So here's how I found out about this, while trolling pro-abort tweets (click to enlarge)...
... so I knew it had to be good.
Already, according to GARTL prez Dan Becker, with whom I spoke on the phone, 62 of the billboards below have been erected in 2 majority minority GA counties (Dekalb and Fulton), where most (67%) of GA abortions are committed (click to enlarge)....
GA is the right place to launch such an educational endeavor. Of all states reporting abortions to the CDC, GA reports the most abortions of black mothers, 18,901 in 2008 alone. Dan also reports that 30% of GA's population is black, but they account for 59% of all abortions; and 14 of 14 abortion mills are located in majority minority neighborhoods.
The group also announced the launch of TooManyAborted.com, which produced this video...
What's the word on the density of CPC's down there?Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 4, 2010 6:14 PM
The US economic problems may be due to the numerous US citizens that have been aborted. This group would have been buying houses, cars, and other comodities and would have been a stimulus to the economy. We may just be experiencing a correction to the market due to the decrease in people from abortion.Posted by: Mary at February 4, 2010 6:16 PM
The billboards are not "f--ked up": the lies exposed on the website are. Nice job, GA right to life.Posted by: Kelsey at February 4, 2010 6:18 PM
If I remember my Georgia geography correctly...
I do! DeKalb and Fulton counties are both in Atlanta. Although DeKalb isn't in ATL-proper, being as it's outside the Perimeter on the east side, but even so. And Atlanta's a relatively enormous city. Literally thousands of people will see these billboards every day.
I love it. : )Posted by: Keli Hu at February 4, 2010 8:37 PM
AWESOME!!!! I love it. Great message to the A. A. community. Thanks Jill for reporting this. What would be the best way to get the word out about this campaign, the billboards and the video? Can I just refer people to their website?Posted by: Prolifer L at February 4, 2010 9:07 PM
I hate to say it but I don't really like the name "TooManyAborted". There is not a "right" number of aborted (other than zero, of course).
One child killed is one too many.Posted by: Joe at February 4, 2010 9:53 PM
For some reason I'm going to say that I'm uncomfortable with calling Africans a "species." I know that they meant well but I'm going to say that, perhaps it's just me, this wasn't a good idea.
And I think that the high percentage of abortions performed on African-Americans is due to the higher percentages of African-Americans living in poverty versus Anglo-Americans.Posted by: Vannah at February 4, 2010 10:38 PM
OK. That video rocked.
More, please, more.Posted by: carder at February 4, 2010 11:02 PM
Jill...thx for posting this! It's ON in Georgia. TooManyAborted.com is the response to the rhetoric we hear that we need to 'reduce abortions'. So, yes, we agree that too many are aborted. And as we state on the site: "One is too many."
I knew when I created this campaign that some would get caught up in the usage of 'species'. It's simply a play on the countless 'ENDANGERED SPECIES' ads we've seen (save the whales, save the seals, save the gray wolf...) and redirecting it to the HUMAN SPECIES that is most endangered-- black babies. Species does not mean animal...people tend to mistake its definition.
With Psalm 139 as our foundational truth, we just want to save Possibility. In the unborn child. In the would-be mother. And the would-be father.
The Radiance Foundation is committed to creating campaigns that get people thinking and illuminate the Truth. Thanks to Georgia Right to Life (who paid for all of the billboards) I think we're off to a good start.
Thanks, Jill!Posted by: Ryan Bomberger at February 4, 2010 11:48 PM
That's great. Now someone needs to make one about special needs children as an endangered species.Posted by: Progo35 at February 5, 2010 1:00 AM
People are mining for racism where there is none.
/ˈspiʃiz, -siz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA noun, plural -cies, adjective
1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
It isn't a strictly biological term. Overly-sensitive people and pro-aborts mining for racism are just trumping up a non-existent inference.Posted by: xalisae at February 5, 2010 2:01 AM
Ryan! We must chat! I called Dan yesterday and asked, "Who designed those sites?!" He tipped the hat to you... then told me a little of your history. Gotta write a post about it!Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 5, 2010 5:45 AM
I posted this video on my facebook page. I have one friend in particular who is black, very very Christian (very involved with church. Good moral woman who loves God!) and she is a sweetheart. I've been friends with her for 10 years. But she voted for Obama. HUH? I was so disappointed that she couldn't see past his skin color to see what he really stood for. And she is pro-life. She has talked co-workers out of abortions before and then she turned around and voted for the most pro-abortion president ever. I hope she sees this video and it makes her think a little. There is more at stake than the skin color of the commander in chief, or the genitalia of person sitting in the oval office (for all you who are obsessed with electing a woman!) When did character stop counting?Posted by: Sydney M at February 5, 2010 8:28 AM
Posted by: Ryan Bomberger at February 4, 2010 11:48 PM
Ryan - excellent job on the toomanyaborted.com site!Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 5, 2010 11:15 AM
Are you at liberty to share who composed the music? Can I buy the CD?
That alone was worthy of an Emmy.Posted by: carder at February 5, 2010 12:24 PM
AT LAST PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT HUGE NUMBERS OF ETHNIC BABIES ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED ,HERE IN THE UK RACISTS SEE ABORTION AS A BRILLIANT WAY OF KEEPING DOWN THE ETHNIC POPULATIONS AND MANY DRS ,NURSES ,TEACHERS ,SOCIAL WORKERS WHO ARE RACIST PRESSURISE THE MUMS TO BE TO ABORT THEIR BABIES .
MIXED RACE COME UNDER ESPECIAL DANGER AS DO THE HANDICAPPED AND OF COURSE THEY ALSO PUSH FOR STERILIZATION TOO .
AS THE MUM OF 8 MIXED RACE CHILDREN AND GRANDMA TO 13 WITH OTHERS EXPECTED I COULD TELL YOU LOTS OF STORIES ON THE RACIST ZEALOTS WHO PUSH FOR KILLING RATHER THAN CARE .
SADLY LOOK AT OBAMA A MIXED RACE MAN POURING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ENCOURAGE MORE ABORTIONS IN AFRICA !!!!!!!!!
PLEASE KEEP SPEAKING UP
You can make your point WITHOUT YELLING.
Thanks.Posted by: carder at February 5, 2010 4:07 PM
I'd say it's the same as with other similar topics (long ago). Black women have a higher percentage of unwanted pregnancies, so no surprise they'd have a higher rate of abortions.
Vannah has a good point about poverty, as does Xalisae with "trumping up a non-existent inference."
Preventing unwanted pregnancies is the best way to lower the rate of abortion.
