On April 23 Ms. blog posted what it called the "10 worst abortion myths - and how to refute them."
That is a post in itself, and feel free to refute their refutations. I'm listing them on page 2. I notice they sometimes misstate our position. In other words, they invent their own myths and call them ours.
But my weekend challenge is to name one or more of the worst pro-abortion myths and refute them.
One of the other side's worst lies is highlighted in the National Right to Life ad on the right. (Click to enlarge.)
Following are what Ms. says are "some of the common myths about abortion"...
Myth 1: Even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion would still be legal.
Myth 2: American women are able to have legal abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy in all 50 states.
Myth 3: Women who have abortions are selfish and self-centered.
Myth 4: Abortions cause pain for the fetus.
Myth 5: Abortions are readily available across the country.
Myth 6: Abortion is a very dangerous procedure.
Myth 7: Abortion providers are in it to make a lot of money.
Myth 8: If a woman doesn't want to have a child, she should use contraception or abstain.
Myth 9: Women have multiple abortions rather than using birth control.
Myth 10: Many women who have had abortions are traumatized and suffer from "post-abortion stress syndrome."
Definitely lies about prenatal development are big. Some others:
Roe v. Wade saved women's lies in the U.S.
Legalized abortion saves women's lives in other countries.
Abortion reduces child abuse.
Most Americans are "pro-choice."
All refuted in this free brochure: http://secularprolife.org/files/abortion_by_the_numbers.pdf
Abortion Myth #1: An innocent human being is not killed.
Response: Every other point in this debate is moot compared to the basic scientific fact regarding what is being destroyed or 'aborted'.
That Ms. blog completely avoids the issue of the humanity of the unborn indicates the depth of intellectual dishonesty individuals go to in representing abortion.
To refute this primary issue use BioSLED:Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 22, 2010 9:56 AM
The biggest has got to be that the unborn are not human beings.
That's really the heart of the matter.
The second is that opposition to abortion is a matter of religion and thus subject to "separation of church and state."Posted by: Lauren at May 22, 2010 9:57 AM
Looks like we were on the same page, Chris. Thanks for the link!Posted by: Lauren at May 22, 2010 9:59 AM
Posted by: Mary
at May 22, 2010 10:02 AM
The biggest myth was that abortion would solve the problem of child abuse and neglect. Only planned, perfect, and wanted children would walk this earth. Our city is presently opening up a specialized center to handle the problem of neglected and abused children. But, but, but...child abuse and neglect should be long over by now. We've had 37 years of legal abortion.
Abortion is healthcare.
Jacka*s Kevorkian said what he did was healthcare too.Posted by: Praxedes at May 22, 2010 10:05 AM
As to the Ms Magazine list:
1. Reversing Roe v. Wade would allow states to make their own laws about abortion. Life-friendly states will restrict it while abortion-friendly states will make it available on demand.
2. This is the essential holding of Roe and its companion case, Doe v Bolton. Of course, individual women may not be able to afford a late-term abortion; see number 7.
3. The pro-life movement is sensitive to the fact that the majority of abortions feature coercion, misinformation, etc. http://www.unfairchoice.info/coerced.htm
4. After 20 weeks, there is ample scientific evidence that the fetus can feel pain. At earlier ages, we don't yet have the technology to prove it either way.
5. Not really part of the pro-life position. We are aware of the declining number of abortuaries and consider that a victory.
6. Hard to define "very dangerous," but it's far more dangerous than abortion advocates are willing to admit. Abortion can cause heavy bleeding, organ damage, infection, sepsis, and rarely death.
7. It's hard to assess the motives of every individual abortionist, but the job pays very well. An abortion can cost anywhere from around $300 to over $1000. The Blood Money documentary would provide some hard data on this, but abortion advocates have conveniently prevented it from being released in theaters.
8. This is a value judgment more than a fact or myth, but... seriously?!?! You would rather a woman who's not ready for children just get abortions instead of using contraception or abstaining? You're out of your minds.
9. Some women do. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion, about half of American abortions are repeats.
10. Many women do, and this is evident from their own testimonies. But when women's actual experiences go against your ideology, suddenly you don't care so much about women's voices.
The second is that opposition to abortion is a matter of religion and thus subject to "separation of church and state."
I love you, Lauren :-) http://secularprolife.org/files/is_abortion_a_religious_issue.pdf
Abortion Myth #2: Abortion is not a violent destructive act.
Response: Comparatively, the violence for each method of abortion would be considered inhumane done at any other stage of life. Angie, who twittered her abortion, found out that even medical abortions are non-trivial. Few women understand vacuum aspiration is about 29 times more powerful than a home vacuum and wrongly applied can suction out their intestines if the uterine wall is ruptured. This is why failed medical (drug) abortions are delayed until a later stage. Further, at 12 weeks when most vacuum aspiration procedures are performed, the end result is a visibly shredded human being.
Few know why abortions are performed at 12 weeks and not earlier or later.
Earlier abortions do not provide enough of a visible signature of the child on an ultrasound through a normal abdominal transducer to allow the abortionist to accurately collect his target.
After week 15 gestation, the fetal bones calcify and the risk of uterine puncture increases dramatically. Vacuum aspiration usage must be assisted with forceps.
