the situation, and realized that, ultimately, it would be irresponsible to bring a baby into the world when we're so young and haven't figured out our lives yet.

So no, xalisae/gerard/carla, the decision I made wasn't flippant, nor was it made under duress. I wasn't terrified or upset. I was actually amazed at my fertility--I have always been extremely careful with contraception, and I had taken plan B immediately after the condom broke. And please, somebody on this blog suggested before that my abortion experience was "amazing." Hahaha. No, it wasn't particularly fun, but it certainly wasn't painful. I saw the ultrasound, and at every stage in the process up to the abortion, the nurses and doctors kept asking me whether I was making the decision I wanted for myself. I wasn't duped or deluded, and while I occasionally think about what life would have been like as a young mother, I'm fine with my decision. Who knows about fifteen years down the road--maybe by then I'll have regretted attending the schools I did, or the career I chose. Maybe I'll even be a mother and regret that decision, too.

Posted by: Megan at December 30, 2009 2:58 PM


Megan,
My experience is a schtick but yours isn't. Got it.

Oh and I was confused about what to do. If I had been told I was 10 weeks along(they told me I was 8)if I could have seen the ultrasound(they told me it was just a bunch of cells)and maybe something on fetal development(I got to see a filmstrip with a bunch of red circles).......WA LA!! Confusion eliminated! I was lied to. Some schtick, Megan.

You are a mother. Your partner is a father. Your baby is in heaven with mine.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 30, 2009 3:10 PM


What did I tell you prolifers about "casting your pearls"? Wow! What did I say about "having sex whenever I want with whoever I want" You couldn't make up this stuff "using contraception for years, this time the condom broke, then I went to Plan B, that didn't work, then I went to Plan D "Dead" baby wanted. Poor persistent, innocent baby, didn't get the message insisted on staying alive and did not die when he/she was supposed to so now it is necessary to visit the abortuary and cost us more aggravation and money. Talk about the lies of "safe sex".

Posted by: Prolifer L at December 30, 2009 3:44 PM


I know what you mean about pearls before swine but I cannot let Megan's words go without giving my perspective. There are thousands that read this blog and never comment. I can't miss the opportunity to educate others on the lies that abortion is built upon.

Anyway, Happy New Year to you!! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 30, 2009 5:07 PM


Megan,

Breast-feeding is not a guarantee one will not get pregnant.

If we all waited "until we had our lives figured out" to have babies, no one would have babies!!

NFP and rhythm (the older of the two) are two very different methods and NFP is quite effective when done properly. How hard is it to take a basal temperature each morning before getting out of bed? Not too hard. It's a shame it's mostly Catholics who promote it. Anyone can benefit from knowing how it works.

Posted by: Janet at December 30, 2009 5:23 PM


Megan,

You sound like so many other young people today, who believe they've got everything figured out. You can't perceive my tone because of the shortcomings of this type of communication but I don't mean it in an accusing way, just as someone who has "done life" a little longer than you and has perhaps gained some perspective you don't have yet.

PLL makes a very good point, Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentence. I'm afraid whatever we may say, you would not have "ears to hear".

The more I hang around this blog the more I see how difficult it is to convince someone of the sanctity and preciousness of life if they don't know Jesus. Posters Vannah and X are obvious exceptions.

Perhaps the best way to try to convey it is for you to picture your best friend or closest sibling, someone whom you really love, as a baby. And then try to picture the horror of that person being dismembered in the womb by a razor-sharp suction curette.

Your maternal instincts do not seem to be very prevalent. Perhaps your parents weren't very affectionate. But if you did have a child you loved and cherished, it would obviously be a sadistic criminal act for anyone to treat them in such a way. The lies you believe keep you emotionally numb to the terrible manner in which the abortionist killed your child.

Megan, you didn't say whether or not you considered putting your child up for adoption, probably because you didn't realize that your fetus (Latin = baby) was your child - just a mass of tissue or clump of cells I suppose.

The bottom line Megan is that you are in a very dangerous place, and you don't realize it. The good news, even though it may seem like bad news, is that the trials of life have a way of softening one's heart. Maybe not today, but perhaps someday, you will seek for a deeper meaning for your life. You might begin to seek God and find out that He has a wonderful plan for your life, which He definitely does. And when the eyes of your heart are opened, and you see how much God loves you, and how much He wants to bless you and take care of you, you may realize that He had the same love and same high hopes and dreams for your child.

And then you might come to know in a very deep way, the Love and Mercy of our God, experience His forgiveness and the riches of His Grace, and live the rest of your life with a clean conscience. And one day, perhaps you will be reunited with your child in Heaven.

And what a glorious day that would be!

Posted by: Ed at December 30, 2009 5:32 PM


Carla, I am very glad you and others have been so patient to not let Megan's comments pass without any response. You are right to try to help thousands of others who come to this blog. God bless and Happy New Year to you.

I just had to respond myself to the "safe sex" lie that she has bought into. When it all came down to "safe sex" didn't work and then she "had" to kill her baby to make it all right and not ruin her life. I do pray her eyes will be opened.

Posted by: Prolifer L at December 30, 2009 5:50 PM


Ed,
Excellent post!

Prolifer L,
I so get what you are saying. Is it ANY WONDER that those who have had comprehensive sex ed and been indoctrinated by PlannedParenthood live what they have learned? Take a pill, use a condom, come to us to clean up those messy STD's and suction out your children. This is where legalized abortion has brought us. Sex without consequences and zero personal responsibility for the babies we produce.

On a lighter note my 12 year old son is looking at rings. He wants a ring on his 13th birthday as a promise to God to keep himself pure for marriage. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 30, 2009 6:35 PM


Me, me, me. Mine, mine, mine. MY life, MY education. I (don't) want, I want... And you wonder why you're being compared to a psychopath. Do you hear yourself? How egocentric you sound? One of the few times you even make reference to your baby is in the context of "what it would be like to be a young mother"...you relate the experience of letting your child live to YOU getting the opportunity to experience motherhood! Are you capable of even trying to think of things from your son or daughter's point of view? Can you imagine what it would have been like for them having you as a mother, and getting to learn about the world with your help? Living is not an experience meant solely to fulfill Our Dear Precious Megan, and you've taken that chance from your own child.

Posted by: xalisae at December 30, 2009 7:10 PM


Oh, but thank heavens you don't have to just scrape by like the rest of us dregs. My life is so terrible, I don't know how I haven't aborted myself yet.

Posted by: xalisae at December 30, 2009 7:22 PM


NFP? The rhythm method? What century are we living in?! Breastfeeding as a way of spacing out pregnancies is fine...if you have the means to stay at home all day and breastfeed seven or eight times. I think I'll take a condom over the basal body thermometer, thanks.

these statements really demonstrate your profound ignorance, Megan. I'm not surprised.

there are many many methods of NFP Megan and few of them don't require a thermometer.
Nevertheless, you'd be surprised just what you can learn about your body from a basal body thermometer. ;)
I don't remember ever reading anything about what a condom or a pill teaches a woman about her body except that she shouldn't trust her body nor her partner....
The rhythm method went out in the 1960's BTW. (thought I should tell you that) and in order to delay fertility it's the night time feeding that matters the most.

Breastfeeding doesn't work for everyone, but in many cases it can very effectively delay the return of fertility.
It would seem that your feminist sisters were so busy working to ensure that every mother could kill her baby should she "choose" to do so, that they forgot about the women who actually want their babies.
Maybe better and long maternity benefits might help. Ya think so?
Most women I know aren't itching for more condoms. They want to stay home with their families. It's women like you who have helped make that not possible.

Posted by: angel at December 30, 2009 8:06 PM


Carla, so glad to hear your son is looking for a purity ring. Just listened recently to a young lady who presented her's to her husband on their wedding night and he had been abstinent for several years waiting for his future wife. Teens want to hear they are valuable, special, worth waiting for and worth a life-long commitment. The teens in the audience clapped and cheered when the couple told their story. Blessings on your son.

Posted by: Prolifer L at December 30, 2009 8:24 PM



"And then try to picture the horror of that person being dismembered in the womb by a razor-sharp suction curette."

I have, thanks. I saw the ultrasound and--gasp!--asked to look at the contents removed from my body. I knew what was going on--I'm a psychopath, right? At that point in time, I guess I didn't have much maternal instinct (if there is such a thing).