A non-black woman who wants an abortion is hardly feeling that way because "a higher percentage of other non-black women" willingly continue their pregnancies, and a black woman with an unwanted pregnancy is hardly likely to change her mind because "a higher percentage of black women" willingly end their pregnancies.Posted by: Doug at February 5, 2010 6:46 PM
Doug said, "A non-black woman who wants an abortion is hardly feeling that way because 'a higher percentage of other non-black women' willingly continue their pregnancies, and a black woman with an unwanted pregnancy is hardly likely to change her mind because 'a higher percentage of black women' willingly end their pregnancies."
I think you're wrong in the first half of your statement, Doug, and you're wrong in your general conclusion. Forced abortion is a cultural thing, and so is bearing a baby. Before the sexual revolution, people thought differently about abortion. However, evil organizations like Planned Parenthood encourage sexual promiscuity and having abortions. If all my friends (most likely of the same ethnicity) get an abortion, and the local "health centre" recommends one, then I will be more likely to do the same.
The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is to live chastely.Posted by: Jon at February 5, 2010 7:27 PM
No, I was wrong, Doug. I didn't read your statement carefully enough! But now I'm not sure what it was intended to prove. Do you want to explain further?Posted by: Jon at February 5, 2010 8:21 PM
Wait, I think I understand! You're saying that telling the African-Americans essentially that "all their friends are having abortions" is certainly not productive, and maybe even counter-productive.
Maybe I agree. Look at Israel, for example. The surrounding Arab countries have higher birth rates, so Israel is essentially exterminating itself. Ms. Sanger (and Mr. Morgentaler in Canada) has been more successful than Mr. Hitler.Posted by: Jon at February 5, 2010 8:59 PM
I'm really not talking about "telling African-Americans" anything. In my opinion, the billboard will arouse some feelings harking back to times when blacks were considered less than fully human, but I see that as a side issue at most.
My point is that saying, "Blacks have a higher rate of abortion," is not a meaningful statement in the context of the rights and wrongs of the abortion debate. We will agree on some things and disagree on others, but more unwanted pregnancies means more abortions - it's as simple as that. We can discuss the causes, standard of living, etc., but there too it's not directly about the abortion debate in the moral realm.
For the individual pregnant woman, is she going to feel differently just because of one statistic quoted on a billboard? To generalize, heck no, she's not. If she's really in the know, she could state that in the US the black birth rate is still significantly higher than that for whites, and she probably won't have that as much of any determining factor in her decision, either, same as for black women who willingly continue pregnancies.
And same as for non-black women who have abortions. Are they all broken up because blacks have a higher birth rate? No, not likely. And how about women who want to expand their families? Do they take to heart the statements of others who feel that group A has too low of a birthrate, or that group B's is too high, or that we're overpopulating the planet as a whole? Good grief, (in general) of course not.
I'm not a young black woman; I'm actually a 50 year old white guy, married but no kids, and with a wife who's had a hysterectomy, but we do have 21 nieces and nephews.
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics...." You've likely heard that. I see the billboard as the flipside of one saying, "Black women have X % more children than white women! TOOMANYBORN.COM." Is that going to change the mind of women?
My wife is a high school teacher in Georgia, and we have a place in Atlanta, right on Peachtree Street, in fact, and I will check around and see what anecdotal responses to the billboards there are.
Posted by: Doug
at February 6, 2010 1:10 AM
Thanks for your response, Doug. I'm so used to arguing with you that I'm kind of taken aback because I think I agree with you about this point. In fact, let me repeat yours and claim it now as mine: "My point is that saying, 'Blacks have a higher rate of abortion,' is not a meaningful statement in the context of the rights and wrongs of the abortion debate."Posted by: Jon at February 6, 2010 9:52 AM
It's a culture's fixation on sex. Being a 20-something (yes, I still have one more year to refer to myself as such! :D ), I can tell you it's disturbingly apparent in the media today. All ethnic groups would benefit from more of a frank discussion of the logistics of this fascination with sex. I think a large part of the problems in this world are caused when people either fail to think about the consequences of their actions, or think that they will somehow be immune to these consequences. Abortion is not a rectification of the consequence to the action of sex that is pregnancy; it is a separate action which itself has more consequences though most are either completely hidden or not immediately apparent. That is where the pictures of what abortion does to a baby come in, and the walking wounded saints like Carla as well. Once people start realizing that abortion is not a "Get Out Of Jail Free!" card, it will become less and less desirable, defensible, and acceptable.Posted by: xalisae at February 6, 2010 12:48 PM
Good point Xalisae. My parents told me "No such thing as a free lunch, somebody's paying for it". I am still praying for you Xalisae.
Hey Jill, I went on Ryan Bomberger's website toomanyaborted.com. It was awesome I am referring others to go on to watch the short video about his life-story and the "Black children are an endangered species" ad.
On another note I have a special prayer request for all of you Christian prolifers I have a friend who is asking for prayer her 21-22 week old unborn baby that has a tumor mass growing in his left lung that is starting to press on his little heart, they are planning to travel out of state to see a specialist at a Pittsburg hospital to get evaluated for surgery. Can you please pray for a miracle for her, her baby, and her husband. Thanks guys. I think that is why whenever someone says "it is only a baby when you want it" I get so furious that I could spit. May God help this family and their precious BABY, life is sooooo precious we want this baby to live. Pray God will give them the miracle that they need.Posted by: Prolifer L at February 6, 2010 4:32 PM
Sorry I rechecked the hospital it is Children's Hospital of Philadelphia not Pittsburg, had a brain freeze for a moment. Thank you for your prayers. God bless everyone. Do any of you know anything about this hospital?Posted by: Prolifer L at February 6, 2010 4:44 PM
Tracy Clark-Flory over at Salon has an excellent, rational rebuttal of this campaign.
Sanger believed in eugenics, but not ethnic-specific nor color-specific tactics. She's been a victim of a decades-long distortion of history by the some of the same people who have xenophobic or racist tendencies themselves.
And that clinic argument in the video is preposterous. Has it occurred to anyone here that the reason pro-aborts live and work in big cities is because they get threats, harassment, and occasionally bullets in smaller cities and rural areas? So again, I argue you cannot have it both ways. You cannot chase doctors out of exposed rural areas, and then claim that their practices thrive in big cities because they 'target' non-caucasian fetuses. Coastal city doctors get plenty of white patients from the plains (the ones who can afford to travel, anyway).
And Jon, Planned Parenthood promotes disease prevention and unwanted pregnancy prevention. With girls reporting 14 as the average age of first vaginal intercourse, we must work hard to prevent girls from getting pregnant or STDs. That's the mission. It's a crucial public health issue. You may have noticed that during the 1990s, we helped the US teen pregnancy rate go down. You're welcome.Posted by: Dhalgren at February 6, 2010 7:05 PM
It was the abstinence education which did that. I love how you say we should focus on "helping" all those sexually active 14 year olds not get STD's...instead of helping to keep them from having sex because CHILDREN SHOULDN'T BE HAVING SEX. UGH!Posted by: xalisae at February 6, 2010 9:59 PM
Dhalgren's not an idiot; I think she's a liar.
