MSM buries headline on China's forced abortions

The headiine in today's Washington Post: "Birth control crackdown sparks riots in rural China."

The International Herald Tribune: "Chinese villagers riot over stricter population-control."

And National Public Radio: "Chinese riot over birth control policies."

Bad enough. But were the extensive riots, which reportedly involved 10,000-50,000 and "rolled from village to village" as "rioters smashed and burned government offices, overturned official vehicles and clashed with the riot police," simply about women rebelling against the Chinese government telling them they couldn't flush contraceptives down the drain?

No, the riots were about being fined for having more than one child. And buried as one-liners in news reports was how the Chinese government enforces its one-child policy, as quoted from the Post, paragraph 4:

Local officials eager to meet population quotas have frequently been accused of forcing women to submit to abortions or sterilizations to keep the birthrate down.

china one-child.jpgAnd where is the abortion industry on this anti-choice issue, particularly since the policy has caused a surge of female abortions?

A google search of "Planned Parenthood China" finds only its urging that the U.S. restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which is part of the coercion. NARAL? The same.

One other note. Rich women are side-stepping the one-child policy by paying off government officials. The next time someone claiming to be "pro-choice" laments access of poor women to abortions in the U.S., ask what s/he is doing to help poor women in China make the opposite choice.

[Photo courtesy of Aljazeera, believe it or not]


Comments:

Are we pigeon-holing each other again with extremism gone too far??

Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 11:53 AM


abortion bombings are wrong! abortion is the same just one person at a time.

Posted by: luvmy5kids at May 23, 2007 12:02 PM


Oh, good one luvmy5kids! How true. Cameron, [aka Geek Boy] Why do you keep harping on abortion clinic bombings? I thought told you yesterday Geek Boy! Paul Hill was executed for killing abortionist John Britton. Shelly Shannon is incarcerated for shooting George Tiller. Do you ever study any facts before you spout off?

Posted by: Heather4life at May 23, 2007 12:40 PM


This is one of the most disturbing things imaginable. And to think that people who support abortion ignore this and could care less about the plight of women in Asia being forced to kill their babies.

It all goes to underscore the true nature of the abortion industry as caring about the dollar bill rather than women.

Posted by: Andrew at May 23, 2007 12:56 PM


Cameron, don't you understand the difference between one movement that discourages its extremist fringes, and another that encourages them? This is the whole Bill Clinton / Catholic priests thing again.

When a supposed pro-lifer shoots an abortionist or bombs a clinic, the whole pro-life community comes out against them, and applauds our government for taking action against them.

On the other hand, PP and NARAL are asking our government to financially support the injustice of forced abortions in China! At the very least they are intentionally turning a blind eye to the practices their money will support. (How can you not "knowingly support" forced abortion if you know it's going on and still hand over money??) Do you consider PP and NARAL extremists from whom you distance yourself?

Posted by: Michelle Potter at May 23, 2007 1:30 PM


I wonder, if I couldn't afford to buy my child a Bible, how many people in the U.S. think that taxes should buy my child a Bible. That isn't even hurting anyone and they would fight it! But, many think we should pay for abortions for those that can't afford it! Yuck!

Posted by: luvmy5kids at May 23, 2007 1:37 PM



A google search of "Planned Parenthood China" finds only its urging that the U.S. restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which is part of the coercion. NARAL? The same.

Cameron's response:
Are we pigeon-holing each other again with extremism gone too far??
Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 11:53 AM


Cameron. Please. Again. Pigeon-holing?? Your agrument is totally flawed. PP and NARAL are the front runners in the abortion industry. You can hardly say this article is pigeon-holing. The very organizations you support and that represent this more than disguisting vile practice are out there advocating for it and asking for our tax payer dollars to fund it. Again where is the "choice" for women to keep their babies.

If you think this is extemism going to far then you are a hypocrite for supporting these organizations.

Also, if you think this is too extreme, why don't you take a moment to make a phone call to PP or NARAL and let them know how you feel??

Oh, that's right. Once again as proven by your comment, you would rather spend time making mindless comments and continue to ignore the real issues of what you are really supporting.

Posted by: Sandy at May 23, 2007 2:15 PM


Heather..you might want to pick a better insult than "Geek Boy". This isn't high school anymore. Anyway, at Berkeley it's cool to be a geek. =)

Posted by: Stephanie at May 23, 2007 2:22 PM


"AT Berkeley" Enjoy, before real life hits you!