If you'd like to talk about a nightmare situation - imagine being cornered, unable to move or break free, while an industrial robot with a heavy duty vacuum worked quickly to break your arms off, suction your intestines out and crush your skull.
The only thing close to this kind of violence is Saddam Hussein's sadistic sons throwing people whole body into tree shredders.
I've reached the conclusion that people who defend such abortion procedures, knowing the full humanity of the unborn, are insane.
Haha, I thought you'd like that, Kelsey. :)
I think it's a really important distincition, especially because Dr. Nathansan has admitted that the early NARAL group framed the issue against the Catholic Church so that it would be viewed as just some religious thing.
I do think that religion has a place in the discussion if you're talking to other Christians, but there are certainly very strong secular arguments against abortion, and your group does a great job explaining them!Posted by: Lauren at May 22, 2010 10:24 AM
"I've reached the conclusion that people who defend such abortion procedures, knowing the full humanity of the unborn, are insane."
I agree Chris. Either insane or possessed. Or both.
Posted by: Praxedes
at May 22, 2010 10:28 AM
Hi Kelsey 10:15am
LOL. Where are the seperation of church and state police when Democrat politicians are campaigning in black churches?
This "concern" for seperation of church and state is highly selective.
Ask these folks this question: Should Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have kept silent on the issue of civil rights? You know, that ordained minister who led the civil rights movement? Yeah him.
Whenever I vote in my town it is always at a church.
Where is the ACLU?? :)
Back on topic.Posted by: carla at May 22, 2010 10:41 AM
I think the question should have been
Some common FACTS about abortion. That would be the OPPOSITE of # 4, 6, 7 and 10.
"But when women's actual experiences go against your ideology, suddenly you don't care so much about women's voices."
This is so true.
If every state had a doctor willing to do late-term abortions, then yes, women could have legal abortions on demand in every state at any stage of pregnancy, as long as they came up with some type of "health" reason, which could include "having a baby would stress me out". Kelsey's right about Doe v. Bolton. The thing is, you can't force doctors to learn how to do late-term abortions or agree to do late-term abortions. It's like how prostitution is legal in licensed Nevada brothels, but you can't walk into a licensed brothel and demand that an unwilling prostitute have sex with you because it's legal.
Some of my least-favorite pro-abortion myths are that pro-lifers are all opposed to contraception, or all think sex before marriage is a sin, or all have religious beliefs, or are all opposed to homosexuality. That, and how women who had abortions before Roe v. Wade were supposedly dying grisly deaths in enormous numbers.Posted by: Marauder at May 22, 2010 10:59 AM
Myth #3 Abortion is an act of responsibility.
Response: Clearly the author at Ms. blog considers it a responsibility to refute abortion myths. However, if the humanity of the unborn is demonstrated, then every other question regarding responsibility is raised, and so exposes the lie in the myth.
Abortion denies responsibility, because it actively destroys the essence of humanity - the flesh and blood of a human being. It severs the relationship with the child and may isolate the other sexual party - the mother or father. When both are in agreement regarding abortion, both shun their responsibility towards the child they conceived.
Where else in humanity do we find a responsibility fulfilled by performing violent acts of destruction upon innocent human beings in order to deny their future effect? That's perverse.
Laws are put in place as a reminder of our responsibilities to one another, being enforced by the consent of the governed. Okay - take the approximately 50 million Americans aborted since 1973 and subtract the last 18 years worth. Approximately 23 million Americans of voter age are missing. They weren't given a future voice. Would they have consented?
If you're killed now, your effect on the future is radically altered. If you were weak, innocent and defenseless, then obliteration of you would be unconscionable. We have a responsibility to be just and merciful to each other. Roe vs Wade denied the consent of the governed, and continues to cast a pall over every aspect of life associated with this horrible practice.
Attempting to cast abortion as an act of responsibility for current lives and future generations is a perversion of the very meaning of the word.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 22, 2010 11:22 AM
Abortion Myth #4: Making abortion illegal will increase the number of abortions occurring.
Response: Quite simply, this is a guess presented as fact. There is no substantive evidence to support this idea, nor is there any way to test it.
On a related note, this does assume women are pretty much all reckless and lawless.
Abortion Myth #5: Prior to Roe and Doe thousands of women died in illegal "back alley" abortion procedures, and if those cases are overturned, thousands more will die.
Response: The first part of this myth (women died in droves from illegal abortions prior to Roe) is a complete lie, made up out of whole cloth. In 1972, one year prior to Roe, thirty-nine women died from illegal abortion procedures. Not thousands. Not even hundreds. Thirty-nine. Even pro-choicers admit that the numbers in which these deaths are reported is outright ludicrous and that most illegal abortion procedures were performed by board certified physicians in good standing, and in sterile hospital rooms. There is simply no reason to believe this has ever been true.
The second part of this myth (thousands of women will die if Roe is repealed) is, like myth 3, a complete guess. Unlike myth 3, though, there is plenty of evidence on the subject, all of which suggests that in the event of Roe being repealed, this scenario is vanishingly unlikely.Posted by: Keli Hu at May 22, 2010 11:40 AM
I'll add to Chris's excellent list:
Myth #4: Legalizing abortion didn't increase abortions; it just made sure those abortions performed were done safely and legally. (It increased abortions astronomically, and didn't do squat to reduce maternal mortality.)