Dhalgren said, "Sanger believed in eugenics, but not ethnic-specific nor color-specific tactics."
That she believed in eugenics is bad enough. As to her ethnic-specific or color-specific tactics, I trust pro-lifers more than pro-aborts. In other words, I don't believe Dhalgren.
Dhalgren said, "[T]he reason pro-aborts live and work in big cities is because they get threats, harassment, and occasionally bullets in smaller cities and rural areas".
No, the primary reason pro-aborts live and work in big cities is another aspect of sound business reasoning. Their customers are in the big cities. Ethnic minorities provide a disproportionate number of customers (and babies to kill).
Dhalgren said, "Planned Parenthood promotes disease prevention and unwanted pregnancy prevention."
Outright nonsense! Planned Parenthood promotes sexual promiscuity and deviant sexual practices. Planned Parenthood actually promotes disease propagation and unwanted pregnancies. (And as an aside, abortion is not pregnancy prevention.)
Dhalgren said, "[D]uring the 1990s, we helped the US teen pregnancy rate go down."
Xalisae has already addressed this assertion. What I do acknowledge is that you do help the US baby maturity rate go down. In other words, you vastly increase the infant mortality rate.Posted by: Jon at February 6, 2010 11:22 PM
Yes, I know. The infant mortality rate only includes born infants. My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines infant as "babe; child under 7 years of age; minor (under 21)." I think that the infant mortality rate should include forced abortions (but not spontaneous abortions). After all, according to pro-abort logic, many of the children thus killed would have died in early infancy, anyway. And the European pro-aborts no longer make a careful distinction at birth, e.g. the Groningen Protocol for infanticide. They say that we should wait until a infant is born to assess his quality of life.Posted by: Jon at February 6, 2010 11:34 PM
The following Lifesitenews article "Study: 56% of Young Adults in a New Sexual Relationship Infected with HPV" by John-Henry Westen appeared on February 3. I have put some statements in bold type.
If ever there was a reason for parents to warn their teens off sexual encounters before marriage, a recent study has found it. The groundbreaking study of couples found more than half (56 per cent) of young adults in a new sexual relationship were infected with the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV).
HPV, a virus which condoms cannot protect against, is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Of those infected with HPV, nearly half (44 per cent) were infected with an HPV type that causes cancer.
The study, led by Professor Eduardo Franco, Director of McGill University's Cancer Epidemiology Unit, in collaboration with a team of colleagues from McGill and Université de Montréal/Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), is the first large-scale study of HPV infection among couples early in their sexual relationships when transmission is most likely.
The results, published in the January 2010 issues of Epidemiology and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, also indicate there is a high probability of HPV transmission between partners. When one partner had HPV, the researchers observed that in 42 per cent of couples, the other partner also had the infection.
Moreover, the researchers found that the presence of HPV in one partner was the strongest predictor of finding the same HPV type in the other partner. If one partner was infected with HPV, the other partner's chance of also being infected with the same HPV type increased over 50 times.
In addition to cervical cancer, HPV causes other cancers, including those of the vulva, vagina, anus, and penis. Although HPV viruses are very common – more than 70 per cent of women and men will have this type of infection at some point – the vast majority of infections are asymptomatic and last no more than one or two years. Even though fewer than 1 per cent of women who have HPV will get cervical cancer, the numbers remain alarming.
While abstinence before marriage is the only sure way to avoid infection, drug companies have developed a controversial HPV vaccine which has been heavily pushed by governments. The vaccine – Gardasil - was hastily developed and has been plagued with reports of health hazards, and has been associated with numerous death.
A government watchdog organization called Judicial Watch obtained information on Gardasil from Freedom of Information requests in 2007 and 2008 finding a total of 47 deaths and thousands of serious adverse effects associated with the vaccine.Posted by: Jon at February 7, 2010 4:24 AM
Dhalgren, I myself have spoken too carelessly. Calling you a liar was needlessly offensive. Obviously I disagree with you in the strongest terms possible. And even if Planned Parenthood did not regularly break the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Commandments (and perhaps the Eighth with respect to taxes in California), they're still notorious and despicable for breaking the Sixth. I hope that something like an ultrasound will make you the next Abby Johnson, or that it will at least lead you to distance yourself from this evil organization.Posted by: Jon at February 7, 2010 4:40 AM
Margaret Sanger was quoted as saying "we don't want it to get out that we want to exterminate the negro race"
Planned Parenthood is a RACIST organization that makes $ off killing blacks, Hispanics and other minorities in addition to whites. They don't put their "clinics" in poor neighborhoods to "help the poor women" they do it to slowly exterminate those cultures/races. Hence the gigantic "clinic" in Houston or Aurora.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 7, 2010 11:24 AM
I agree with you that there's a cultural influence to abortion being more prevalent in the black community. Not to generalize, but when (some, not all) black men don't value their children enough to stick around and raise them, how can (some, not all) black women be expected to, and vice versa? Black women expect that their mothers are going to raise the grandchildren. Perhaps the grandmothers are at fault as well for being enablers.
And most black leaders don't do more than talk about it. Here and there we hear of those actually doing something for their own communities. Look at Obama for example. He left Chicago as soon as he could get out of there. Accomplished very little as an "organizer". What's he done for the black community's cycle of fatherless families since moving to Washington, DC?
And I should also add that black grandmothers are not the only enablers, too many grandmothers of all races are raising their grandchildren. It's not fair to them. My mother told me at age 15 not to expect any help if a child out of wedlock if one should come along. Tough love, but it sure was motivation to stay abstinent!
* * * *
Can you imagine the numbers of Mexican women who will be streaming across the U.S./Mexico border to have abortions? I'm betting this Planned Parenthood will be the most lucrative for them and I wouldn't be surprised if PP operated their own bus shuttles (government subsidized) to facilitate the whole process. It's really a sickening prospect.Posted by: Janet at February 7, 2010 1:07 PM
You people are a bunch of hypocrits. First of all black children are NOT endangered. Most of you complain about all those black women on Welfare so how can they be endangered. You don't want to pay for Welfare, you don't want abortions, you go to other countries to adopt children and then you get on her judging people you don't even know.
And Syndney M, who are you to say those things about "your friend." And Obama is not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice. God said I give you free will. No man has the right to take away another person's right, no matter what it is. Only God can judge. How many unwanted children have you adopted, become foster parent to or even visited their homes to encourage them to realize their bodies are temples.