Posted by: luvmy5kids at May 23, 2007 2:27 PM


Eh?

Real life will be a bitch, I'm sure.

As far as I'm concerned, geeks and nerds rule the world. =)

Posted by: Stephanie at May 23, 2007 2:37 PM


Real life can be so fun and really hard work but that's what you make it, and a lot more than...

"geeks and nerds rule the world."

Posted by: luvmy5kids at May 23, 2007 2:41 PM


What? You're getting me really confused now.

Are you trying to argue with me or something?

Posted by: Stephanie at May 23, 2007 2:52 PM


Unlike prolfers perpetrating violence. This link between china's forced abortions, via a tax law at that, are ridiculously tenuous... let's recap... PP asks congress to fund UN family planning, which, in a addition to just about every country in the third world, happens to operate in China, which happens to have some forced abortion scenarios at the hands of local officials (not UN).

You guys are really desperate for material. Seriously... there are things to be reasonably concerned with regarding abortion... but you just debase yourselves with crap like this.

Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 3:06 PM


"PP asks congress to fund UN family planning, which, in a addition to just about every country in the third world, happens to operate in China, which happens to have some forced abortion scenarios at the hands of local officials (not UN)."

Cameron,
What planet do you come from??
Where do pro-lifers perpetrate violence?

You aren't very good at connecting the dots are you.

Also, you just stated in one of your prior posts that this is extemism. Now you are implying that it's "some" forced abortion laws.
So now that it is "some" that makes it ok?
Tell that to the "some" women that are dragged from their homes to have their babies murdered.
You are a piece of work.

I have come accustomed to NOT getting any responses that directly answer my questions. Can you come up with anything other than your bumper sticker rhetoric?????


Posted by: Sandy at May 23, 2007 3:33 PM


I have often brought up the circumstances in China as appalling because I realize that what goes on there is abominable. It's terrible that women are forced to have abortion, that takes their aspect of choice out of it. I've actually written articles on it for the school paper before and I do what I can. The truth however, is that this is a problem caused by a dramatically opressive and dictatorial government, not PP. PP didn't make China communist and pass its population laws. Like any organization, I'm sure they are doing the best they can. Think of it like Schindler under the Nazi regime- he did the best he could in terms of saving those targeted by the Holocaust, but 6 million people still were murdered. This isn't something you can blame on PP.

Posted by: Erin at May 23, 2007 3:51 PM


Sandy...


"I have come accustomed to NOT getting any responses that directly answer my questions."

You haven't asked a question. Just loaded tripe. If you'd like me to answer a question, like an adult, try framing it such that it is not presumptuously accusatory. Coherent would be helpful to.

Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 4:01 PM


Cameron,
I have asked you many direct questions which you refuse to answer.
My most recent example from my very last post:
What planet do you come from??
Where do pro-lifers perpetrate violence?

I guess you have a hard time comprehending any sentences that don't contain the words:
Spot, Dick, Jane, See, Run
I will try to frame my sentences using these words, but no promises will be made. It may be too difficult.

Oh, another question just came to mind.
What grade are you in????

Posted by: Sandy at May 23, 2007 4:20 PM


Sandy,

Don't bother.

Posted by: HisMan at May 23, 2007 4:25 PM


You haven't asked a question. Just loaded tripe. If you'd like me to answer a question, like an adult, try framing it such that it is not presumptuously accusatory. Coherent would be helpful to.

Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 4:26 PM


Thank you for repeating insults-as-questions. I'll waste no time reading it and responding. You seem to have a congenital inability with wit though, perhaps threats??

Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 4:32 PM


Cameron/Geek Boy, Tripe = another one of your favorite words. Do you have that paint brush in your hand? How far into the "victim corner" have you painted yourself? You poor instigator!

Posted by: Heather4life at May 23, 2007 4:38 PM


Cameron,
Another easy-out for you to ignore questions.

Posted by: Sandy at May 23, 2007 4:46 PM


HisMan,
I agree.

Posted by: Sandy at May 23, 2007 4:48 PM


Sandy, that's all he can do.He doesn't have any answers. Do you pro choice women actually find this sicko funny? If so, I have to question YOUR sanity. Seriously, this guy is beyond ill.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 23, 2007 4:51 PM


An easy out for you to not actually ask a question.