No, I didn't think in terms of my son or daughter's "point of view" because at 6-7 weeks, there wasn't one to be had. The embryo wasn't entitled to self-interest because it was living inside and off my body. Inside body=mother's prerogative, outside body=personhood with right to life.

There's the distinction.

During feminism's second wave (and still today), anti-choicers were so adamant on denying women their right to control their fertility, attempting to limit their life choices solely to motherhood. I'm not knocking motherhood--but women should have other options and should be entitled to expressing their sexuality. Through sex. Being in charge of their bodies. I also think it's unfortunate the reproductive rights movement doesn't have a broader agenda--but do you understand WHY this is so?

Posted by: Megan at December 30, 2009 8:46 PM


oh, and xalisae, about that personal responsibility thing...where did you say you went when you found out you were pregnant?

Posted by: Megan at December 30, 2009 8:51 PM


oh, and it's a wonderful idea to knock comprehensive sex education. forgetting for a moment that sexual "purity" has a pretty nasty legacy behind all the fluff about love and commitment since restricting female sexual expression was, historically, a convenient way to control women's bodies, securing male lineage and property, and girls today aren't married off at menarche, meaning that people who attend school and get jobs before marriage must wait until their mid-twenties to hop in the sack...

oh gosh, i forgot what i was even talking about. oh! giving abstinence-only education the benefit of the doubt. right. okay, so what happens when people do get married and the sex they're having is supposedly pure? rely on a "family planning method" that has an incredibly high failure rate? periods irregular? getting a fever? don't worry about that thermometer misreading--married women are supposed to expect and welcome pregnancy at all times.

Posted by: Megan at December 30, 2009 9:04 PM


Back to my former state of residence. Rent was out of the question in California, but it was pretty cheap for a crappy apartment out here. Sorry, no "GOTCHA!" for you, kiddo. But even still, would you really, honestly penalize someone for trying their best to provide for their child and perhaps eventually failing rather than foist them upon someone else or kill them? Really? You're rather disgusting.

Posted by: xalisae at December 30, 2009 9:25 PM


My children are worth the wait. I know. How nasty.
Self control is a nasty wasty thing.

You have no idea how proud I am to tell my children what I was never told. I am changing a legacy, Megan. Me.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 30, 2009 9:33 PM


And, I didn't ask if you DID think about things from your son or daughter's perspective (you obviously did not), I asked if you were even capable of doing so. Your response spoke volumes though, thanks.

Also, I have complete control of my fertility. As a matter of fact, I've made myself its master and eliminated it completely through a tubal ligation. All the sex I care to have, and none of that pesky murdering my kids to get it. If you really cared so much about women's rights to sexuality, I would think you'd be up in arms about all the OB/GYNs denying TL's to women who want them in their 20's. But not a peep from you or many others like you. I guess it's just not as much of a thrill without killing.

Posted by: xalisae at December 30, 2009 9:35 PM


NFP doesn't rely on a thermometer. A woman can have irregular periods and still have a reliable method of birth control, since the method teaches her to observe the signs of impending ovulation for success. At least try researching it before you denigrate something you don't know anything about.

And amazingly enough, many of us have successfully used this method to plan our families...whether to avoid fertile times when trying not to conceive or seeking fertile times in order to conceive.

Women attempting to "control their fertility" as Megan did may find themselves in her same situation. She had all the tools necessary (supposedly) to prevent an unplanned pregnancy...to "control" her fertility. And yet, despite all of that, she found herself to be fertile to the point where she conceived a child. She then breached the boundary of "fertility control" and stepped into the land of premeditated murder to maintain what she calls "sexual freedom" with a man who wasn't willing to step up to the plate and be a father. (But he was more than willing to "jump in the sack," no strings attached.)

And God forbid anyone should wait till their mid-20s to "jump in the sack." I'm certain there are a lot of people who have other ambitions and interests in life, and thankfully, they won't find themselves disposing of other human beings in order to maintain their freedom to "jump in the sack" anytime, anyplace. Oh boy, I bet they're just kicking themselves for missing out on it all!

Posted by: Kel at December 30, 2009 9:38 PM


Yes Kel, they (like the couple I was talking about earlier) are just kicking themselves because they did not have to worry about mutilating and murdering their unborn babies, contracting over 25 different STDs, transmiting STDs to their future spouses and future children, baby daddy or baby momma drama, regret, heartbreak, popping pills, patches, shots, (hormones that can cause blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, pulmonary embolisms) herpes outbreaks, genital warts, cervical or penile cancer, etc. They missed out on all the fun. What is the matter with them!!

Posted by: Prolifer L at December 30, 2009 9:59 PM


okay, so who here was abstinent until marriage?

Posted by: Megan at December 30, 2009 10:06 PM


Not me, Megan. But what does that have to do with killing your kids?

Posted by: xalisae at December 30, 2009 10:18 PM


Why do you ask, Megan?

Posted by: Kel at December 30, 2009 10:21 PM


Megan said: "...meaning that people who attend school and get jobs before marriage must wait until their mid-twenties to hop in the sack..."

I missed this before, and I think it's hilarious that anyone actually believes it must be "either/or." You can attend college and work a job AND be married...and some people even have children while doing these things!

I did the first two...attended college (full course load) and worked 25-30 hours a week while being married. My husband did the same. Graduated with honors. I wouldn't change a thing about it. Got a ton of financial aid, actually, since my husband and I were both students and had a lower combined income than our parents.

(Oh, and in case you're wondering, we got married during college because we loved each other and *wanted* to get married, not because of an unplanned pregnancy or other situation. A lot of my friends did the same.)

I'm with Xalisae...still wondering why you're asking about abstinence, Megan. Considering a lifestyle change?

Posted by: Kel at December 30, 2009 11:29 PM


Thanks for the reply Megan.

You pretty much confirmed what I said in my earlier post about the difficulty in getting someone with your perspective to have empathy for your unborn child (fetus). What I suggested was that you try to envision someone you love, someone you have a relationship with, being aborted. You detailed your reaction to your abortion as being clinical, without much, if any emotion, which we'd expect given your points of view.

I submit to you that if you had desperately wanted a child, had tried for years to conceive, received the news of your pregnancy with joyful delight and excited anticipation, and then had miscarried, you would have had a profoundly different reaction to the loss of your child.

In Southeast Asia, China's One Child policy and their proclivity for aborting baby girls has created a gender imbalance and a strong demand for young female sex slaves. Many fathers struggling in poverty to provide for their families sell one of their daughters into the sex trade.

Most people consider the beatings, rapes and STD's that these young girls are subjected to and judge their fathers' actions despicable. Some however believe the fathers are providing for their families and that this is the lifestyle these girls deserve based on their caste system.

Your belief system determines the degree of empathy you feel for the poor, the oppressed, the victimized.

God gave Adam and Eve a free will to choose to obey Him or not. He also gave them dominion in the Earth. When they chose not to obey God but go their own way, they sinned, abdicated their authority in the Earth and gave dominion to satan. That's why we have mothers with unaffected hearts killing their own children and fathers selling their children into sexual slavery. That's why our world is in such a mess.

But God has a great plan for each of our lives. He is Pro-Choice. He wants each of us to choose His abundant life, to be filled with His Grace, to have eternal life, with Him. He wants to use each of us in a most honorable rescue mission to reconcile a lost and dying world back to Himself.

But He will let you choose death, for you and your child. It is up to you to turn from this sin-sick world and receive Christ as your Savior and King.

I pray some day you make that choice. Your eternal destiny hangs in the balance.

Posted by: Ed at December 30, 2009 11:47 PM


meh, early marriage=early divorce. good luck.

"You pretty much confirmed what I said in my earlier post about the difficulty in getting someone with your perspective to have empathy for your unborn child (fetus)."

...well, I'm certainly not an anomaly. why have so many countries legalized abortion? if the fetus' right to life is so self-evident, why is there so much debate about the issue? why have women been getting them for centuries and centuries? why have so many counties legalized the procedure in the last century--when metropolitan nations progressed past imperialism and slavery? hmm, terrible regression, evil moral decline!

you all keep operating under the assumption that i numbed myself to the "facts" of abortion to justify getting the procedure, which allowed me to continue pursuing my oh-so-trivial-and-selfish life goals. um, no. i've always been pro-choice. middle school poster child for PP (and my parents are largely apolitical). so you're convinced that an embryo is entitled to the same rights as an infant or a child or an adult. it's always seemed really quite self-evident to me that women shouldn't be obligated to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. this doesn't make them worse mothers to the children they have, or to the children they might have. I know post-abortive moms who are perfectly sane, competent, healthy, and happy.