Until you do something to STOP the unwanted pregnancy,you ARE like a CLANGING CYMBAL, JUST NOISE.Posted by: Gee at February 8, 2010 5:56 PM
He's pro abortion. He didn't want to support a bill in Illinois that protected babies BORN ALIVE during an abortion attempt. We're talking about babies that were BORN ALIVE despite the attempt to KILL THEM.
He also claimed that health care bill would not fund abortion, but it DID and he supported it.
His idea of reducing abortions is MORE abortions.
Black Children ARE endangered:
Margaret Sanger said "we don't want it to become known that we want to exterminate the negro race. Banned Parenthood proudly continues this task by conveniently placing their so called "health clinics" in minority neighborhoods under the disguise of "helping" poor women when they are really try to rid the world of the "unfit".Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 8, 2010 6:07 PM
Gee, who are YOU to question what I can say about my friend? You want to take away my choice to say what I want....what a hypocrite YOU are.Posted by: Sydney M. at February 8, 2010 8:38 PM
I heard about the Georgia billboards. First off...................
The Democratic health care bill did not fund abortion. The Republicans would not sign on unless that language was taken out. And...they are still going back and forth. Nothing in the health care reform is a done deal with debate left to do. With that said, I think the abortion issue should be between the man, woman and a minister or spiritual advisor and their God. After all, it sounds like you are the group who does not want government controlling or regulating you or your other fellow Americans. Mr. George H. Bush, Mrs. GW Bush and Mrs. Cheney and their children all believe that it is woman's right to choose. Remember the comments from them? The best came from President G.W. Bush during a speech in his last term. He said that the American people were not ready to get rid of abortion...so as you know he didn't do anything about it when he could have with the Republican majority for 6 years.
As for the Georgia billboards. I am amazed at this. Some people in Georgia still don't think black people are well...people. It sounds like the people on this board are a part of the religious right. Look up in the Bible the reference to Christ's hair. He was born in the Middle East and according to a minister he would have had to be dark skinned. I am not from Georgia and thankful I am not. I am a white woman and I really think God wants us to view black people as people. Do you remember a song sung in Sunday School. "Red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in his sight. Jesus loves all the children of the world."
The Democratic health care bill did not fund abortion. The Republicans would not sign on unless that language was taken out.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
The Republicans were never going to sign on anyway. Ever. All that they did from top to bottom was dig in and drag their feet the whole way. The only thing they voted for on the health care bills was the Stupak Amendment, which brings me to my next point.
If the health care bills did not fund abortions, why did the Stupak Amendment, which simply said that a government program could not fund abortions, cause such a fuss? Assuming your assertion is true, the all the Stupak language does is restate what was already fact, right? Instead, people freaked out. QED, the health care bill funds abortion.
Point the third. The Republicans, as previously noted, were not helping pass these bills at all. But that would not have mattered if the Democrats could hold it together since the Republican party was so completely outnumbered. Fractures within the Democratic party are what brought the health care bills to this point.
So, here is your take-home message. When you have a Democrat in the White House, a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate, you cannot blame the Republicans for anything!Posted by: Keli Hu at February 9, 2010 2:17 PM
Thank you Keli Hu for your response. I can guarantee that the pro-aborts would NOT be upset about the Stupak Amendment if it were not a threat to their pro-death agenda. The PP executive in my area would NOT have bothered to write a Letter To The Editor about the importance of getting rid of Stupak, to ensure so-called "reproductive rights" in the healthcare bill, guaranteeing that ALL insurance plans pay for abortions. Lies, lies and more lies. Planned Parenthood and pro-aborts LIE TO YOU!!!Posted by: Prolifer L at February 9, 2010 5:33 PM
Maybe all these "black" women should think about using BIRTH CONTROL!Posted by: Don at February 10, 2010 11:24 AM
I propose this:
Rather than aborting a poor decision, force the women to have the kid. Then send the kid off to a pro-lifer's house and have that person raise the child.
Problem solved.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 1:05 PM
I'd be happy to take in a child that was spared from abortion. Many of the posters here HAVE taken in such children, Adam, and I will when the state tells me I can (since there are years-long waiting lists and numerous studies and searches imposed upon an adopting family by various state organizations before one can adopt. Instead of advocating for legalized killing of these very much wanted children, how about advocating cutting a little red tape so these kids can more easily get a home?) OH, and since we think abortion should be legal and you say that in that case we MUST adopt the resulting live children, then I think because you support legalized abortion, you should have to perform them yourself. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Allison, it's not so much about BIRTH CONTROL as it is about SELF CONTROL, no matter what ethnicity someone claims. Setting certain criteria for engaging in sexual activity one's self would alleviate a great portion of a mother's anxiety and crisis when she finds herself pregnant. Only engaging in sexual activity within the confines of an exclusive and committed relationship and abstaining whenever having children would be prohibitive to one's plan for their life would be ideal. Plus, you're speaking from the point of a faulty premise. The latest studies all indicate that "Well, some people don't want to wait." is a LIE, and that if they are told why they SHOULD wait instead of how NOT to wait, they WILL WANT TO WAIT. Abstinence education is being proven to be effective.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 2:15 PM
Alright, now try thinking objectively instead of in your own little circle of "conservative" beliefs.
Trust me, I've read into the issue and I've heard both sides of the argument.
Logically speaking, the human species is very, very far from extinction. The only worry there is that we actually cause the planet more trauma than we're worth.
Having unwanted children is one of the causes of this trauma. Having wars, fighting over stupid stuff like gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc. also causes the planet much unnecessary trauma. How about we invest more effort into bringing other nations to "developed" status so that we can explore inner and outer space together?
I mean seriously, don't you have more important things to worry about than someone else's aborted children? It's their body, let them learn from their mistakes. Pro-lifers adopting children that would otherwise have been aborted before they could understand a thought are the ones enabling the poor choice of having unplanned kids.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 2:40 PM
"...children that would otherwise have been aborted before they could understand a thought..."
Are you saying that in order for a human being to have moral worth (to be protected under the law) they need to be able to understand a thought? What would you say is the basis for it not being morally permissible to kill humans? I'm not being flippant, but honestly trying to understand where you are coming from.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 10, 2010 2:51 PM
There is a very lengthy argument between Science & Religion, pro-choice & pro-life about where life begins, where pain is felt, where thought begins, where an egg becomes a human, etc.
Rather than get into that argument, I'll point you back to where I stated is the place that I am coming from.