I dare you... ask me a question... politely! Of course that won't facilitate your self-fullfilling prophesizing will it? You could prove me wrong though... go for it. Try it. You might actually enjoy a genuine discussion.

Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 4:58 PM


Alright Cameron, what do you believe are the qualifications for personhood?

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 23, 2007 5:00 PM


stop giving him a second of your time, it make your time worthless! he has no point and talkes in circles! i think if he were smarter he would be a politician some day!

Posted by: luvmy5kids at May 23, 2007 5:03 PM


midnite678 and Cameron, don't I know you 2 from My Space? I believe I DO!

Posted by: Heather4life at May 23, 2007 5:31 PM


Did you miss my question Cameron?

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 23, 2007 6:09 PM


Tick....tick....tick..... I guess no one should be surprised that he is not replying.

Posted by: Bethany at May 23, 2007 7:01 PM


Lauren,

"Alright Cameron, what do you believe are the qualifications for personhood?"

This isn't really about personhood Lauren. It's about when, if and why someone should be forced to let another person use their body or parts of it. In my eyes, it's not a relevant question, but I'll humor you a response, since you actually seem genuinely interested in an answer.

I don't think there is any set of criteria, so much so as it is a gradual process. Society does not give children all rights, and even as adults, we must be older adults to run for government offices (e.g. 35 years of age for senate I think). Civil rights, or recognition as a member of society, is an incremental and proportionate thing. When it comes to the fetus, society in general doesn't seem to consider them any sort of member, and even parents don't start referring to it as their baby/child/son/daughter until later in pregnancy, as though they are aware that there's not much too it just yet beyond potential. I do however think that it is not entirely without rights even in the womb, after conception and such, just not rights that would require others to forfeit their's. In short... human rights just like any other human, and not exceeding them.

Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 7:22 PM


"Alright Cameron, what do you believe are the qualifications for personhood?" --Lauren


This isn't really about personhood Lauren.---Cameron

Question dodge alert!

Posted by: Bethany at May 23, 2007 7:47 PM


Sorry, thought I'd have a little bit of "cameron style fun".

Posted by: Bethany at May 23, 2007 7:56 PM


Erin,

You're right that PP didn't create the situation in China but they are urging the restoration of funding that promotes and enables this policy of coercion. Sex selection is not exclusive to China, but occurs also in India and yes, the United States. In all countries females are aborted in by far the greatest numbers. So where are the feminists? How can they support coerced abortion in any manner? Don't they have any issue at all with the deliberate elimination of females? Doesn't this relegate women back to a second class, second choice status?
Years ago, there was an outcry by the feminists and media over the appalling conditions and forced childbirth in Romania instituted by a corrupt dictator, and well there should have been. So why are feminists and "pro-choice" people silent, even supportive of China?
Apparently any abortion is a good abortion.

Posted by: Mary at May 23, 2007 8:01 PM


Mary- I just stated that I am not supportive nor silent about the condition in China. I'm 20. There is only so much that I can do. I help raise awareness around my school- I had a 3-article series in the paper this year about forced abortion and population laws in China- and I write to my senators. I am not keeping silent, and to say that I'm doing nothing is just plain mean.

Posted by: Erin at May 23, 2007 8:17 PM


Erin,

I never accused you of doing nothing, and I greatly admire your efforts. I was referring to such groups as NARAL, PP, and NOW and their deafening silence as well as their demands to financially support these policies. I understand that years ago, former NOW president Molly Yard supported this coercive abortion policy in China, but if I'm wrong about this then I will stand corrected. My issue Erin is the MSM and feminist and "pro-choice" organizations maintaining a deafening silence. The very people and organizations who should be protesting the loudest.
Keep up the great work you are doing against this policy Erin and I thank you for your efforts.

Posted by: Mary at May 23, 2007 8:59 PM


"...but they are urging the restoration of funding that promotes and enables this policy of coercion."

PP is not operating or supporting the Chinese government in way shape or form, and neither is the UN family planning thing. They operate in seperate NGO realm and are not function as some sort of extension of the governments plan. They provide BC to people who come looking for it, and that's about it.

Please provide evidence for you accusations. Where is this UN directive that gives money, supplies, logistic support, to the Chinese government for the purposes of population control??