Myth #5: Women only have abortions for compelling reasons, especially abortions later in pregnancy. (Women tend to have abortions for one reason: normal early pregnancy ambivalence and panic. This is a temporary and self-limiting condition, much like the itch from poison ivy, and it makes no more sense to "treat" it with abortion than it does to "treat" a poison ivy rash by amputating the affected limb.)
Myth #6: The only women who suffer regret or other negative emotional fallout after abortions are women who were fruit loops to begin with or who have been brainwashed by antichoice propaganda. (It's probably more accurate to say that the only women who DON'T suffer regret or other negative emotional fallout after abortions are psychopathic and self-centered bitches. Even "prochoice" women often report great anguish following their abortions. Read Sue Nathanson's "Soul Crisis" for one example.)
Myth #7: You can always have another baby later, when you're ready. (Not if you end up sterile as a result. Or suffer miscarriages due to abortion damage. Or just never end up pregnant again, which happens for unknown reasons in a percentage of women.)
Myth #8: Abortion typically improves women's lives by allowing them to increase their education and income, thus improving the lives of their future children. (Abortion increases the woman's -- and thus her future children's -- risk of poverty.)
Myth #9: "Don't like abortions? Don't have one." (Abortion advocates like to boast about how many anti-abortion women panic and end up on the abortion table themselves. Women get browbeaten or coerced into abortions. Doctors lie to women to get them to consent to abortions. This myth is one that just makes my blood boil.)
Myth #10: Women are prochoice; only men are opposed to abortion. (Women are more likely to be prolife than prochoice; the reverse is true for men. Women are more POLARIZED, meaning that a "prochoice" woman is far more vehemently in favor of abortion rights than a typical "prochoice" man, and a prolife woman is likewise likely to be far more vehemently prolife than a prolife man.)Posted by: Christina at May 22, 2010 11:52 AM
10) Abortion is pro-woman
9) Handicapped children are better off; they would have had a poor quality of life.
8) Abortion is a settled matter and thus should not be debated.
7) For the health of the mother
6) Abortion has no lasting consequences.
5) If abortion were in any way restricted, we'd see oceans of back alleys with bloody dead women.
4) People don't need to see the pictures of what they are doing to make an informed decision.
3) Genetic screening is done just for informational purposes.
2) The People at Planned Parenthood are happy if you decide not to abort or at least not unhappy.
1)If your basis for being pro-life is religous, your opinion does not matter.
Lauren wrote that one pro-abortion myth is that "opposition to abortion is a matter of religion and thus subject to 'separation of church and state.'"
Lauren likely already knows that I strongly disagree with her:
(1) Opposition to abortion is indeed a matter of religion. That's because opposition to murder is a matter of religion. Life is religion. Everything we think, say, and do happens before the face of the omniscient God whether we like it or not. In Europe, where secular humanism is still the dominant religion (though Mohamedism is expanding rapidly), some countries have become accepting of infanticide. Its proponents don't question the humanity of the victim; they merely argue that he was doomed to a poor quality of life. The Christian Church, of course, contends that he has special protection from God because of an original resemblance to God.
(2) However, a matter of religion is not necessarily subject to the "separation of church and state."
(a) First of all, separation of church and state is not the same thing as separation of religion and state. Until secular humanism took over and devised such nonsense as the equality of all religions--masking itself as science to conveniently exclude itself from the realm of religion--Christianity was the American religion. Separation of church and state meant disestablishmentarianism, not that "in God we do not trust." England had the Anglican church, Germany had the Lutherans, many other countries were still Roman Catholic, but the United States of America have no state church.
(b) It's the job of the state to punish evil deeds, but it's the job of the church to bring every thought captive to Christ. Abortion is an act, a deed.
(c) The punishing of evil presupposes morality, and morality is rooted in religion. There may be such a thing as natural law--we are all indeed born with a conscience--but that conscience can become so horribly seared that an actual inversion of morality occurs. We've seen that in animistic societies, e.g. treachery as the highest virtue in New Guinea, as well as our own, e.g. the inventions of "sexual orientation" and "gay marriage." So I think that one's religion determines one's morality. And the American criminal code was founded upon Judeo-Christian morality.
Therefore, one abortion myth is that "opposition to abortion is subject to the 'separation of church and state' because it is a matter of religion."Posted by: Jon at May 22, 2010 12:16 PM
I replied on there under the same name I reply on here. I did my best to refute the myth that we pro-lifers don't care about women (the MS Blogger person accused BAW--a pro-life commenter that they "obviously didn't care about women"--I thought that was baloney).
My post came out rather long, but I provided information on Crisis Pregancy Centers and Rachel's Vineyard.Posted by: Mother In Texas at May 22, 2010 12:55 PM
See, this is what made me become pro-life. The MS list of abortion "myths" aren't myths at all.
One thing I cannot understand at all....There are thousands upon thousands of women who have been hurt and scarred by abortion. And yet abortion advocates ignore them, and even deny that abortion had any negative impact on them. If they are feeling guilt or any negative repercussions, they claim it is just from "anti-choice propaganda."