"Having unwanted children is one of the causes of this trauma. Having wars, fighting over stupid stuff like gay marriage, abortion, marijuana, etc. also causes the planet much unnecessary trauma. How about we invest more effort into bringing other nations to "developed" status so that we can explore inner and outer space together?"Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 2:57 PM
@xalisae...People are going to have sex no matter what. The ones who don't usually abstain for religious reasons. Otherwise a lot of people are partaking in a natural, human activity and are being deprived of the knowledge that would help them make better decisions and become more responsible.
Women need to understand their bodies both for the sake of their health and for when they decide to conceive. Sex is a healthy activity between two people and can be done safely. Since you are vouching to take that education away OF COURSE they aren't going to know how to have safe sex and the proper methods of not having the risk of pregnancy.
By the way, these facts and figures could be incredibly faulty. One black woman could have more than one abortion in a year. I'm sure many of these women don't understand proper methods of birth control and believe abortion is one which I don't agree with.
I believe women should have access and be encouraged on how their bodies work, learn how to enjoy intimacy with others without the risk of pregnancy and should something happen that is out of the control and unexpected to have proper resources and services to receive as well as follow up education and counseling.Posted by: Allison at February 10, 2010 3:09 PM
I agree that if abortion does not kill an innocent human being, then it may be categorized as "stupid stuff." But if it does kill a human being (which is what the pro-life position claims), wouldn't it be an issue worth discussing, something much more important than inner and outer space exploration? Also, I don't see why there needs to be a dichotomy between protecting the unborn and supporting nations to develop. Can't we do both?
Now if your answer to that is "that is why we need abortion", why can't we just kill all the born people who are in the impoverished countries? If the answer is that "they are human beings", then this brings us right back to the original question of whether or not abortion kills an innocent human being or not. So I'm not sure how this issue can be resolved without reference to the humanity (or lack thereof) of the unborn.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 10, 2010 3:18 PM
Stupid stuff could be "ignorant stuff" or "Biased beliefs" or Opinions. That was just the nomenclature I chose for posting.
You have to realize that an abortion is an admittance of a mistake. When someone decides to have an abortion, they are owning up to a mistake and utilizing the power of choice. They have chosen to have an abortion rather than possibly risk that potential human's life by bringing them up in a space not ready for that potential human.
Rather than worry about this potential solution to a problem, why don't we solve the root problem and just require a license to breed?
Is the advancement of the species as a whole following down the path of preserving unborn babies or finding out what the meaning of life is, searching for the answer of that unanswered question? IE: exploring inner and outer space together.
Also, like I stated, I am not here to argue over the point where an egg (human byproduct) becomes a human being.
I am only here to point you down a better path of thought. To remind you that there are more important things for the human race to worry about.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 3:35 PM
"They have chosen to have an abortion rather than possibly risk that potential human's life by bringing them up in a space not ready for that potential human."
Again, Adam, you are assuming what needs to be demonstrated. You are correct that if the unborn are potential humans, then this is ignorant stuff, stupid stuff, or whatever. But the pro-life claim, as well as the claim of science, is that each and every one of us began our existence in the zygote stage- that biologically, we are the same organism as the zygote that formed in our mother's womb. So shouldn't we protect all human life?
"Is the advancement of the species as a whole following down the path of preserving unborn babies or finding out what the meaning of life is, searching for the answer of that unanswered question?"
Again, it does not need to be either/or. It is both/and. We can explore the meaning of life while at the same time not kill people.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 10, 2010 3:38 PM
"I am only here to point you down a better path of thought. To remind you that there are more important things for the human race to worry about."
I agree that it is a better path if the unborn is not human. But if it is, I'm not sure what is more important than protecting innocent human life.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 10, 2010 3:41 PM
1.) I'm not religious. I abstained until I was in a committed relationship with someone I could see myself being with for the duration of child-rearing, because that is what being sexually active entails. The biological function of sex is procreation, and it's naive to think that contraceptive attempts are a guarantee of not conceiving. This is what abstinence education stresses, and the numbers prove it works.
2.) Abstinence education has no impact on the frequency or proper use of contraceptive methods in those who later go on to become sexually active. The last study which I am talking about also had a section about this. Those receiving abstinence education who do eventually go on to have sex (the percentage being much lower than those who have "comprehensive sex ed.") are just as likely to use contraception/STD preventive measures as those who had the opposing curriculum.
3.) Why don't you agree with "abortion as birth control"? If one abortion is alright, surely more than one is also acceptable? You DO realize that MOST abortions are procured by repeat customers, do you not?
4.) No measure to attempt to prevent pregnancy is 100% effective. Well, abstinence is...but if one is engaging in behavior which is known to cause pregnancy, one shouldn't be surprised when they become pregnant.
I actually used to be a supporter of a more comprehensive sex education program. However, after looking at the statistics, and the numbers from various studies and research entities (even those that are notorious for supporting comprehensive sex ed.), I've found that abstinence does indeed work.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 3:42 PM
You're still trying to bring me off-point. I am not going to argue with you about where human life begins because nobody has the answer to that and it certainly is not found in this discussion.
Thinking objectively, if I were a different person, not brought up the way I was, but rather born into an unplanned family, I would have preferred to be flushed out like the other eggs not ready for living.
It is certainly either/or because you are still here arguing about what someone else does with their body, rather than spending your time & effort on more important things.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 3:45 PM
Okay Adam. I have to get back to work now, unfortunately. Nice talking with you. Stick around the blog, ehh?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 10, 2010 3:48 PM
@xalisae: Yes, abstinence is great for those willing to do it. I am not against abstinence at all, more power to the people who choose to follow down that path as long as they don't try to force others into it. Educate others, sure. Forcing others, no.
I'll stick around as long as I can tolerate it :)
I post during down-time at work, I almost never engage in this type of discussion at home as I have other things to do.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 3:59 PM
Educating/urging others to abstain is not "forcing" anyone to do or not do anything. No one can force someone else to remain abstinent. Presenting them with the best choice because it is the best choice helps them make the best choice. Duh.
"if I were a different person, not brought up the way I was, but rather born into an unplanned family, I would have preferred to be flushed out like the other eggs not ready for living."
And this again points back to the air of sheer elitism so prevalent in the "pro-choice" camp. You are not worth living if you aren't "perfect". If you're not perfectly healthy, perfectly planned, perfectly provided for, your life is not worth living. It's sick, really.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 4:32 PM
As far as I know, I didn't say educating/urging others to abstain was forcing them. Urging lawmakers, and lawmakers pushing for laws to prevent the choice is where I referencing forcing.
In your opinion it is the best choice. Nothing more.
Nowhere in my statements did I say that "you are not worth living if you aren't perfect."
To elaborate further on my previous statements, if my mother was raped by someone, if the condom she was using broke, or if some other mistake occurred to bring about my conception, I would have preferred not to have been born.