Posted by: Cameron at May 23, 2007 9:02 PM


Cameron,

Please go to nrlc.org and write "China" in search. You will find documentation. I said that PP and NARAL support funding. Don't you agree that "prop-choice" and feminist organizations would be the loudest opponents of forced and sex-selection abortion that disposes mainly of females?

Posted by: Mary at May 23, 2007 9:54 PM


Cam,

Let's not forget all that the founder of PP (M. Sanger) was a big eugenics/population control nut.

Posted by: jasper at May 23, 2007 10:09 PM


Cameron, you say that our rights our incrimental, but you forget that they are also protective.

Children and mentally or physically disabled persons have additional rights that a healthy 26 year old does not. Namely the right not to be neglected.

The right not to be neglected often infringes upon the rights of parents or caregivers.

For example, the fact that I must provide a home for my child violates my right to privacy.

Why would the most vulnerable members of our species not be afforded protection when we so clearly conceed rights to minors and disabled persons?

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 24, 2007 7:17 AM


Erin, keep up your great work! I've just read your post to Mary. That's fantastic that you are taking a stand.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 24, 2007 7:49 AM


"I had a 3-article series in the paper this year about forced abortion and population laws in China- and I write to my senators. I am not keeping silent, and to say that I'm doing nothing is just plain mean."


why are you doing this Erin? China is doing what's best for their country and nobody should be forcing their own beliefs on them.

Posted by: jasper Author Profile Page at May 24, 2007 9:10 AM


Oy...jasper, I'm not going to even bother. Anything I say about fighting for inherant human rights or civil liberties is going to be taken by you as proof that I am hypocritical in terms of my stance against abortion. Why am I doing it? Because I feel that it is the right thing to do. Not everything has to have something to do with my stance on the legality or morality of abortion itself. It has to do with people being forced into surgical procedures. Much like forms of female genital mutilation in African countries. Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I can't do good things, jasper. I'm sorry that your view is extreme to that level.

Posted by: Erin at May 24, 2007 10:47 AM


"It has to do with people being forced into surgical procedures."

kinda like those unborn babies who are being forced.....

Posted by: jasper Author Profile Page at May 24, 2007 12:13 PM


I am done discussing this issue with you, jasper. Honestly. I don't understand why you can't accept my work as sinciere.

Posted by: Erin at May 24, 2007 12:16 PM


Now he's going to say you're running away from the issue.

Posted by: Stephanie at May 24, 2007 12:29 PM


Mary,

"Please go to nrlc.org and write "China" in search."

LOL... nrlc is your evidence?

Even there, there is now evidence, just what you are parroting here. All I see, and anyone who can read, are unfounded accusations based on the fact UN happens to operate in China, as well as every other third world nation. Nothing here establish's what you all are lying about. There are no documents there.... it's WEB PAGE. And it's a web site that's clearly biased, renouned for missinformation, and that more often than not refrains from ever providing any primary sources such that readers might verify.

"I said that PP and NARAL support funding."

Um.. funding??? that's pretty vague. You moving the goal post now? Is it bad that orgs support or seek funding for programs now? What's the point?

You said: "The very organizations you support and that represent this more than disguisting vile practice [forced abortions] are out there advocating for it and asking for our tax payer dollars to fund it."

WTF is wrong with you that you can't even repeat what you said when it's right here for everyone to see?

Again, there is no evidence that NARAL, PP, or the UN are advocating this even, let alone supporting it with "tax payer dollar."

"Don't you agree that "prop-choice" and feminist organizations would be the loudest opponents of forced and sex-selection abortion that disposes mainly of females?"

Let me guess here, guilt by your biased perceptions of inaction now? Inaction/apathy=active support/funding??

Get your damn story straight and stop waisting peoples time.

This would be evidence... If you want to convince me of anything, start with the UN. Find the documents (and they document everything and desiminate it) where they are supposedly funding/advocating forced abortions.

That's it. That's all you have to do. I will not respond to your vacuous BS again without you having brought something... anything... with substance to the argument.


Posted by: Cameron at May 24, 2007 1:49 PM


Lauren,

"The right not to be neglected often infringes upon the rights of parents or caregivers."

It doesn't. It invringes on the life-style. No parent forfiets a civil or human right by assuming primary care provider. You're equivocating.

"For example, the fact that I must provide a home for my child violates my right to privacy."

No it doesn't. You still have a right to privacy that the state can not take away. Perhaps you are trying to suggest that the children are the state??