How does this help women? How can you claim to be feminist, and then deny women the help and care they are demanding?
All of those "myths" pertaining to biology are not myths at all. The science is irrefutable. To be sure, pro-aborts really just look stupid.Posted by: MaryLee at May 22, 2010 1:06 PM
There are religious *aspects* to abortion, but you can be a pagan, Wiccan, atheist, etc., and still manage to grasp, "Pick on somebody your own size."
And there are people who make abortion their religion, though they seem to be a subset of the people for whom sex is a religion.Posted by: Christina at May 22, 2010 1:44 PM
The myth that increased contraception reduces abortion, see http://kansansforlife.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/the-myth-that-increased-contraception-reduces-abortion/Posted by: topekaprolife at May 22, 2010 2:14 PM
Abortion Myth: Prochoicers support a woman's right to privacy and freedom to make decisions with her health care provider free of government intrusion. Proaborts disproved their own myth when they came out in support of Obamacare, which:
1-Grants federal bureaucrats access to every woman's medical record
2-Mandates the sharing of every woman's medical and treatment history with other health care providers and contractors without her consent to the sharing of that information
3-Requires the IRS to report every woman's household income to her (and, if she is married, her spouse's) employer
4-Penalizes providers for noncompliance with federal protocols for care, even when the deviation is due to the woman's own wishes regarding her treatment or her physician's best judgment regarding the care she needs
5-Requires every woman to purchase insurance coverage determined by the feds to be acceptable, thereby taking away her freedom to purchase the coverage she believes to be most affordable with the most flexible benefits to meet her (and her family's) health care needs
For abortion to cease, radical, drastic changes must be made to the attitudes society has about sexuality and to the personhood of a fetus, and to each individual woman's reasons for facing that choice.
If we focused more on promoting the science of human fetal development in as many ways possible, instead chanting novenas and praying rosaries; similarly, we should push to having more profoundly detailed science of human fetal development taught in the science classes of schools, starting with the earliest ages.
Anyone who thinks ALL women get abortions because she's a selfish, baby-hating bitch...well, dispense with that erroneous notion. Not all women are careless vixens who use abortion as birth control (though I'm sure those women exist, trying to emulate Miranda from Sex in the City...bleh); sometimes when a woman chooses abortion, its because she's been backed into a corner in which she feels abortion is the only option, or a very wanted pregnancy turns into a horrible decision she is forced to make. People need to be more understanding of women's reasons for getting abortion, more compassionate.
To stop abortion, we must have a society in which every child conceived must be a child that can be afforded by its mother. This is one of the Holy Grails of the pro-abortion camp, that not all women can afford to have more than a certain number of children, which is certainly TRUE. We must also take better care of children in foster care systems, so those mothers who make the choice of life can give up their children into a place where it will be cared for with the greatest of care, until that child is adopted; not every child in the system will be adopted as an infant either, so more people need to be willing to adopt a child that is much older than the preferred infancy.
In addition, certain uppity people need to cease looking down their noses at single mothers. I think I heard Abby Johnson say at a banquet that 1 in 3 Christian women get abortion. Why? Because some Christians (not all) get all high and mighty horses about chastity and abstinence, and treat with scorn and disdain a single woman who is pregnant, because she obviously sinned and had sex before marriage. Self-righteous imbeciles like that need to STOP IT. If a woman is single and pregnant, you should only be thankful she chose life, instead of getting abortion to avoid that self-righteous disdain of her oh-SO-virtuous Christian peers. I and quite a few friends of mine have personally dealt with this ridiculous form of religious righteousness, from people who call themselves Catholic and pro-life. Its disgusting.
And don't get me started on how the attitudes about sexuality need to be changed....so many pregnancies wouldn't happen, if we lived in a society that didn't promote and condone a promiscuous, hedonistic, 'if it feels good, DO IT, you deserve to!' mentality.
Simply making it illegal and legislating restrictions will do SQUAT. Nada. Saying 'oh, killing a baby, thats wrong!' is not going to change the reasons women feel like they need abortion. Which is probably why we are still having this battle.
....look, these myths got me ranting. I'll stop now.Posted by: Stephanie at May 22, 2010 3:57 PM
Hey, you know what else would help, Stephanie? If pro-aborts stopped lying all the time. If pro-aborts actually offered services and help to women who don't want to abort. If pro-aborts seemed to care more about the value of all life, instead of believing babies should die because of arbitrary reasons. If pro-aborts stopped blaming pro-lifers for the mess they've created.Posted by: MaryLee at May 22, 2010 4:01 PM
I made my own poster out of that "Excuse me America, this is Tissue, and This is not'.
Humans give birth to humans and have since civilization began. That is FACT.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 22, 2010 4:01 PM
"Simply making it illegal and legislating restrictions will do SQUAT."