Posted by: megan at December 31, 2009 12:17 AM


"...well, I'm certainly not an anomaly. why have so many countries legalized abortion?"

What if what Jesus said was true? What if the reason our world is so messed up, so imperfect, in spite of being created by a loving, perfect God, was because of you and me and the free will He gave us?

What if He knew that in spite of our shortcomings, He knew that most of us wouldn't turn to Him with all of our hearts to seek Him for the Grace to repent from our sin?

What if he knew most of us wouldn't accept His free gift of salvation?

What if what He said was true?

The Narrow Gate
“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." Mt 7:13-14

There may not be much comfort in eternity following the masses who legalize abortion, especially when God says, "Thou shalt not kill."

Good night Megan.

Posted by: Ed at December 31, 2009 12:47 AM


I never thought you numbed yourself. I was figuring you never had the capacity to feel empathy from the start, and you've done a great job of proving that. All you've shown is a perfect display of the mindset of youth today. Brats to a psychopathic extent due to being raised as only children, brainwashed to believe the world revolves around them ("middle school poster child for PP" so did your parents raise you, or did the teacher's union? Either way, whoever did really did a bang-up job), and dead-set on being the center of their own universe. Kudos.

Posted by: xalisae at December 31, 2009 12:48 AM


Also...it's widely accepted now, so that makes it right? You really would've been a hit in Nazi Germany.

Posted by: xalisae at December 31, 2009 12:53 AM


nope, not an only child, actually.

why should women want more than bring a pregnancy to term every time they get knocked up? thanks, but i want more for my (future) kids than to raise them in a "crappy apartment," scraping by to make ends meet (because i felt "obligated" to an embryo i helped create, living on and housed in my body). also, since he's followed me to school, it's only fair i wait to have kids until my partner has been allowed to get his degree.

i'm not talking about middle class security, but i sure as hell wouldn't want to bring a kid into an unstable environment without both parents completely on board.

Posted by: megan at December 31, 2009 1:04 AM


ah, the ever-disgusting holocaust analogy.

i aborted my fetus. how many years in prison should i serve?

Posted by: megan at December 31, 2009 1:23 AM


Megan, I said "raised AS only child(ren)". I know quite a few people whose parents staggered their childbearing (or failed in their child-rearing) in such a way that they ended up not with just an only child, but 2 or 3 children far enough apart (9 years or so, even) that they were all raised as terrible spoiled brats who thought that each one was the baby of the bunch and acted accordingly. Having siblings proves nothing but the fact that whoever shaped you into the person you are today had a knack for utter failure, and I only hope the rest of your clan came out of it better than you did.

You want more for your future kids than a basic place to live and doing your best to provide for them...but the biohazard bag was just fine for that particular child of yours. You make ZERO sense.

My daughter isn't any more my daughter now than she was when she first showed up in my womb. Her being born hasn't made her a different person, everything the same genetically and biologically, she's just gotten farther in her development cycle now than the point she was at when she was inside me. No Personfairy swooped down upon her after she was born, or created her first bowel movement on formula, or was weaned, or potty trained, or any other arbitrary event in her development and said "*DING*Now you are worthy, my child." Just as nothing separates the child you chose to throw away from those you will prospectively have later which you will decide are worth your time and effort to provide for rather than destroy.

You most likely both could've finished your educations with a little juggling, but Princess Megan should never live outside of her perfect comfort zone, even if she has to kill to ensure that. Heaven forbid you have to take a few classes as you can get them at the local JC. Only a champagne and caviar education for you. I'm sure the blood will wash right out of that diploma. And isn't this what it's all about? That baby would've lowered you to the level of one of those icky dirty people, and we can't have that. He or she is better off dead than to have to stoop to being one of the prospective dirty poor people. Now quick, go donate some money to PETA or put on an AIDs ribbon before someone sees right through you to your shameful feelings about those less fortunate than yourself.

Do you never ever feel obligated to do the right thing by your fellow man (or woman, if you feel more comfortable with that terminology)? Do you feel as though pressing the "Door Open" button on the elevator for the man struggling to make it in time with his arms full of books on his way to a meeting which could make or break his life's work has diminished you in some way? What if that person happened to be a friend of yours? What if you were acquainted with that person? Perhaps it is a relative of yours? Is not having to catch up on half a page of notes yourself or even losing a letter grade worth destroying that person's future plans? It certainly wasn't purely out of obligation that I didn't pay someone to have my daughter killed. It's a joy you cannot know to help someone live. I'm happy for her, that she gets to experience this world, just as I am happy for myself and those around me. And I'm sad for every single person who is denied that experience by their own mothers and fathers.

Why exactly is the holocaust analogy disgusting to you? It really does make a lot of sense. A segment of a nation's population (Jews = humans of another variety, in this case those who have yet to be born) is allowed and even in some cases encouraged to be put to death and have their lives ended (concentration camps = abortion facilities). This is because they are being blamed for various problems unjustly (Jews are worthless eaters who take jobs from Germans. = A baby is a parasite that would ruin my life.) This is accepted because a scapegoat is always so much better than dealing with reality as it is and making due or adapting oneself to their circumstances. Eventually, those people who accepted it initially because it was easy grow to become the norm, and this effect snowballs because some people who never would've accepted such a ghastly idea originally have come to know this as the norm, and if it was so horrific, surely it wouldn't be considered normal or legal, right?

And, I'm no judge, so I can't give you a definite number, but I'd just refer to any other case of a woman paying someone to kill her child for a ballpark estimate. It is what it is, and unlike many pro-lifers here, I do not nor will I ever shy away from that question, and squirm uncomfortably hoping to come up with some palatable answer. I consider abortion legalized killing of one's children that shouldn't be legal at all. Most other instances of killing one's children are considered murder of some kind. Therefore, it only makes sense to me that the penalty should be equivalent, because the crime is equivalent.

Posted by: xalisae at December 31, 2009 5:10 AM


"And isn't this what it's all about? That baby would've lowered you to the level of one of those icky dirty people."

are you kidding? are we back to "barefoot and pregnant" all over again? im sure there are many poor women who make fine mothers, but if you asked anyone at the poverty line, im sure they'd appreciate the opportunity to get an education--for the betterment of themselves AND their families. Heaven forbid women would want to pursue life options other than and in addition to child rearing. Selfish, angry feminists.

Btw, check out Now's website: contrary to what you assume, women's lib organizations have been fighting all along for improved childcare services. It's too bad nothing much has changed (thanks to the constant harangue over abortion legality).

http://www2.hsp.org/collections/manuscripts/n/now2054.htm

I'm sorry, but there was a grave difference in your daughter's development from when she was three weeks old to the present. Cue lioness' crazed maternal protectiveness: your daughter wasn't a physically independent entity. It makes perfect sense (to me, and to legal entities across the world, regardless of political structure...more substantial consensus than ideologies spread violently by a rogue fascist state) that, at this point, embryos aren't afforded equal legal rights, "distinct DNA" and all that. You were legally entitled to abortion, just as my mother was when she had my sister and I, even though this choice might seem terrifying to you.

If abortion's so heinous, then we should consider miscarriage to be manslaughter. "That's crazy, it's out of the woman's control!" Oh, but there are known risk factors for miscarriage--obesity, hypertension, nutrition, extant medical conditions, pregnancy at a late age...gosh, women should make their bodies as conducive as possible for bearing children. How could we ever tell if the miscarriage were cause of a genetic defect? It doesn't matter, a (potential) baby's still dead. Call it manslaughter.

Posted by: Megan at December 31, 2009 8:03 AM


What part of an abortion promises a secure financial future? A beautiful home, 2 cars, a fulltime high paying job(with no chance of unemployment)to you and your partner and children conceived at "the perfect time?"
If abortion promised that it sure did not deliver it to my doorstep.