"Why would the most vulnerable members of our species not be afforded protection when we so clearly conceed rights to minors and disabled persons?"

They are affored protection. That's not the point.

I think it's your turn to answer a question.

How would you force a woman to gestate when she doesn't want to and would sooner slide down a set of stairs on her ass to induce a misscarriage?

Posted by: Cameron at May 24, 2007 1:57 PM


Mary,

This is called evidence. Apparently the UN is demanding that China do something about sex-selective abortions and forced abortions (see sections 18 and 31)

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/e7f5855127a0abb9c125723300594600/$FILE/N0647860.pdf

Posted by: Cameron at May 24, 2007 2:04 PM


Cameron, the government tells me that unless I care for person x (my child), I will be subject to criminal prosecution.

I would say that is a pretty large infringement upon my rights!

However, we have collectively decided that my child's right to not be neglected superceeds all my rights, except my right to life.


Again Cameron, there's absolutely nothing I can do to "force" a woman to gestate. Gestation is a biological process, not a magical switch that I yield.

As for not allowing a woman to abort (which, unlike abortion does not put control of the situation in man's hands, but rather allows what will be to be)...

I believe that as abortion is delegalized we should begin introducing programs to help with at risk women. This is already beginning with FFL's college outreach, and should continue.

Should a woman NEVER wish to become pregnant, there is always voluntary sterilization. The Essure procedure has made sterilization a much safer and easier procedure.

I believe birth control to be subverting God's will, but I would rather see sterilization than abortion.

Of course, there is the issue of a contraceptive mentality leading to an abortive one. My position on sterlization is not cemented, especially as it relates to non-Christians.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 24, 2007 4:13 PM


Cameron,

I viewed your "evidence" and I am frankly not impressed. In case you haven't noticed the UN is a toothless tiger, and the Chinese government not one to be intimidated by the likes of the UN.
Quite frankly I find your "evidence" every bit as laughable as you find mine so we'll call it a draw, since we are both providing sources the other considers totally untrustworthy.
As for support of funding by PPFA and NARAL please go to the links provided in Jill's original article above. I said they support funding of UNPFA and they do.
"You said...." Was that in reference to me? I must wonder since nothing you are talking about is anything I said. You would seem to have me confused with another poster, or you just failed to specify the poster you were responding to.
Honestly Cameron,I can make absolutely no sense out of your response to my question as to why "pro-choice" and feminist groups are not speaking out against forced abortion and the selective abortion of females and never have.
Maybe you're the one who needs to get a few things straight Cameron.
You won't respond to me again? You really know how to hurt a girl.

Posted by: Mary at May 24, 2007 4:22 PM


Jasper,

Cut Erin some slack will you? Give credit where credit is due. Her efforts are to be commended and encouraged.

Erin,

Keep up your great work! We may be on opposite ends of the abortion issue, but ending coerced abortion is one area we can definitely agree on.

Posted by: Mary at May 24, 2007 4:29 PM


Lauren

"I would say that is a pretty large infringement upon my rights!"

No "STATE" has taken away your rights. Youíve accepted a burden of responsibility.

"However, we have collectively decided that my child's right to not be neglected superceeds all my rights, except my right to life."

*Yawn

You still have all your rights luaren. Iím really biting my tongue, but after your eloquent posts in the past, I know you're not that stupid. You should try elaborating maybe rather than just repeating yourself.

"Again Cameron, there's absolutely nothing I can do to "force" a woman to gestate. Gestation is a biological process, not a magical switch that I yield."

Just answer the flippen question.... how bout like this: How would you keep someone from inducing a miscarriage?

"I believe that as abortion is delegalized we should begin introducing programs to help with at risk women. This is already beginning with FFL's college outreach, and should continue."

Curious! What is this FFL college outreach thingy?

"Should a woman NEVER wish to become pregnant, there is always voluntary sterilization. The Essure procedure has made sterilization a much safer and easier procedure."

Agreed, but what if she feels she could change her mind? At the moment NEVER, but if things changed, maybe I would.

"I believe birth control to be subverting God's will, but I would rather see sterilization than abortion."

I think keeping Terri Schiavo alive was subverting godís will. I love these fallacy arguments you all invoke all the time; natural is only better than artificial some of the time.