My parents loved each other very much and wanted to have a kid. They decided they were ready and I was conceived. They got married while I was still in my mother's womb.
My wife's parents loved each other very much and tried for 3 years to have her.
You do not know the stories of people having abortions. The side effect of someone having an abortion many times is the cost monetarily and to her health. Rather than restrict choice, support choice.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 4:39 PM
I wasn't planned. I was the first child of 2 20 year old newlyweds. I'm glad they found it in their hearts to let one of the unplanned dregs like me live.
My daughter was conceived while using contraception. Her father had just turned 18, I was 19. We weren't living in our own places, and I was forced out of the only place I had to call home at the time because I was pregnant with her. Her father was raised by a "pro-choice" mother and believed all the crap people like you spout about lives not worth living, etc. He thought we should abort her, but she's alive now because I knew it would be wrong to kill her no matter WHAT financial/emotional/whatever circumstances we were in, the poor little wretch.
She's a happy little 7 year old girl right now-the apple of her father's eye-and I want to make certain that every other little boy or girl in her situation, at the mercy of parents who either don't know better or don't care, don't have to only be allowed to live, but are protected by the law just as every other person is in this country.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 4:51 PM
your attitude sickens me.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 4:55 PM
In essence, you are defending choice in every word up until the last run-on.
Your parents made a choice that worked for them. You made a choice that worked for you and your wonderful little daughter.
Don't prohibit people from making a choice after they have their life (and the life of their un-born child) at risk.
I'm glad your little world worked out. Perhaps it is time you put yourself in someone else's shoes?Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 4:57 PM
Oh, and my now-husband was born to a 17 year old mother who never really had a functioning relationship with his father to speak of, and I'm just as glad he was allowed to live as I am that my daughter is alive.
THESE ARE REAL, ACTUAL PEOPLE YOU'RE ADVOCATING THE DESTRUCTION OF, ADAM.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 5:00 PM
I'm glad your husband's situation worked out as well. There were choices made there too that worked out. I am certainly glad nobody was prohibiting their choices from being made, which is what you are advocating.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 5:06 PM
But it didn't "work out", Adam. We were scraping to get by, and had more trouble than you can imagine or that I care to get into in many, many ways for a very long time. None of those were ever reasons to kill my child. There is no circumstance that can legitimize the "choice" to kill your child. And, the "choice" to kill a child was never on the table to me. Not so if other people had been the ones carrying her, and that idea is absolutely horrific! She's a person who deserve(d) to be protected no matter who's womb she happened to reside within!Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 5:08 PM
I'm not glad no one was prohibiting the choice to kill any of the people in my life, because I think their lives deserved to be protected. Please tell me why you seem to think that their lives are not valuable enough to deserve protection under the law.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 5:11 PM
Correction, it did work out.
You're wanting to interfere with other people's lives. Mind your own business unless you'd prefer to have 115,000 kids placed on your doorstep each day.
Also one observation: You stated that it is a horrific idea that your child would be carried in someone else's womb, but then you stated that she should be protected no matter who's womb she happened to reside within. I seem to find an inconsistency here.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 5:14 PM
Hey Xalisae, you are doing a great job and I really appreciate your post. You are the best.
Adam I find it interesting that you are enamored with the "choice" to dialate a woman's cervix, insert a curette, dismember and mutililate unborn babies and insert a cannula and use powerful vacuum suction to end another human life to be disposed of as medical waste". Ugh, like Xalisae said and I agree, we prolifers think you are indeed sick. You don't realize how elitist and pro-eugenic your mindset is. You are spouting the same Margaret Sanger-like (founder of PP) "get rid of the unfit, human weeds" garbage which Hitler embraced and you don't even know it.Posted by: Prolifer L at February 10, 2010 5:16 PM
I think it is quite interesting that you are being rude towards me when I am doing no such thing towards you.
Even more interesting are your filters. I am stating facts and you are voicing opinions.
How about we propose this law: Take a tally of every person living. Pro-life or Pro-choice are their two choices. No maybes, only yes or no, yay or nay.
Then we prohibit abortions completely under one condition: everyone that voted against abortions has to take on the children that would otherwise be aborted.
Sound reasonable? Is someone else's choice that only effects their life that important to you? Is there nothing else for you to do than slander people defending choice and try to interfere with someone else's life?Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 5:24 PM
And for the record: No, I am not "enamored" with the process of an abortion. That was generated by your filter.
I am enamored in the freedom of choice: a woman being able to do what she wants with her body without restriction from someone else's beliefs/opinions.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 5:27 PM
"You're wanting to interfere with other people's lives."
actually, I think forceful entry into a mother's uterus to dismember and remove another human ending their life is "interfering with other people's lives". If anything, I'm advocating non-interference.
As I said before, if you're so big on "choice", start respecting women's choices by performing their abortions already.
And, you misunderstood me here:
"You stated that it is a horrific idea that your child would be carried in someone else's womb"
No, I stated that it is a horrific idea that the person who is my daughter today, if she would've been carried by a woman who is "pro-choice" and that woman would've been in a mindset that she didn't feel like being a mother at that moment, could've been killed legally by that woman and no one would've batted an eye. You completely missed my point.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 5:30 PM
I don't think I would want to be a doctor performing abortions because I would have to deal with fanatical pro-lifers trying to kill me because of their opinion.
As far as the whole "interfering with others' lives" part, you're still trying to bring up the argument about where life begins, which I stated that I will not get into. Thanks for trying though, I guess?
I didn't misunderstand you, you wrote it like that. I appreciate you taking the time to voice your opinion more clearly.
I can only "miss your point" if you fail to deliver it cohesively and back it up with facts.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 5:35 PM
Also, here's food for thought. I'll bring my own situation into this like you did with your family.
If my wife did not have the ability to choose to have an abortion, I quite possibly would never have met her and she would be stuck with an asshole who advocates heavy drug use. That and we would not be enjoying our lives together and planning our own family.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 5:43 PM
I'm sorry that your wife felt the need to have her child killed. There are plenty of people who would've loved to have had that baby. If she had had the baby, left it on my doorstep, and then left the father, I would've taken care of it to the best of my ability. He or she would still be alive, you would still be with your wife, and I would still be struggling, but happy.
Abortion isn't the answer, but now I know why you defend "choice" so vehemently now. Every pro-legal-abortion individual who comes here is trying to legitimize either an action of theirs or someone close to them. I'm sorry for you.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 6:20 PM
To be honest, I didn't even think of it until I dug inside my head for some twisted way for you to relate to my argument.
I came here because I saw some silly crap mentioning the billboard on CNN as I walked through the lobby at work. I hopped on my computer (I do tech support for law firms) and googled "Black children endangered species" and found this.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 6:30 PM
"As far as the whole "interfering with others' lives" part, you're still trying to bring up the argument about where life begins, which I stated that I will not get into. Thanks for trying though, I guess?"