It is naive to assume that your life after abortion will from here on out go exactly as planned, Megan.
But good luck with that and Happy New Year!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 31, 2009 8:17 AM


Megan,
DO NOT attempt to denigrate the grief of those here who have lost children to miscarriage.(and there are MANY here who have)You have no idea what you are talking about you foolish, foolish girl.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 31, 2009 9:06 AM


I see Megan is not learning much from Columbia U (the University that invited Iran's dictator) but won't let a pro-lifer in the doors.

Posted by: jasper Author Profile Page at December 31, 2009 9:28 AM


meh, early marriage=early divorce. good luck.
***************

Actually, any marriage entered into with the wrong perspective or expectations is likely to divorce.

I won't need luck. I've been happily married for 15 years now and luck has nothing to do with it, but thanks. :D

You sound like a person who is jealous and cynical, Megan. First you ask who was abstinent until marriage (because you are skeptical that anyone could be, since you "hopped in the sack" the first chance you got), and now you write off our "early" marriages? For a girl who's supposedly "experiencing the world" in an institution of higher learning, you really seem to know little past the end of your own nose. Be sure to surround yourself with people who only think like you in the world, Megan. That way you can keep living in fantasy land.

Posted by: Kel at December 31, 2009 10:22 AM


Yes, Megan, there are surely only 2 options, barefoot and pregnant, or having one's offspring put to death. Where did I ever even say "I want women dumb, deaf, and pregnant in the kitchen making her man a sandwich at all times!", and what kind of hypocrite would that even make me for having sought and continuing to work towards an education myself? How do you get "barefoot and pregnant" from "taking some classes at a local junior college instead of going ivy league"? Are you really so full of yourself that you think anyone not attending the school you do is on par with a "barefoot and pregnant" woman? There's no help for you.

"I'm sorry, but there was a grave difference in your daughter's development from when she was three weeks old to the present."

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. I also stated that THAT SAME "THING"/EMBRYO/TISSUE/WHATEVER OTHER DEHUMANIZING HATE SPEECH YOU WANT TO USE that was once in my womb that you dehumanize and devalue to the point of being literally disposable is now running around the house asking to watch The 3 Stooges (gotta hand it to her, she has great taste in the classics). I gave mine the opportunity to eat a BLT and watch Invader Zim, and you paid a doctor to have yours killed and thrown in the trash. WHAT they were when they were inside us was the same, the only difference now is that this one is alive and yours is dead. Period. Do you think that anyone would be insulted if you lump a toddler in with a 32 year old when stating collectively they are human? So too here with my children, your child, all the fetal humans in the waiting room at the Obstetrician's office, and Rob Schneider. Please tell me which of those listed are not specimens of the human race.

And as for that last statement...oh yes, Megan, society was on the brink of collapse and women were prosecuted en masse routinely for miscarriage before Roe V. Wade, thank goodness for it. I remember my mother telling me about my grandmother's trial for...Oh, wait, THAT NEVER HAPPENED. For someone supposedly educated, you certainly are stupid.

Posted by: xalisae at December 31, 2009 1:09 PM


Megan,

The reason why so many things that are immoral have become accepted in greater society is VERY simple. Even you should know about it! The reason is selfishness.

If it is easy to fool ourselves that killing an unseen unborn baby is acceptable, then that means that we can live an uninterrupted life full of our own successes, money spent on ourselves, fun nights filled with parties, and other self-serving activities.

If, however, we do not deny those who are "hidden" by skin, muscle, and size then we must give up the uninterrupted life full of our own self-serving activities.

On no!!! We must not give up what we want! "I want what I want, and I want it now!!!" This mindset of selfishness is very easy to notice in today's modern society. If we can hide evil to accomplish what we want then we do it.

Pro-aborts so often hide the facts. I have heard too many pro-aborts tell pregnant mothers of "unwanted" children that fetal development photos, descriptions, and drawings are FAKE and MADE UP by those against abortion. I have seen way too much hiding of facts by abortion-counselors, medical personnel in hospitals and clinics, and "smart" people in the media.

It is so easy to see that abortion is the killing of an unborn child. Science proves it time after time. Leaders in the pro-choice movement have ADMITTED that abortion is indeed murder. It is indeed obvious... that is, if our humanity didn't hide it. Our tendency towards selfishness and other sinful attitudes hides the obvious nature of therapeutic abortion. Add to this the fact that abortion has been easily accessible for many years and it is easy to see why it would be hard for many to see what would otherwise be so obvious.

Open your eyes, Megan. I pray that all people who are pro-choice would open their eyes! I don't want people living their lives so selfishly as you have demonstrated to all of us. Education does not come before human life. The amount of comfort provided by monetary gains does not come before human life. Acceptance of our peers and/or sexual partners does not come before human life. However, our twisted human nature allows us to believe that they do...

I'll be praying for you, Megan, and the multitude of people that think just like you.

Posted by: segamon at December 31, 2009 3:47 PM


"THAT SAME "THING"/EMBRYO/TISSUE/WHATEVER OTHER DEHUMANIZING HATE SPEECH YOU WANT TO USE that was once in my womb that you dehumanize and devalue to the point of being literally disposable is now running around the house asking to watch The 3 Stooges (gotta hand it to her, she has great taste in the classics). I gave mine the opportunity to eat a BLT and watch Invader Zim, and you paid a doctor to have yours killed and thrown in the trash. WHAT they were when they were inside us was the same, the only difference now is that this one is alive and yours is dead. Period."

Wow X, I think I characterized your Pro-Life debating skills as target practice with a double barrel shotgun.

Forget that, you're launchin' ICBM's.

If any post-abortive moms out there are feeling convicted or guilty, please remember that satan has duped all of us into believing his lies at some point, we've all made mistakes, and there is forgiveness and healing at the Cross of Calvary.

That's the reason Jesus came, to pay the price for our sin.

Posted by: Ed at December 31, 2009 6:04 PM


"I'm sure the blood will wash right out of that diploma."

You have a gift X.

I'd love to see you debate BO on the subject of abortion.

Your gift versus his.

He wouldn't stand a chance.

Posted by: Ed at December 31, 2009 6:15 PM


Hello to all and Happy New Year!! I try to drop in when I am able {without my computer and typing from a friends} Anyway, @ Megan, unless you are 100% sure that there is no abortion/ breast cancer link, I cannot take your word for it. I need proof! There is no reason that women in their 20s and 30s should be stricken with this terrible disease! It is especially at epidemic levels in the African American community! Interesting that AA women have the most abortions! Also, great comments from the pro-lifers! I believe that living in denial is common for a lot of post abortive women. I know of several myself, but there is no getting through to them. I suppose it will happen in God's time, if ever. Many take Megan's stoic position. "It was what was best for me." I see the pro abortion mentality in a lot of people today. It's very sad. How much longer will we continue to destroy ourselves? How do I tell my 2 girlfriends that they pop too many Xanax to block out their abortion pain? How about the chain smoker and the over eater? ....Carla opened my eyes to a lot of the behaviors! What other explaination is there? What else could it be? Funny how many folks can say. "I'm pro-choice" yet they scream in horror at actual pictures of abortion! They want you to keep it sanitary. That makes it okay.

Posted by: heather at December 31, 2009 6:17 PM


X,

If you're not an attorney, I'm afraid you might have missed your calling :)

I'm sure you're great at whatever you do. You're daughter is fortunate to have you as her Mom.

Posted by: Ed at December 31, 2009 6:25 PM


Just like Planned Parentless collects $$ for us to pay for a woman's abortion. What if we had "Exterminate a Jew day"?? Would you give? Abortion is an evil that never should have been. Yet we accept it. I was watching the History channel the other day. It was about Nazi Germany and Valkerie. I just couldn't stop thinking about militant pro-aborts and brainwashing. A lot of the same happened in Nazi Germany. Evil was called good.

Posted by: heather at December 31, 2009 6:26 PM


The same toxic language is used today to rid us of the unwanted unborn. We are ridding the world of many women too. How many die from legal abortion, yet it is not coded as such? And how many more will die from breast cancer? And what about the men? Yes some men do want women to abort, but many would have been happy to parent. Abortion turns us all against one another. And we can also credit these radical feminists with single mother households. Hey, you wanted men gone. You wanted us to be like men, so who can blame men when they run off? Women have asked for it! Abortion empowers women? Not in this lifetime! Abortion has destroyed us.

Posted by: heather at December 31, 2009 6:43 PM


Amen Heather!

Posted by: Ed at December 31, 2009 6:56 PM


Why thank you Ed! Happy New Year!