"Of course, there is the issue of a contraceptive mentality leading to an abortive one. My position on sterlization is not cemented, especially as it relates to non-Christians."

The way you talk ("mentality"), it sounds like bearing children and sex should always be first approved by some third party/state/authority. Youíre kind of fascist.


Posted by: Cameron at May 24, 2007 6:10 PM


Cameron,

"I viewed your "evidence" and I am frankly not impressed. In case you haven't noticed the UN is a toothless tiger, and the Chinese government not one to be intimidated by the likes of the UN. Quite frankly I find your "evidence" every bit as laughable as you find mine so we'll call it a draw, since we are both providing sources the other considers totally untrustworthy."

LMAO

Who cares how effective they are, that wasnít your point, and you're just being a little weasel now rather than fessing up. Did that work with your mommy? Iím sorry you are so stupid as to not believe the horse's mouth, and prefer the clearly biased third party resources instead. Critical think much?

You said, and ignorantly so, that the UN "supports/funds" "forced abortion", and the UN is pretty clear about where they stand. Would you like to argue that they secretly support the outlaw local Chinese officials which do force abortions?

"As for support of funding by PPFA and NARAL please go to the links provided in Jill's original article above. I said they support funding of UNPFA and they do."

Again, as I tried to outliine in the simplest language possible above. You're accusations are hilariously flawed; PP & NARAL support UNPFA... UNPFA operates in third world... china is third world... some local chinese authorities have forced abortions... there fore PP & NARAL & UN SUPPORT/FUND forced abortion.

You are an idiot... a term Iíve been trying to use sparingly lately, but in this case....


"Honestly Cameron,"

You're not being honest about anything. In fact, I think you've been through somesort of dishonesty training program at your church. "Jesus sez lie lie lie lie to save the babiiiiieeeez"

"I can make absolutely no sense out of your response to my question as to why "pro-choice" and feminist groups are not speaking out against forced abortion and the selective abortion of females and never have."

Thatís because youíre an idiot.

Just fess up retard.... UN PP and NARAL do not support "forced abortion," itís so unreasonable, nobody really supports it. Itís kind of like me saying that you support rape because you think women are nothing more than baby vessels. Rub those two working brain cells together for minute or two and try this....

Try reading this if you actually care about whatís going on in China...

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/Birth-Control-Family-Planning-UNFPA.pdf

alas you donít actually care about women being forced to have abortion, evidenced by your complete ignorance about the situation, so much so as tenuously accusing those you dislike of having something to do with it.

Posted by: Cameron at May 24, 2007 6:30 PM


Cameron,

I'm really getting concerned. You're becoming less and less rational, in case you're unaware of that fact.

Posted by: Mary at May 24, 2007 6:58 PM


Wow, is it that difficult to argue your point without using "idiot" or "retard" in every sentence?


Posted by: Bethany at May 24, 2007 7:45 PM


Wow. Stunning Cameron. Last call.
After reading this last tirade, I sincerely think he needs to leave the bar and sleep off this latest binge.
He has nothing to add to this serious debate but personal insults and a lack of complete understanding for this issue. I am hoping that both sides can come upon some agreement that he takes this debate to a low level that doesn't warrent any type of response from the pro-life side or further support from the pro-choice side.
Please....for the sake of this crucial topic (which he continues to make a mockery of) can we move on sans Cameron???

Posted by: Sandy at May 24, 2007 9:44 PM


Cameron, I'll answer the questions you asked politely.

Feel free to restate the others, and I will answer them as well.

As for FFL's college outreach-

http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/brochure.htm

There is nothing I can do to keep a woman from trying to induce a miscarriage once all the support systems are in place. It is similar to the fact that there is nothing I can do to keep someone from murdering someone else if they have their heart set on it. All I can do is try to reach the women who are aborting with help and support.

As for women changing their minds on sterlization-

That's actually the reason very few doctors will perform sterilizations on young women. I think that this view is rather paternal and degrading. We trust a 13 year old to have an abortion, but not a 22 year old to get her tubes tied or coiled. It just seems strange.

If a woman isn't sure of her future maternity, IUD's have gotten much safer and are effective to the point of being billed as "reversable sterlization".

I have a really hard time typing all of this because I am really not "for" birth control. It is a theological matter that does not boil down to "natural is better", but it does not look like you are much interested in hearing that point.