Another Myth by an AntiLifer.Posted by: Praxedes at May 22, 2010 4:54 PM
@ Praxedes, if you had read my entire comment or glanced at my blog, you would see that I am prolife. Abortion is illegal in Ireland and the Philipnes, but they happen. Abortion was illegal in Britain in the 40's and 50's, but the work of Vera Drake ensured that abortion happened. Abortion was illegal in the 1900's in America because of the tireless work of Anthony Comstock and his Vice Laws, yet Madame Restell continued her dirty work of abortion, making a fortune from the lives of innocents and rich people who wanted to hide their daughters and mistresses sexual activity.
See why I said that?Posted by: Stephanie at May 22, 2010 6:10 PM
OOps. Sorry Stephanie. My bad. I still think making abortion illegal will decrease the number of abortions. It would also sends the message that we don't condone murder.
Just because something will still happen if it is illegal, does not mean it should remain so.Posted by: Praxedes at May 22, 2010 7:48 PM
There are so many pies of abortion, but the biggest one is simply that a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her "body".
We have many laws that restrict what we can and can't do with our "bodies". If we could do whatever we wanted with our bodies, we would live in anarchy.
We can't use our bodies to murder, steal, prostitute, use illegal drugs, drive drunk, etc. etc.
In a civilized society, we must control what we do with our bodies.Posted by: Allie at May 22, 2010 9:46 PM
whoops, I meant lies of abortion. typo. :)Posted by: Allie at May 22, 2010 9:56 PM
The one that I sometimes have trouble answering is when the pro-aborts say that there would be too many children and no one would adopt them, esp. the disabled/drug/fetal alcohol syndrome babies. A variation on this is the pro-abort claim that not enough is being done to financially help the girls who have been convinced by pro-lifers to keep their babies.Posted by: Debra at May 22, 2010 10:18 PM
"Anyone who thinks ALL women get abortions because she's a selfish, baby-hating bitch...well, dispense with that erroneous notion. Not all women are careless vixens who use abortion as birth control..."
That's very similar to our experiences with Rachel members. I'm grateful for your approach, Stephanie, and will check out your blog. Seems to offer a lot to learn and ponder!
I'll be candid, Stephanie, you sound far too compassionate, interesting, intelligent, informed, prayerful, practical, and realistic for this forum which is essentially a sanctuary for extremists. As you may imagine, they are desperately fighting now more than ever for their livelihood, pride and external locus of control.
They can't be confused with the quality laden faithful immersed in hands-on ministry. Thus, there's a stunning disconnect from facts, realities and the common Catholic's mindset and beliefs (deemed to be non-Catholic and even Protestant). Plus you have a sense of humor, saving grace aka 8th Gift of the Holy Spirit to others, which is not tolerated in this deprived tunnel.
Just trying to spare or prepare you for insults which will undoubtedly be unleashed upon you by 'real & true Catholics'. Sounds like you can take it, but fyi there's hardly knowledge or new understanding to be gained here. It is beneficial for research purposes, though, and sadly validates the worst stereotypes.
Both stereotypes and myths have an element of truth in them, otherwise they would never survive the test of time. They would die out as do all things eventually of nil relevance to current civilization. It's akin to the rule of humor, if there's not a shred of truth in the joke it's not funny.
I do hope relaying this counts as a simple spiritual act of mercy! Happy Pentecost!Posted by: Sensus Fidei at May 22, 2010 10:31 PM
BIG MYTH: Science says it isn't human. Actually, we say the embryo and fetus ARE!!!Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 22, 2010 10:41 PM
Thanks so much Gerard for your wonderful links. Your writings are so educational to me and my family.
Peace be with you.Posted by: Praxedes at May 22, 2010 11:17 PM
I feel the same about all of your incisive commentary. I'm happy to pass along the information. Our efforts are already bearing fruit, and will continue to do so. Praise God.
My best to you and your family :-)Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 22, 2010 11:55 PM
I concur with all of the suggestions above. Here are some others to take into consideration that kind of add to some of the ones that were above.
I think that the myth that abortion is, "the most fundamental right of women, without which all other rights are meaningless," should be on the list as well. I'm sorry, but we're not going to lose our freedom, our right to religious freedom, our right to life, our right to property, our right to have a family, our right to vote, our right to make our own decisions, our right to an education, our right to equal employment, etc. We most definitely will NOT lose "bodily autonomy", as they believe so strongly. In fact, we'll gain bodily autonomy if abortion is outlawed.
The myth that abortion helps women needs to be on there. It doesn't help women, it hurts them.
The myth that you have to adopt an 8 year-old, severely disabled child who was born as a crack baby, in order to believe that abortion should be outlawed. I've had people tell me that unless I do so NOW, TODAY, even being a poor college student living with my parents, that I have no right believe that abortion should be outlawed. I've had friends fight me tooth and nail about this, even though it's not true. Babies get adopted, even crack babies and disabled babies, but that doesn't diminish the amount of children that go into foster care. Adopting those children will do nothing for the babies either. They are mutually exclusive issues because of the amount of people looking for a baby to raise as their own, not a grown child who already has an unknown past.