Posted by: heather at December 31, 2009 7:00 PM


You too Heather!

May God bless you richly this year.

Posted by: Ed at December 31, 2009 9:47 PM


since he's followed me to school, it's only fair i wait to have kids until my partner has been allowed to get his degree.


I'm sure he's "followed" you Megan.
why didn't you wait to have sex, if his career is so important.
If he truly loves you wouldn't he wait? Wouldn't he want what's best for you physically, psychologically, emotionally?
Do you honestly believe abortion was all these for you?
Of course perhaps, you knew he wouldn't have stayed with you unless you were willing sleep with him!
you would have been left hi and dry
so who pays the piper, Megan?
your unborn children whom you abort in the hopes of a future with this guy.
Betcha this guy never stays Megan


"why have so many countries legalized abortion? if the fetus' right to life is so self-evident, why is there so much debate about the issue? why have women been getting them for centuries and centuries? why have so many counties legalized the procedure in the last century--"

why? Because feminists have played right into the hands of men for whom the legalization of the pill in particular has been a boon to.
Now a guy can sleep with any woman he wants - in fact, women are almost obligated to sleep with men these days. They expect it.
Any self-respecting woman who denies a man the right to sex loses out. He simply can find another woman who will. How sad for many women who know that this is a bad choice for them.
At one time virtue in a woman was a sign of character, now it's considered a psychological problem.
Voila! Promiscuous sex without any responsibilities at all.
If the dreaded unwanted pregnancy rears it's ugly head,well we now have legalized abortion.
Abortion had to be legalized once the pill was accepted.
Not rocket science at all.

Posted by: angel at January 1, 2010 4:27 PM


okay, so who here was abstinent until marriage?
Posted by: Megan at December 30, 2009 10:06 PM

I was. :)

Posted by: angel at January 1, 2010 4:30 PM


:) I was...

Posted by: Paladin at January 1, 2010 4:37 PM


I was too! :)

Posted by: segamon at January 1, 2010 4:49 PM


I wasn't. You guys are coming at this from a faulty angle. Megan seems like she was pretty open to the idea of a sexual relationship, and I'm not going to fault her for that. I don't think there's anything wrong with a woman wanting sex, and sometimes it's *GASP* even HER idea in the first place! As a matter of fact, from what was expressed by Megan, he seemed more open to the idea that he was a father than she was to providing for their child as well. I'm not saying that abortion hasn't given men an unprecedented new ability to use and dispose of women after a careless fling than ever before, but you guys have to understand that there are a few women out there that are impossible to use because to them it's not being used, it's just their Saturday night. The blame for killing their children in the name of no-strings sex isn't entirely on the heads of men. The blame is shared in many instances.

Posted by: xalisae at January 1, 2010 5:01 PM


The blame for killing their children in the name of no-strings sex isn't entirely on the heads of men. The blame is shared in many instances.
Posted by: xalisae at January 1, 2010 5:01 PM
****************************

Too true!!

Oh...and I was. So was my husband. Nice to know I'm not alone.

Posted by: Kel at January 1, 2010 6:10 PM


you guys have to understand that there are a few women out there that are impossible to use because to them it's not being used, it's just their Saturday night. The blame for killing their children in the name of no-strings sex isn't entirely on the heads of men. The blame is shared in many instances.
Posted by: xalisae at January 1, 2010 5:01 PM

I do agree with you xalisae
It's not always the man's fault. Women use men too.
But it's not how sex was meant to be.
There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting sex and liking it!
But sex is best in a committed permanent relationship - best for children and for the woman.
One of the results of sex is children and children are best welcomed within marriage.
If Megan was not prepared to accept the consequences of sex - in this case a child, she should not have been sexually active.
Sex is pretty much the only activity where we encourage people to not take responsiblity or where "taking responsibility" means killing another human being. :(

Posted by: angel at January 1, 2010 8:10 PM


I agree, Angel, to an extent, but I just wanted you to be mindful about how you guys were sounding.

Posted by: xalisae at January 1, 2010 8:26 PM


Xalisae has selective hearing. "Are you really so full of yourself that you think anyone not attending the school you do is on par with a "barefoot and pregnant" woman? There's no help for you." Did I say that? You're acting as if getting an education is a purely selfish pursuit, as if getting a decent degree won't benefit a woman's current and future kids. And why even attend a jc? Why even go for that degree when there are kids at home to watch and care for? Isn't any other activity (besides child rearing) merely a distraction when one is a mother?

Sure your daughter is running around the house. Duh, she's a
PERSON--meaning you allowed her to be BORN.

"Of course perhaps, you knew he wouldn't have stayed with you unless you were willing sleep with him!"

Ha, as if women lack sexual desire, and autonomy. I take full responsibility for my actions, and I'm not dependent on any man. This is actually hilarious. HAHAHAHAH.

Posted by: megan at January 2, 2010 2:39 AM


If you want to check out a society that tried (and failed) to an anti-abortion, anti-contraception agenda, look at Romania from the 1960's-1980's. You'll see how well cared-for all those "extra" children were. Google "Cighid." It's a really beautiful, lift-oneself-up-from-one's-shoe straps story of American individualism and perseverance kind of story.

Posted by: megan at January 2, 2010 2:46 AM


(I may regret this... and I may doubly regret not heeding my instinct that I may regret this...)

Megan, if I could ask a cool, calm and collected question, in the midst of the heated emotions:

Why do you believe that birth grants personhood? I may ask some follow-up questions to that, but this is key, and your position really baffles me.

Posted by: Paladin at January 2, 2010 9:35 AM


Megan,

There's plenty about the Romanian situation we were not informed of, and that obviously includes yourself. It was just such great propaganda fodder that your side wasn't going to let facts get in the way.

1.Romania was ruled by a deranged brutal despot who had dreams of vastly increasing his country's population by whatever means necessary. Women were required to have a minimum of 5 children, after that they could abort or use contraception to their heart's content. Women were subjected to forced examinations and denied any access to family planning services. I remember the days before Roe megan and no situation like this ever existed nor have PL people ever advocated this.

2.This despot forced brutal draconian economic policies on his people. One woman described getting a bottle of milk as requiring a trip to the black market, which could result in a long jail sentence. People were allowed only a minimum amount of electricity and heat. Citizens described their lives as hungry, cold, barren, and hopeless, as well as brutal gov't suppression.
Imagine if during the Great Depression President Roosevelt had decreed that every American woman, no matter how desperate her circumstances, must bear a minimum of 5 children. That gives you some idea of the situation of Romanian women.

3.Children were put in those hellhole orphanages not because they were unloved and unwanted but rather because the desperate economic circumstance of parents, forced on them by the deranged dictator, made it impossible for them to care for their children. As horrific as these orphanages were, the living conditions of the parents of some of these "orphans" were no better and in some cases worse.

4.Women stated they in fact did not want abortions but were forced into them by their circumstances. If that extra bottle of milk can mean a prison term, and children left to die, a woman may be forced, and that's the key work here megan, forced, to abort or abandon children she may not otherwise would have.
During the Ukrainian famine, engineered by soviet dictator Josef Stalin, mothers put their starving children on outgoing freight cars, the only hope these mothers had for their survival was that someone would find their children and take pity on them.
Other mothers had to choose which children to feed and which to deny food to and let die.
Horrific? yes, but not surprising under the circumstances.


Throughout history and even today Megan despots have tried to control reproduction, either forcing birth or forcing sterilization or abortion, as we see in China.
Even here in the US, people deemed unfit to have children were forcibly sterilized.
This is a far cry from laws regulating abortion. Prior to Roe v Wade, birth control was alive and doing well in this country.

Posted by: Mary at January 2, 2010 9:48 AM


I'm not saying it's a purely selfish pursuit. I'm saying that if you kill someone to get it so you won't have to adapt to them and can make more money if you don't have to provide for them, THAT is selfish. And it doesn't help you're proclaiming your advanced educational level and ivy league pedigree as if it's a new handbag.

And...excuse me? "...won't benefit a woman's current and future kids." Please tell me how your education will ever benefit the unfortunate little offspring of yours you had scraped out and thrown away please. He or she is real thankful for your diploma, no doubt. 9_9

And who ever said child-rearing should be the center of a woman's universe? You're certainly barking up the wrong pro-lifer tree with this statement. You should address this to one of the more traditional individuals here, because I will tell you that a woman can be not only a highly effective student, doctor, lawyer, chef, whatever AND a wonderful mother, and it's great that women have so much to offer in the world today.