Again, I'll happily answer your other questions if they are rephrased in a way that is not insulting. I have no issue debating with you, but I will not answer questions that end with statements containing the words "stupid" or "fascist".

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 25, 2007 3:18 AM


Lauren, that was a great post. BTW, I hope you are okay! Yes, I am all for women who wish to have a tubal ligation at a young age. As long as they sign the paperwork and consent forms. Go for it. Why not? It's better than abortion. I think they should be allowed to decide at the age of 18. A co worker of mine had it done at the age of 24. She and her husband did NOT want kids, so she took preventative measures.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 25, 2007 7:20 AM


Lauren, that was a great post. BTW, I hope you are okay! Yes, I am all for women who wish to have a tubal ligation at a young age. As long as they sign the paperwork and consent forms. Go for it. Why not? It's better than abortion. I think they should be allowed to decide at the age of 18. A co worker of mine had it done at the age of 24. She and her husband did NOT want kids, so she took preventative measures.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 25, 2007 7:20 AM


Lauren and Heather4life,

Excellent posts from both of you. Bethany, thank you for yours as well. I agree completely about tubal ligations, the only problem being I have seen women change their minds and require a reversal, which can't always be done. There are women who I wish would get it done, who you know have no maternal capacity of any kind, are drug or alcohol abusers, or who like my daughter, are mentally ill. I would give anything for her to have one.
It aggravates me no end when women say they decided with the birth of their last child that there would be no more children. Fine. Now 5 years later they're pregnant again and want an abortion. We had some woman in the paper complaining how this happened to her twice! Madame, did you ever hear of a tubal ligation? You could have had it done immediately after the birth of your last child and any time since.

Posted by: Mary at May 25, 2007 7:46 AM


True, Mary. The doctor who delivered all of my babies asked me after my last baby if I would be interested in getting the tubal done right then and there. I am not totally sure, since it's been a while, but I believe he asked me after my second child as well.

Posted by: Bethany at May 25, 2007 7:56 AM


Mary, how true. I don't understand that at all. I've often talked about a woman I know who had 7 abortions. She has 1 living child. The other 7 pregnancies ended in abortions. I was very aggravated when she told me that she wanted more children when "the time was right." Excuse me? She ended up having a hysterectomy. Her doctor told her that it was necessary due to the damage sustained to her uterus after so many abortions.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 25, 2007 8:57 AM


Has anyone ever noticed that the couples that despratly want children can't seem to have them,and the ones who don't always get pregnant?

Posted by: Heather4life at May 25, 2007 9:01 AM


Heather, I know what you mean! It seems that way to me too.

Posted by: SH at May 25, 2007 11:29 AM


"Wow, is it that difficult to argue your point without using "idiot" or "retard" in every sentence?"

Is someone insists on something that is so clearly not true, and does so foolishly...

Perhaps I should pull out a thesorus though.

Posted by: Cameron at May 25, 2007 2:18 PM


"That's actually the reason very few doctors will perform sterilizations on young women."

Did not know that. Does a woman have seek out the rare breed then?

"I think that this view is rather paternal and degrading. We trust a 13 year old to have an abortion, but not a 22 year old to get her tubes tied or coiled. It just seems strange."

I really don't see any relevant comparison there.

"I have a really hard time typing all of this because I am really not "for" birth control. It is a theological matter that does not boil down to "natural is better", but it does not look like you are much interested in hearing that point."

To the extent that I'm interested... your theology should not remove that choice from others. Out of social curriosity however, I find such theologically based notions fascinating. All these people pointing to the bible as the ultimate authority have endlessly divergent ideas and notions when you start asking about the details.


Posted by: Cameron at May 25, 2007 2:27 PM


The comparisson is that they are both reproductive choices.

To me birthcontrol for Christians boils down to a matter of trust. By using birthcontrol we are essentially saying that we do not trust God with our fertility. I don't see it as a point of distinction that would lead someone to Hell, just something that leads away from a relationship with God. As a Christian, that relationship is extremely important, and I wish to do everything possible to walk in His will.

Of course, I am against abortificiant contraception regardless of theological issues.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at May 25, 2007 2:41 PM


Cameron, you say you are not "for" birth control? You are "for" abortion though. That's ludicrous! Honey, if ya don't want kids please get it snipped, clipped, tucked and plucked. I'm SURE if you try hard enough, you will find an MD to do it.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 25, 2007 3:15 PM