Another myth: that pro-"choicers" believe in a woman's right to choose. Whenever there's a girl who decides she's going to have her baby, "choicers" rail-road the girl into an abortion. Whenever a family has more than 3 kids, they tell the family that they have no right to bring that amount of children into the world since the world's resources "can't take it" (another big myth), and because there are so many children in the foster system. If a child will be born with a disability, they tell that mother that they are placing an undue burden on the child, themselves, and society. None of that is choice. That's out-right force. That's guilt-inducing, abusive force, and it's not right.Posted by: Amy at May 23, 2010 1:10 AM
"I'll be candid, Stephanie, you sound far too compassionate, interesting, intelligent, informed, prayerful, practical, and realistic for this forum which is essentially a sanctuary for extremists. . . .They can't be confused with the quality laden faithful immersed in hands-on ministry."
Sensus Fidei, I was willing to defend you before when I thought you'd been misunderstood. Maybe I was wrong about you, because this is the most insulting and condescending thing I've ever read on this site from a fellow Catholic. I have lost count of the different types of "hands-on ministry" the stalwarts of this forum are engaging in in favor of others, especially the unborn.
Yes, we all know how great you think you are with your own "hands-on ministry." You've bragged about it enough here. (Hey, ever read that Bible story about the Pharisee and the tax collector? Ever wonder which one you resemble more?)
Even if the people here disagree with you about something, there is no reason to denigrate them with such falsehoods. You are certainly not acting like the great Christian you claim to be. I can only pray you didn't really mean this.
Some facts: A woman has a greater chance of drowning in her bathtub than dying from an abortion. That is,unless, she lives in a country where abortion is illegal. Then there's a great risk of dying from a botched illegal abortion.
Every year in poor countries where abortion is illegal, thousands and thousands of women die this way.
Only a tiny handful of women have died from legal abortions since Roe v Wade. There is some risk in any surgical procedure, such as heart surgery or whatever. Far more people die in various forms of surgery or other medical prcedures than die in abortions.
Abortion was very common in America before Roe v Wade, and yes, a lot more women died or were seriously harmed than anti-choicers are willing to admit.
There is some risk of dangerous side effects with contracpetives, but this is true of virtually any pill people take for various reasons,including people who oppose abortion.
Countless women have taken birth control pills over the years with absolutely no ill effects.
The premise that we would have 50 million more people in America today without Roe v Wade is absolutely false. If abortion had remained officially illegal, there still would have been a great many abortions, some of those pregnancies would have ended in miscarriages anyway,and some if born would have died anyway from a variety of reasons.
There is absolutely no evidence that child abuse has increased since Roe v Wade, nor that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer,or that all or even most women who have abortions suffer emotional trauma or other physical and mental effects.
Some women may have emotional problems from abortion, but they can always get counseling and psychiatric help.
Many women who have had abortions have been able to give birth to normal healthy children later.
Every time a nation has made abortion illegal, the number of abortions has increased significantly,as well as the number of women dying from illegal ones.This is a fact.
When abortion was made illegal by Ceausescu in Romania, the maternal death rate in that country increased 700 per cent.
Fact: there is absolutely no way to enforce laws against abortion.This is absolutely futile.
In Brazil, the world's largest Catholic nation and which officially prohibits them, far more occur every year than in the US.
Fact: The only way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to decrease poverty as much as possible, and to provide more help to poor pregnant women and their families.
European countries such as the Netherlands,Belgium,Germany,France,Switzerland,Austria and the Scandinavian countries have the world's lowest abortion rate, because there is far less poverty here,people have the sense to use contraceptives, and there is a secure safety net for people,
The poorer countries of Eastern Europe,which used to be in the Soviet Bloc have much higher abortion rates.
"I think I heard Abby Johnson say at a banquet that 1 in 3 Christian women get abortion. Why? Because some Christians (not all) get all high and mighty horses about chastity and abstinence, and treat with scorn and disdain a single woman who is pregnant, because she obviously sinned and had sex before marriage."
In my experience, the hard-core pro-lifers aren't like that. The Christians and Republicans who are casually pro-life but aren't involved with anti-abortion activism are. My friend who had a baby out of wedlock (dad was a total scumbag, bad situation) confirmed this. Hard-core pro-lifers supported her when she WANTED to have the baby.
She actually said the most judgmental people were not religious/pro-life types, but friends and family members who thought she was "throwing her career away" and being "irresponsible" by having a baby with no father around.Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 23, 2010 10:03 AM
Just basing this on women I know, you know who was most likely to pressure them into an abortion? Their mothers. I'm college educated and come from an upper-middle-class background, and of the women I know who have had abortions, the pressure mostly came from family members, especially moms, who didn't want them to ruin their educations, ruin future careers, or miss out on meeting a successful husband by having a baby out of wedlock. I knew a few who weren't sure about the abortion, but got one because they couldn't bear the thought of telling their parents.Posted by: Ashley Herzog at May 23, 2010 10:09 AM
Ashley, sadly that has been my experience as well.
My pro-choice mother told me in highschool that if I were to get pregnant, she would either force me to have an abortion, or kick me out of the house.
Thankfully, I never experienced either since I never got pregnant, but the threat was very real.
Now, when I did get pregnant and it looked like my child might have severe disabilities, she was right there pressuring me to abort, ready with personal case studies.Posted by: Lauren at May 23, 2010 10:41 AM
My mom's pro-abortion too. Not just pro-choice: she's rattled off a long list of scenarios where she thinks abortion would be the acceptable choice. I just wonder how many women abort because of family pressure, or out of fear of telling the parents.