"Sure your daughter is running around the house. Duh, she's a
PERSON--meaning you allowed her to be BORN.
"

Wow, I can't figure out whether you're insane or just really stupid. She was ALIVE even before you considered her a person. Her life cycle was chugging along briskly literally months before you would consider her a person because...whatever it is you use to consider someone a person hadn't happened yet, I guess. I breastfed her for the first 6 months, so I guess she wasn't as much of a person as you by your standards or something. I don't know what strange criteria you've set for acknowledging someone as a "Real Person (TM)" She was a living human. That's biologically correct to say, is it not? Well, I'm also a living human. Can you see the correlation there? Now, birth is just one point in a human's life cycle. My next point is going to be menopause. Now...if someone stops my life cycle from continuing to the next point by stopping all of my bodily functions permanently, that would mean I was dead, and someone was responsible for killing me. Now...guess what abortion does? Just as you said I "allowed her to be born" (even though I allowed no such thing, she would've been born even if I kept my legs crossed, Megan, you silly little goose!), if I had stopped her life cycle before the next point-birth-permanently by causing directly or indirectly all of her bodily functions to cease, I would've been responsible for having killed her because she was/is alive. You're the only one yelling about "PERSONS" here. I'm speaking scientifically, dear.

Posted by: xalisae at January 2, 2010 3:42 PM


"Of course perhaps, you knew he wouldn't have stayed with you unless you were willing sleep with him!"

Ha, as if women lack sexual desire, and autonomy. I take full responsibility for my actions, and I'm not dependent on any man. This is actually hilarious. HAHAHAHAH.

Posted by: megan at January 2, 2010 2:39 AM

yes we see how women take full responsibility for their actions and are not dependent upon any man

that's exactly the mantra you live by isn't it?

responsibility really means killing your babies

even IF the father wants the baby.


yeah, you're responsible Megan. Responsible for kiling your own child.
Disgusting, IMO.

Posted by: angel at January 2, 2010 8:40 PM


Okay xalisae, but you hold a minority opinion, which clearly gives you that moral crutch with which to bash dissenters. My criteria for personhood isn't strange (physical autonomy). You just don't respect your body enough to wrap your mind around it. You dress your argument in seemingly self-evident biological fact, but there is no scientific consensus that corroborates your hardline claim (ooh, conspiracy theory to destroy the human race!). You say "life" begins at conception, but sperm and eggs are also forms of "life." Conception is really just an extension of this antecedent "life." Also, 2/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriage--can a life form with such a high mortality rate really be considered a separate, unique, etc. entity?

Maternal ethics:
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/ethics/co321.pdf

A quotation from National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

Take your position and extend it. Okay, so pregnant women should subordinate themselves to their fetuses. This allows the state to intervene on behalf of the fetus when it sees fit, further eroding a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. But who cares, really, if a woman has to suffer a little to let that fetus experience life.

And I'm proud of my education. I'm glad I didn't try to "adapt" to my pregnancy and end up self-righteous, miserable, and scraping to make ends meet for a family I didn't want. Thank God.

Posted by: Megan at January 2, 2010 10:38 PM


And Megan...why, praytell, should I sit here and continually attempt to discuss the ethical implications of biological fact with someone who cannot comprehend the difference between a complete organism and a single sex cell belonging to an organism? Puh-leeze.

A conspiracy to destroy the human race? Not hardly. To make loads and loads of money? Absolutely. Dr. Bernard Nathanson can attest to that.

also: "can a life form with such a high mortality rate really be considered a separate, unique, etc. entity?"

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! You should get your money back on that education you hold so dear. Some species of sea turtle have been observed to have an 85% hatchling mortality rate in certain studies, I guess they're not really a separate living and unique species/organism then. "If it dies a lot, it's not really alive!" lol, wut? First of all, I'm doubting your numbers. Secondly, that's a self-contradictory statement since something has to be a living entity/organism before it can die, you frickin' moron.

And once again...who the hell ever said anything about someone subordinating themselves to their gestating children? My children did not have dominion over me when I was pregnant. Maybe if you would've let yours hang around a little longer, you would've found out they don't have weird Jedi mind-control powers and carrying a pregnancy to term doesn't make you a baby-zombie. Your idea of children sounds like some kind of boogeyman, Megan. Watch out, I think there might be a fetus under your bed! The call is coming from...Inside your uterus! You're obviously a scared, confused, immature and self-centered woman-child to think the way you do about pregnancy/birth/motherhood. Too bad you killed your kid. He or she might've ended up teaching you a few things, and that kind of education you can't buy.

It isn't a subordination of a woman to her child. It's a freaking basic consideration of her child by a woman, which really isn't hard to do when you don't have your head shoved a mile up your own ass. And typically, things which would hurt a fetus will also hurt the woman pregnant with a fetus, so not only is it a basic human decency kinda thing, but a common sense kinda thing. Really, I would think the pro-choice movement would pick better poster children than women dumb enough to poke a knitting needle up their vaginas. The very few women who actually did that kind of thing were harming themselves too, duh, that's why it rarely ever happened. But that's ok, you guys just had a bunch of doctors who wanted to get rich lie about it often enough so it became "true" (which, to you guys, just means something you want to believe that may or may not actually be so). Once again, please tell me all the scores of women spirited away to prison pre-Roe V. Wade for endangering a fetus. Please. Not killing, but endangering, mind you.

And, I wouldn't be so proud of my education if I were you. I mean, some dumb chick who has to get her schooling one class at a time from a junior college because she didn't have the guts to off her kid is making you look like a fool. You might even have been wrong about being miserable and scraping to get by had you let your child live. Perish the thought...

Posted by: xalisae at January 3, 2010 1:57 AM


Take your position and extend it. Okay, so pregnant women should subordinate themselves to their fetuses. This allows the state to intervene on behalf of the fetus when it sees fit, further eroding a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. But who cares, really, if a woman has to suffer a little to let that fetus experience life.


first of all this idea is completely ridiculous.

It's like saying that I should possibly consider killing my 12 year old daughter because we live near a pedophile and therefore, by doing this I would spare her a terrible experience in life.

Or maybe I should consider offing my kids so that I can go back to school and get a really, really good education. Ya know, put myself first for once.
Who thinks like this? No one except women and men who are experiencing a pregnancy they don't want!

And the only reason they have this mindset is because society now tells them that they are ENTITLED to experience the "freedom" of sexual activity.
This ENTITLEMENT allows them to destroy any "negative" outcomes from that activity through abortion.
And the only real reason they can do this is because the unborn baby - that negative outcome - is a human person totally dependent upon their care and good will.He/she has no advocate. You don't even get to hear their screams as they are aborted which IMO, is the very least you have to experience if you're going to have this "right" to kill your baby.

It would be ridiculously funny if it weren't so tyrannical.

A pregnant woman doesn't "subordinate" herself to her "fetus".
It used to be called self-sacrifice Megan.
You might want to remember that many young men 60 years ago, did the very same thing so that you have all those "freedoms" you so deeply desire today.

And I do think it very sad that your son or daughter paid such a high price for your beloved education.
Trust me, as one who is very well educated, nothing, absolutely NOTHING, compares to the feat of being a parent.
It all pales in comparison.

Posted by: angel at January 3, 2010 8:23 AM


"And typically, things which would hurt a fetus will also hurt the woman pregnant with a fetus, so not only is it a basic human decency kinda thing, but a common sense kinda thing."

Fetal protection laws don't help women. Think about Johnson Control laws--nobody gave a damn whether women were exposed to hazardous work conditions. Concern for the fetus was a smokescreen for the attempt to oust women from the blue collar job force. Oh, and the incarceration of pregnant drug addicts really benefits the pregnancy, I'm sure. Do we send these women to rehab? Nah, off to jail you go to give birth in shackles. That's really conducive to a healthy pregnancy...right.

Who supports your claims of "biological fact" besides groups of right-wing, fundamentalist pro-life groups? Please tell me what a "complete" organism is--there's some ambiguity in that statement. But I suppose I'm blindly following the drivel propagated by money hungry OB/GYNS. Pre-Roe there were many, many illegal abortions, but more often, women were saddled with loads of kids they didn't want. But I forgot, motherhood is a woman's highest calling.