Well, if you're outrightly refusing to "get into" the main and only objection we have with abortion, then I guess you're just conceding our point. Thanks. It's been a pleasure to "debate" with you.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 6:31 PM
There's nothing that can make me "relate" to ending a child's life through abortion or any other means. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 6:37 PM
Do all pro-lifers deny facts that are presented to them and prefer opinions coinciding with their own instead?
Bring Bambino back, they were more engaging in discussion than this.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 6:53 PM
If I had not made the decision I had made to abort a childbirth, I would have had inflicted the worst kind of abuse on a child: not being able to be a ready, loving, and capable parent.
Also, that wife of his Adam is talking about, is me. I was heavily drug addicted and carrying a child in what I was doing to my body would have been catastrophic. If my parents were doing terrible things to their body while I was in there I'd probably insist they abort me as well.
You people are not pro-choice.
You are anti-woman and anti choice.
What if we took away your right to choose and you this with your doctor or the government viewed you as finacially unstable and they made you have an abortion. You would have to right to decide to keep it. So why, WHY are you doing the opposite to people who want to make their own choice with their own body. Anti-choicers do not care about the health of women and want them to keep the child. Well, if a woman doesn't why not allow her the literature, education, and knowledge to know about her body so she has the power to know when she ovulates, when you can get pregnant, how birth control works, etc etc. I'm married but I do not want kids nor the torture of having another abortion. It's not like it was fun, but sometimes that really is the best answer for a lot of people. What if the woman was raped by someone in her family? What if she had sex with someone with HIV which ultimately means she will give it to her child bringing it into the world sick and dying? Does that matter here or do you just think you can pray and make it go away?
It's evident science IS NOT how you make your decisions but rather the written morality of 2,000
year old men askewed by people who want to do the "right thing".
The right thing is practising for yourself what you believe and staying out of the business of woman who own their own bodies.Posted by: Allison at February 10, 2010 7:13 PM
I'm sorry Allison...I never understood the argument "I was on drugs and the baby would be messed up"...so your solution was to kill the baby? Wow. nice. Really compassionate.
Adam...people don't use abortion to erase a mistake and go back to living a better life. My friends who had abortions had sex outside of marriage, got pregnant, had abortions, and went right back to having sex outside of marriage. So if they had gotten pregnant again, they would have aborted again. They didn't say "Hey, I am not ready for a child, so maybe I shouldn't be engaging in an activity know to result in pregnancy."
one friend did go on to have multiple abortions. Very sad. She has one son and has been trying to get pregnant for two years now. I know her abortions are on her mind. She fears she will never get another chance.Posted by: Sydney M at February 10, 2010 7:48 PM
OF COURSE that's compassion. Have you ever seen a crack baby or a baby addicted to drugs when it was born. That is cruel and inhumane to do someone and I would never do that. (To correct an earlier statement, I do want to have children, when I am READY) I won't bring someone into this world when their own mother was making bad decisions.
In no way am I compared to sleeping with multiple partners, cheating and getting pregnant and then covering up the 'mistake'. Wow, to clump everyone in the same category is a bit unfair don't you think? I did it for the safety and well being of my body and what was to be become of it. Due note, I had taken several precautions before this happened such as using a condom and a morning after pill and I was still, somehow, impregnated.
Pro-lifers seem to only view sex for procreation and apparently only between the same two people. Sex can be a very connecting experience as well as stress relieving and bonding for a couple. It's healthy. People and couples who do not have a healthy sex life can suffer many other problems from this such as lack of interest, stress, communication problems, zero passion, etc. And of course this notion was based heavily on Christian text. Not a Science book and about the farthest thing you can get from one.
So what would you 'anti-choice' people rather have? Banned abortions where a woman is so desperate it is done in an alley or various other unsafe and very painful methods or in the hands of a doctor who will make sure she is okay and taken care of? Because people are doing to do it either way.Posted by: Allison at February 10, 2010 8:09 PM
FOR THE RECORD
I watched the video on the "Who they think I am" page and I am COMPLETELY against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. That is blatant irresponsibility. I am for 1st trimester abortions wherein the baby is not fully developed nor can be birthed alive. I had an abortion at eight weeks. When I went to the clinic to do so there were people screaming at me and showing me signs of 3rd trimester babies. This was not my case at all. I did everything I could as quickly and effectively as possible. People have very uninformed ideas about what goes on at these clinics. Many offer a lot of resources to women. I don't agree with aborting a child alive whatsoever. So do know that there are stances on this. I never did that so why am I being treated like a monster? I did the safest thing I possibly could for me and my body in a timely manner.
I used to work at a school for children with severe disabilities. Many of these children were born to mothers with addictions. None of these children were considered disposable, and all were wonderful human beings worthy of life. Just because you devalued the life of your child to make it easier for your to kill him or her because you didn't want to be in a relationship with his or her father (not that that makes any sense...you don't have to stay with someone just because you have a child with them. My brother and niece's mother aren't together, and she does fine...) doesn't mean everyone else would.
How would letting your child live compromise the safety and well-being of your body? I've been pregnant twice and have no lasting effects...
"Pro-lifers seem to only view sex for procreation and apparently only between the same two people."
That's because pro-lifers, in their defense of those human beings who cannot defend themselves and who are being killed by the thousands every day, remain mindful of the biological function of sex, which is procreation/reproduction. None of the purposes of sex you mentioned are more important than another human being's life. Temporary gratification, a relationship, stress relief...none of those are justifications of killing someone else, least of all your child.
I am an atheist. The scientific fact that heterosexual vaginal intercourse can and does lead to pregnancy which is the act of caring for a new human life can be found in any biology or embryology textbook.Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 9:13 PM
I'm sorry you don't enjoy making love, it is a wonderful thing. It's really disappointing when people limit making love to just procreation.
Oh and here's a tip: the only way there is going to be a lack of humans any time soon is if some fanatic starts a war and ruins the planet, not from abortion. Start worrying about bigger problems & more important things.Posted by: Adam at February 10, 2010 9:34 PM
Wow, and now you're going to tell me that I don't enjoy having sex with my husband and how and why I do so? HA. You're really trying to empower women now, aren't you?
Let's get something straight: my bedroom habits, like yours, are nobody's business. But if it was, you'd find I have quite an amazing sex life with the father of my children and if we DID only engage in sexual activity when we meant to procreate, we'd be out of luck, because I have a tubal ligation because at this point my priorities would not have me be a mother to any more children. However, on the RAAAAAAAAAAAARE, RARE RARE RARE RARE RARE!!! chance that I even did conceive again because my operation failed, I certainly wouldn't condemn that child to death.