"In Brazil, the world's largest Catholic nation and which officially prohibits them, far more occur every year than in the US."
Remember how every time you say this I ask you for the actual scholarly paper that came up with this statistic and all you say to me is "google it" then I say "I have, and I can't find the actual scholarly source (as opposed to hype on the internet)"?
Seriously, even if this is true your argument is still bad, but out of scholarly curiosity I would like to know how this number about the incidents of abortions in Brazil was estimated. So seriously, unless you can give a real source, stop saying this.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 23, 2010 10:55 AM
You're definitely one of the more reasonable ones, Ashley.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 23, 2010 10:59 AM
Agreed, Bobby.Posted by: Lauren at May 23, 2010 11:12 AM
for Robert Berger to compare with his "facts":
Why has Poland made such strides in improving both maternal and infant health? Certainly not by spending a lot of money on “reproductive health services,” to use the preferred euphemism. Poland is a poor country, much poorer than either Canada or its immediate European neighbours. The money simply isn’t there for any lavish program to improve maternal and infant health. The only change that could have produced such a dramatic improvement is the documented decline in the induced abortion rate.
Since 1989, Poland has virtually banned induced abortion. According to official statistics, the annual legal abortion rate has plummeted from well over 100,000 in the 1980s to a few hundred in the 1990s, and that very low rate has been maintained up to the present. There is little evidence of a widespread resort to illegal abortion, nor have significant numbers of Polish women gone to other countries seeking abortions.
Interestingly, the only other European country where abortion is illegal — Ireland — also boasts very low maternal mortality. By comparison, countries where abortion is completely legal — the United States and Poland’s immediate neighbours, Russia and Hungary — have much higher maternal and infant death rates.
(from a National Post article by Ian Gentles posted on the Full Comment blog on February 5, "Lessons on 'Reproductive Health' from Europe")Posted by: Jon at May 23, 2010 12:36 PM
Fact: there is absolutely no way to enforce laws against abortion.This is absolutely futile.
Isn't it interesting that Mr Berger makes this claim and then cites countries with more restrictive laws than the US as having lower abortion rates?
Got any evidence, Mr Berger, that it is income level and contraceptive use that accounts for difference in abortion rates and not the laws of each nation?Posted by: Fed Up at May 23, 2010 12:39 PM
Okay, Ashley is winning my Favorite Pro-Choicer Award of the day (or maybe the year). We still don't agree on whether abortion should be legal, but she can come here and be civil, acknowledge the extremists, and acknowledge that there are women who feel pressured into abortion. Yay. :)Posted by: Marauder at May 23, 2010 1:27 PM
The reason the countries with more restrictive laws about abortion have lower abortion rates is because there is far less poverty and inequality of income there,and there is a secure safety net for people.
If the USA could become more like these countries and see to it that people were more secure throughout life,there would be far fewer abortions here.But it doesn't.
But it's absolutely true.Poor nations which do not permit abortion have extremely high abortion rates and every day,many poor women die from botched illegal abortions.
You can be absolutely sure that if the US government returns to the laws of the pre Roe v Wade era,abortion rates will increase markedly,and far more women will either die or be seriously hurt than the present day.
If this nation is to do anything about abortion, it must create conditions in society which women are far less likely to seek and obtain abortions.
But this is more easily said than done.
Merely making it illegal again would be not only extremely counterproductive, but terribly dangerous.
Sorry if someone has already posted this and I just missed it, but Ms. posted 10 more "myths about abortion" if you are interested. I've posted a few rebuttals to the "myths" that upset me the most; feel free to add on to or critique my arguements.
11: Yes, many women in 3rd world countries die from illegal abortions. But I imagine it would make little difference if abortion was legal. Women in poor countries also die at much higher rates than Western women during childbirth...and they also die from malaria and AIDS and so on. The issue is the standard of living, not the legality of abortion. Consider a wealthy country where abortion is illegal...how many Irish women die from illegal abortion? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I can't find any numbers, but I would say it is close to 0. I'm sure if Irish women were dying, we would be hearing about it from the abortion-rights movement. Yes, many go to England for abortions, but many do not, for various reasons (they cannot afford it, etc.)
15: The author attempts to refute the fact that abortions can cause infertility by stating that a "safe, uncomplicated abortion should not affect a woman’s ability to have children in the future." Well, duh. The issue is that many abortions ARE unsafe and do have complications. It is just common sense: sticking an extremely powerful vacuum in a woman's private parts may cause some problems.
17: I agree with her that adoption should be about finding homes for children in need, not creating kids to be adopted. However, the solution is NOT to kill fetuses because there is a chance they may not be adopted. Pro-choicers try to make themselves seem humane by claiming a baby may have a terrible life if it is allowed to live. But we wouldn't walk into an orphanage and gun down those children, so why should we kill pre-born children for the same reasons? Furthermore, many pro-lifers DO adopt children. And you don't have to adopt kids to believe it is wrong to kill them. I do not plan on adopting any Iraqi children in the near future, but it is still wrong for others to kill them.