And it's virtually impossible for families to function successfully with two working parents if a) at least one parent doesn't work from home b) the kids aren't put in daycare all day c) grammy doesn't step in to do some child rearing 2.0. How many female CEO's do you know raising families? It's an unfortunate truth, and one that should be changed with better maternity leave policies, company child care, etc. But in your world, women should be able to do it all, and if not, prepare for moral indictment.

Posted by: megan at January 3, 2010 9:45 AM


Yeah, it's a real shame that so much emphasis is put on education today. A good friend of mine had an abortion when she was 18. She is now the mother of 4. She comes out with the 'Silent No More' group. She regrets that abortion every day. She is now 38 years old, and she didn't realize what she had done until the actual birth of her first child. She had a chance to go to nursing school but when the time came, she declined! She said "I think going to school is selfish." She really enjoys parenting! I see how happy she is with her kids! Imagine that! It really DOES happen! I also see her guilt over the abortion. Now there is nothing wrong with getting an education, but you can still do that with kids. I know a woman who went to nursing school while raising 5. Another has almost obtained her Masters while raising 2! C'mon, women like Megan act like we are a bunch of wimps!

Posted by: heather at January 3, 2010 12:30 PM


You can also always consider adoption! Why do women believe it easier to rip the baby apart? Megan, someone poisoned your thinking. I assume you are young, but I have worked with many-a-pro aborts who will teach their daughters to do as they did. Many nurses proclaiming their own abortions and "thank God my daughter will have a right to choose." [barf]!!! Identify and title yourselves accordingly....PRO-DEATH! I've never seen a PDeather happy for anyone who chose to parent. Nope. You've got to jump on their PD bandwagon and abort. Nothing else will do. "She's too young, she's too old, she hasn't even experienced life, she's on welfare." BTW, If you were REALLY all about CHOICE, you would be just fine with a woman having as many children on welfare as she likes!!!!! Do I hear a deafening scilence on that one????

Posted by: heather at January 3, 2010 12:44 PM


Who supports your claims of "biological fact" besides groups of right-wing, fundamentalist pro-life groups? Please tell me what a "complete" organism is--there's some ambiguity in that statement. But I suppose I'm blindly following the drivel propagated by money hungry OB/GYNS. Pre-Roe there were many, many illegal abortions, but more often, women were saddled with loads of kids they didn't want. But I forgot, motherhood is a woman's highest calling.

And it's virtually impossible for families to function successfully with two working parents if a) at least one parent doesn't work from home b) the kids aren't put in daycare all day c) grammy doesn't step in to do some child rearing 2.0. How many female CEO's do you know raising families? It's an unfortunate truth, and one that should be changed with better maternity leave policies, company child care, etc. But in your world, women should be able to do it all, and if not, prepare for moral indictment.
Posted by: megan at January 3, 2010 9:45 AM

you are a pathetic excuse for a woman, Megan. REally I'm so sorry to have to break this to you.

1. Go out and get yourself a decent biology text (maybe gr 9 will help) to learn when life begins.
and guess what, they still teach that a new human being is created at conception in med school. Learn about the laws of biology and the exact development of the early human child.

2. secondly many many families live very well on one income. They do without alot of the crap that most people take for necessity today. Consider that 3/4ths of the worlds population doesn't go on a vacation to Jamaica every year.

3.oh you're quite right that we need better maternity leave and benefits. But your sister-feminists, where were they the past 30 years when women wanted this? They were fighting for the right to abort their children, NOT for maternity leave and benefits for their sisters who actually stood in the trenches and HAD their babies. For those women who actually WANTED a CHOICE - a real choice, Megan.
Instead what were they told - abort, abort, abort
you can't have a life unless you abort.
You have bought this lie completely. Very very sad.

4. Get a REAL life. You have NO idea, sister.

Posted by: angel at January 3, 2010 12:51 PM


And last time I checked, women were great multi-taskers! We don't fall apart that easily. It's just a little extra work. Megan, last time I checked, 98% of relationships fail after abortion. I wouldn't put too much stock in this guy you were/are with. He's already taken your body and gotten you to further victimize your body the day you turned it over to the abortionist. {you could have died} Trust me, he's as good as done with you. I did NOT wait until marriage. I thought I was having a great time. They ALL LOVED me! Don't know where ANY of them are today! Megan, do yourself a favor and dump him. Better yet, just stop having sex with him and see what happens. Take it from someone who has been there!

Posted by: heather at January 3, 2010 12:58 PM


Eh. Rehab doesn't work anyway, or else you wouldn't have people going back to rehab. Don't you mean Rererererererehab? I've honestly heard more stories that contain "And after I had _baby's name_, I really got my act together." than "And after I got out of rehab, I really hit the ground running and got my act straight." Once you're not living life entirely to please yourself anymore, you tend to get things in order because you have to...it's called "growing up", and I hope you do some day.

Who supports my "claim" that a single cell from an organism is not the entire organism itself? Umm...Antony van Leeuwenhoek? THIS IS 5TH GRADE SCIENCE, MEGAN.

But just for laughs, here's a list of secular pro-life organizations:

www.l4l.org
www.aaplog.org
www.godlessprolifers.org
www.plagal.org

And those are just the ones that I am familiar with, Megan.

Motherhood to some women is the greatest thing you can do with your life. It's pretty wonderful sometimes, other times the most trying thing ever, but all-around a spectacular occupation. But that doesn't mean I think it is the best possible thing a woman can do with her life, otherwise I wouldn't have other goals and aspirations for myself. There are other things a woman can do that are equally valid. It's just not on MY schedule anymore, and I'm a patient person, so I don't mind that. Heaven forbid someone have to wait for something they want just so they don't kill someone else. I've never done that, and I'm STILL not "saddled with loads of kids" I don't want. You see, there's a difference between your perceived responsibility and actual responsibility. The latter doesn't involve killing one's children. I had my tubes tied. You should try it. It might prevent any further unnecessary bloodshed on your part.

My husband's mother had him at 17. She was single, and had to work on her own a lot, at very bad jobs. But she had him, and with a little help from her mother (yes, her mom helped, but if his dad had been around, imagine her in this role), she now has a degree and a very good job. Do you understand that your idea of "functioning successfully" is the best possible outcome/scenario for most people, and that that sort of thing just doesn't exist in real life? Do you think a 3 bedroom/2 bath house will just spring up with a picket fence one day, and that's how you know you'll be ready to have children? Whatever. I see some programs on television occasionally with 40 year old would-be mothers bemoaning their unsuccessful IVF treatments and talking about how they just never got around to having children/the time was never right/I was too busy to have children when I was young...From now on I'll keep an eye out for someone named "Megan".

I don't think women should be able to do it all, just not expect to get everything they want right at this very second and be willing to kill their kids to get it. I'm sorry, is that setting the bar too high?

Posted by: xalisae at January 3, 2010 1:13 PM


Better yet, just stop having sex with him and see what happens. Take it from someone who has been there!
Posted by: heather at January 3, 2010 12:58 PM


won't work heather.
it's just not the way women think today
they are willing to sacrifice their babies, even themselves for these men.....
Megan doesn't see that she's being used and maybe even that she's using her guy either.

Posted by: angel at January 3, 2010 1:14 PM


Nice to see you angel and x! LOL at the rerererehab! Yeah. Live and learn Megan! Men use women and women use men. Heartbreak is the final result! Heartbreak and dead offspring! I am astonished at the # of women I know who have had abortions! "Smart" women @ that! As my mom used to say "Some women will do ANYTHING just to have a man laying up in the bed with them! It's true, isn't it? And I'll bet Megan's abortionist was a man. Megan, do you know what kind of creepy snakes these guys are? You need to take a better look. An abortionist doesn't care one iota about you as a woman. A great read is LIME 5. Yes indeed. Abortionists who are in the clink for raping and molesting their patients. They especially love to see young women coming. Why? They know that they won't tell, and if they do, nobody would ever believe them. Let's not forget that a young woman wouldn't DARE say a word b/c of the shame involved.

Posted by: heather at January 3, 2010 1:36 PM


"Do you understand that your idea of "functioning successfully" is the best possible outcome/scenario for most people, and that that sort of thing just doesn't exist in real life? Do you think a 3 bedroom/2 bath house will just spring up with a picket fence one day, and that's how you know you'll be ready to have children?"