Being mindful of what the act of sexual intercourse can and does lead to does not diminish one's capacity to engage in the behavior or enjoy it. It just makes you more responsible when you DO partake.
I fully believe in CONTRACEPTION. However, ABORTION is not CONTRACEPTION, because a woman is already a mother once she has conceived, and a mother can only obtain an abortion once she is pregnant.
When did I ever say that there is a shortage of human beings? But, what does that have to do with anything? Does the number of humans present in our area determine how we should protect those lives by law? Why?Posted by: xalisae at February 10, 2010 10:11 PM
Adam--don't know who the "you don't enjoy making love" comment is for. I never said sex is just for pro-creation. I am not catholic. I don't believe that. Can't debate the facts so just make dumb statements like that...please go right ahead.
Allison--so if a baby makes it out of the birth canal and is found to be a crack baby, what do you suggest--killing that baby? If no, why not? Killing a baby on drugs is HUMANE, correct?
Why are you only for 1st trimester abortions? At what precise moment in gestation does abortion suddenly become immoral...and why?Posted by: Sydney M at February 10, 2010 11:36 PM
Adam and Allison...sex is wonderful. It is beautiful. It is powerful. It is not recreation. It is not a bodily function like a bowel movement, but that is how people with your mindset treat it.
Sex DOES connect a man and a woman. So many of my friends slept with boyfriends and then later when they broke up were disgusted with themselves. Case in point, my one friend...love her dearly but my goodness, there was no man on earth this girl would not sleep with. She finally found Mr. Right and married him last year. She just recently ran into one of her old boyfriends and she was so disgusted with herself that she ever physically connected her body and soul to his. Why have that regret?
Most on this blog have heard my story a million times so I hope they will forgive me if I repeat it once more for you both. My husband and I gave each other our virginity. I am so so so thankful for that. I was on the pill when I conceived our son early on in our marriage. We were very poor and they thought I would miscarry blah blah blah. It was an uncertain time. But one thing we were certain about was that our unborn son was a human being and deserved to retain his life.Posted by: Sydney M at February 10, 2010 11:44 PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
LucyPosted by: Lucy at February 10, 2010 11:52 PM
"I never said sex is just for pro-creation. I am not catholic."
Just a quick clarification Sydney, my friend. Catholic teaching is that the conjugal act is two-fold. That is, but procreative AND unative. Both are equally important. Unfortunately in arenas like this one, the procreative aspect is emphasized far more than the unative so that people get a sense that in Catholic moral theology, the conjugal act is only procreative, but that would be heresy! That is all. God love you.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 11, 2010 8:36 AM
Thanks for the clarification Bobby. I admit I was confused about that and didn't realize it. :-)Posted by: Sydney M at February 11, 2010 10:37 AM
There's no point in blaming Sanger or anyone else for the high rate of Black abortions. If a woman chooses to have sex, particularly unprotected sex and then she chooses to KILL her own child, that is HER responsibility. Rarely is anyone in this country forced to get an abortion.
This video seems to be more about blame than about less abortions of Black children. If GA Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation really cared about these babies, they would spend thousands of $ helping young women keep their babies rather than spending a ton of $$$$$ putting up billboards.(it isn't cheap!)Posted by: Seriouswon at February 11, 2010 11:53 AM
Umm...I'm pretty sure they probably do both.Posted by: xalisae at February 11, 2010 2:16 PM
I am so suprised that black men are concerned with the 'womb' of black women. Most black men don't even take care of the children they 'procreate', another segment of black men prefer other men, another segment of black men is incarcerated, and yet another segment of black men don't even respect black women enough to even date or marry them. Why are they concerned with the womb of a black woman and not the rest of her??Posted by: Liz at February 11, 2010 4:23 PM
Oh, I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THE CREATIVE FORCE BEHIND THIS AD PROCESS IS 'RYAN BOMBERGER', THE PRODUCT OF RAPE HIMSELF(MULATTO0--ADOPTED), MARRIED TO A WHITE WOMAN. WHAT SAY SO DOES HE HAVE ABOUT A BLACK WOMAN. PERHAPS HE WILL NOW ENCOURAGE BLACK MEN TO GO OUT AND RAPE WOMEN --JUST LIKE HIS MOM WAS RAPED BY A BLACK MAN! OUTRAGIOUS. ALL I AM SAYING, CHECK IT OUT....Posted by: Liz at February 11, 2010 5:46 PM
Allison, I HAVE seen a coke baby -- he is my son, who was adopted at six weeks. He is now 16. Isaiah was only four pounds when he was born and had to be on a sleep apnea monitor for months. He has had learning and behavioral problems all his life. But he still has plenty of time to turn it around. Please don't tell me that Isaiah should have never been born.
And Liz, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was married to a white man and that doesn't mean that I don't care about black people. My children are light-skinned, but in this society, they are still considered black.
There are plenty of black men who care for their families and children, but we need more of them. One of the problems is that women, not just black women, sell themselves cheap, content to be a "side piece" or a "baby momma." I would rather be alone then have a man treat me with disrespect!Posted by: Phillymiss at February 12, 2010 4:25 PM
I'm sorry, my son Isaiah is 19, not 16. I would like to adopt another child someday, but at 51, it would be hard for me, especially since I'm single. So like I said before, maybe I'll be a foster parent.Posted by: Phillymiss at February 12, 2010 4:51 PM
Thank you Phillymiss--I too, am alone by choice with my child! Very difficult with the recession and everything else. I am not trying to take care of a grown man--pathetic. I don't want to be with someone who hates me--the level of misogyny in the black community is outragious! I also choose not to have a child by someone who hates me! There are black women that are complacent about being 'baby mamma' and getting disrespected...then there are the others.....like me. Black men need to educate themselves- I find them repulsive and undesirable.Posted by: Liz at February 12, 2010 6:41 PM
homo sapiens is not endangered (in the immediate statistical sense of the world population)
therefore the billboarders imply that they believe that either:
1) world population is significantly dropping, or
2) 'children' are not homo sapiens, or
3) 'blacks' are not homo sapiens, or
4) only 'black children' are not homo sapiens.
conclusion: the billboarders need to go back to the drawing board.Posted by: pugfragger at February 15, 2010 12:14 PM
As a pro-lifer, I'm curious: Has Planned Parenthood ever turned a white woman away for an abortion?
If not, then is it possible that Planned Parenthood isn't "targeting" African-American's for abortion, but are actually willing to abort any baby who's mother has the money to pay them? I agree that African-American women have a higher percentage of abortions, but I'm not convinced it's a targeting issue.Posted by: Josh at February 17, 2010 1:09 PM