This isn't really a class issue. It's about a couple being mentally, physically, and, yes, financially prepared (to the best of their ability) to take on the responsibility of children. "Functioning successfully" has less to do with material wealth than with the ability to give children the attention they need. I condemn our society's gross materialism, and I myself certainly didn't come from a wealthy background. And the decline of the living wage makes it more difficult for one parent to work and support a family, an issue compounded by desires for big houses, new cars, etc.

We also live in a society that privileges "breadwinner + caregiver" families, thanks to still-entrenched notions of "correct" gender role (see: http://www.amazon.com/Unbending-Gender-Family-Conflict-About/dp/0195147146). "Liberal" feminism (as opposed to more radical branches) doesn't do much to serve women who are already underresourced/can't pay for daycare, and the assumption that women can do it all has resulted in the "double shift" phenomenon, compromising women's health and well-being. This situation's truly unfortunate. Being responsible and "patient," my mother quit her job as a chemist to tend to her family, feeling guilty about having her mother look after us as babies (raising two sets of children? highly unfair). She tried returning to work, but it was too exhausting to come home and do the housework and clean. Double shift.

Motherhood is absolutely gratifying (when desired, or when "adaptation" is desired), but at some point, women shouldn't have to be so selfless. And again, abortion is a hot button issue (along with the equal rights amendment, equal pay for equal work, etc, maternity leave, etc) because it means women can deny maternal instinct, heretofore a woman's defining characteristic. I don't agree that abortion should be the sole focus of the reproductive rights movement, and there ARE organizations that support a broad-based coalition for issues like flexible work hours and maternity leave: http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/, for example.

But even with a broader perspective, abortion would still be a fundamental right (the right to control one's body). And getting one's tubes tied is surely a viable option--if the individual desires never to procreate ever again. Hm.



Posted by: Megan at January 4, 2010 1:55 AM


"my mom used to say "Some women will do ANYTHING just to have a man laying up in the bed with them! It's true, isn't it? And I'll bet Megan's abortionist was a man. Megan, do you know what kind of creepy snakes these guys are? You need to take a better look. An abortionist doesn't care one iota about you as a woman. A great read is LIME 5. Yes indeed. Abortionists who are in the clink for raping and molesting their patients. They especially love to see young women coming."

Oh my gosh, I just had to post the block quotation. It's really good, you know. Hm, where to begin...ah, let's see--as a woman, it's inconceivable that I wouldn't want to have kids, or that I don't view sex as a pregnancy contract (which, for the record, I believe should also apply to men). I am just so desperate for a man. Christ. Okay, and what else, what else...ah! Sorry to deflate your hopes for lurid tales of backroom bloodletting, but my "abortionist" was a woman, and also a practicing obstetrician. Actually, I got mine done at a clinic run by women who offer a wide range of reproductive services--contraception, prenatal care, midwives, doulas...etc. I was just so oppressed.

Posted by: Megan at January 4, 2010 2:11 AM


Oh, and xalisae, those websites you posted are interesting, but besides offering elementary biology lessons and a few references to the same faulty abortion-breast cancer link studies and condemnations of Plan B, they don't offer much in the way of concrete, value free fact.

Posted by: megan at January 4, 2010 2:15 AM


But even with a broader perspective, abortion would still be a fundamental right (the right to control one's body).

except that it isn't just your body that you are exerting this so called "right" upon

there is another human being involved

and since when has abortion EVER been a right?

NEVER.

Not one person in any civilized society has the right to kill another person without some kind of due process, much less an innocent human being...

when this happens we usually call it tyranny, Megan.

This right is not in any country's bill of rights that I know of....

I am certain that if the justices when considering the Roe vs Wade case had been told that 1.5 million children would be DESTROYED each and every year, they would NEVER have ruled in favor of Roe.
To give one group of people (women) absolute control over another group of people (unborn babies) is diabolical and tyrannical. It's gotten to such a situation that a woman can kill her own birthed baby as long as the umbilical cord is still attached. Now that's depraved.

Posted by: angel at January 4, 2010 7:48 AM


So now, in order to have a real live actual baby in Meganland (and not just some icky fetus that it is ok to kill), not only does the Personhoodfairy have to sprinkle the little one with Personhooddust after birth, but Mommy and Daddy also must hop into their Parenthood Cocoons where they emerge as PerfectMom and PerfectDad. PerfectMom and PerfectDad wear perfect parent clothes, like perfect parent shows, listen to perfectparent music, and completely lack the ability to ever think of themselves and their own well-being and needs in even the tiniest way.

Once again, Megan, you show how insane(ly stupid?) your ideas about children and parenting are. I am the same person now that I was before I had children. I didn't need to have children to be able to give other people consideration and do what is right for them WHILE optimizing what is right for me as much as possible. You have everything you need to be an effective mother right now, and if you don't, you never will, because it requires a certain amount of basic human decency which it appears you do not possess, but think you will eventually for some reason. Perhaps you will unwittingly be the star in some Hallmark Family Films feature and at the end gain the necessary qualities to not kill your children. I dunno.

And...I thought we were liberated? I have no problem with screeching at my husband to pick up his end of the slack if/when we are both working and sharing duty with the kids. Women don't HAVE to do it all. It's time to hold men's feet to the fire, because they should be held accountable for everything WE are if we are doing the same jobs that THEY are. If we removed legalized abortion from the equation, and the man can no longer say, "Well, you didn't get rid of it when you had the chance, so it's your problem now." we'd have a much stronger leg to stand on in doing this, in every situation.

Here's another newsflash for you, Megan, I wasn't particularly thrilled to be pregnant. Motherhood was not something that I wanted to do at that particular point in my life, and adaptation was not desired. But I have to deal with a lot of circumstances in my life that are not desired, and I haven't killed myself yet, kiddo. As a matter of fact, people can sometimes make the most of their circumstances in a way that they become...happy! Can you freaking believe it?! It's not being selfless. It's being a decent human being and taking your life as it comes and doing the right thing by other people, and not weaseling out by having them killed.

Wow...defending "drug-using women" as a demographic of women? Yes, that certainly is a reputable source you have there...

and I forgot one:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

And once again...can you tell the difference between cells from one person's body and cells from a different person's body? They're not the same thing, Megan! I'm glad you got the chance to look at some elementary biology...you need it.

Posted by: xalisae at January 4, 2010 3:02 PM


And, I know 2 households full of kids (5 kids in each) that were raised by single fathers because the mothers were perfectly capable of "denying maternal instinct" and packed up and left without saying a word, no abortion necessary. Women have always been able to do this, abortion is not some magical thing that turns one into an emotionless superwoman. It just makes the children she's brought into the world dead. That's hardly a cure-all.

Posted by: xalisae at January 5, 2010 8:03 AM


Megan, I only expected you to return to tell you that your child's killer was a woman. BIG DEAL! She still gave you what you paid for. A DEAD BABY. Was that the best she could do to help you? Women helping women, right? And what have you to say about the countless # of females who were indeed raped, stalked, and molested by their MALE abortionists? I imagine you will just turn a blind eye to your gender in this case. All PAs do. It's just something in their screwball nature.

Posted by: heather at January 5, 2010 12:25 PM


Megan wrote "I am just so desperate for a man." ..........Honey, it sure seems that way to me! And BTW, you ARE oppressed!

Posted by: heather at January 5, 2010 12:32 PM


Also, it's been a proven fact that females who have a hand in the abortion industry are mainly there because they are trying to cope with their own abortions! Nurses, doctors, counselers.

Posted by: heather at January 5, 2010 12:38 PM


I was watching "A BABY STORY" on TLC yesterday. The 36 year old woman told her hubby that they would have to wait 2 years after they married to start trying for a baby. She was then diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 36, and she exclaimed "For obvious reasons we couldn't start our family." However, her sister carried healthy twins to term for them. I sat and wondered about abortions in her past. I couldn't help it!! Why would an otherwise healthy woman become ill at 36 years old? She never did say that it ran in her family. So, what gives? You see, PAs believe that they can plan their lives out, but it just doesn't work that way! We plan nothing! First school, marriage, then more school, buy a home, then maybe kids if we get to it.

Posted by: heather at January 5, 2010 1:19 PM