19: Obviously many people are "personally" against abortion but indifferent toward whether or not other women choose abortion, but that is hardly a virtue. "Choice" is a marketing slogan for the abortion-rights movement, and is has become so deeply ingrained in the debate that many people don't even think about what it means. I am not against the choice to kill fetuses, I'm just against killing fetuses...likewise, I'm not anti-choice when it comes to killing toddlers, I'm just against killing toddlers.Posted by: Adair at May 23, 2010 5:38 PM
RB-- you are completely illogical and spouting off insane comments. Making abortion illegal will not cut down on the number of abortions? What a joke! That's like saying making murder illegal won't cut down on the number of murders. Of course something being illegal, no matter what it is, cuts on on the amount it is committed! Every one of yuor arguments fails any kind of logic test and you give absolutely no "evidence" to back up any of your "facts". I personally think you made all of this stuff up thinking pro-lifers are too stupid to actually know the difference. If America is so bad and we make it so impossible for women to raise children, then why don't you move to one of those other wonderful countries you named? Grow up!Posted by: Allie at May 23, 2010 5:53 PM
I can attest personally to being coerced into abortion. I was 18, just starting college, living on my own, working full time and wound up pregnant. I was advised by many to have an abortion and told things like my life was over, etc. etc. I know it sounds like a cliche' but this really happened to me. Abortion was everyone's easy answer to the horrible situation of a baby growing inside of me. Now who was advising abortion you might wonder? It was NOT my peers; they were all supportive. It was the supposed "adults" in my life. My supposed "mentors" with their wisdom of the world. How horrific! These women that I looked up to had no problem telling me to kill my child, so I could finish college and have a better career. Well, that was 19 years ago and now my son is a senior in high school. I never once regretted not taking their "advice".Posted by: Allie at May 23, 2010 6:04 PM
Robert Berger, you're hopeless. Did you even read my excerpt of the National Post article "Lessons on 'Reproductive Health' from Europe" before posting a reply? Poland is a very poor country; the United States of America are rich. Poland has virtually banned abortion; the United States of America have abortion on demand. Abortion rates in Poland have plummeted since the banning of abortion there, and women don't travel out of the country to have abortions or get them illegally.Posted by: Jon at May 23, 2010 6:06 PM
By the way, the main point of the February "Lessons on 'Reproductive Health' from Europe" National Post article is to contradict the pro-abortion myth that abortion is safe for the mother and future siblings. (Never mind that it always kills the unwanted child.) Here's another excerpt from Ian Gentles's article:
Since the fall of Poland’s communist regime, maternal mortality in that country has plunged by more than 75%. Infant mortality is down by almost two-thirds, and the rate of premature births has dropped by well over a half. The reduction in premature births is important because premature children are prone to all sorts of medical and social afflictions. Perhaps the most serious of these is a much greater chance of being born with cerebral palsy than full-term babies
Why has Poland made such strides in improving both maternal and infant health? ....Since 1989, Poland has virtually banned induced abortion. According to official statistics, the annual legal abortion rate has plummeted from well over 100,000 in the 1980s to a few hundred in the 1990s, and that very low rate has been maintained up to the present.
(from a National Post article by Ian Gentles posted on the Full Comment blog on February 5, "Lessons on 'Reproductive Health' from Europe")Posted by: Jon at May 23, 2010 6:27 PM
Myth # 8, 9, and 10 are my favorite.
Myth #8: Honestly, if you don't want a child USE CONTRACEPTIVES or, the fool proof technique: ABSTINENCE!!!
Myth #9: Not a myth. I know 2 women who have told me (not knowing my stance on the issue) that they have had multiple abortions (one had 4!!) because of "accidents"... let's just say, my response was no fun for them.
Myth #10: That one is another false "myth". It's true, and every regular in here knows it. I know that not EVERY woman suffers from that, but many women do.
This myth list is, for lack of a better term, a load of crap.Posted by: Desteny Boodt at May 23, 2010 6:55 PM
Just one question on bodily integrity for PCG:
What types of abortion do you plan to perform? Almost all of them violate the bodily integrity of the unborn and their right to life. Are you planning to only perform abortions in which the fetal human being is removed intact? If so, what happens if the newborn baby (once he or she is born, everyone seems to think he or she is called a baby, regardless of gestational age) moves, breathes, etc.? Will you stuff him or her in a biohazard sack? Wrap him or her in a blanket? Stab him or her with medical instrumentation? Is that baby then a separate person with rights? Or does his or her mother deserve the dead baby he or she paid for?
Even if you do plan to violate the bodily integrity of, say, an unborn child at 26 weeks, what if things go "wrong" and he or she is born? Have you thought about what you would do? Does it matter then how that baby was conceived? Why or why not?
What justification do you use if you plan to shred the fetus before or in order to remove it? Why would the right to bodily integrity of the fetus, even if secondary to that of the mother, demand some degree of respect?Posted by: ycw at May 23, 2010 7:14 PM
Whenever pro-aborts "argue" their case, I just a bunch of excuses. It all boils down to "But I WANT to kill my baby and you can't stop me."
The truth is, women have been the victims of oppression. In many cultures, women still ARE victims of oppression. But what is abortion? Abortion tells women: "Might makes right. Those who are weaker than you have less value. Dispose of your children and take what you want." It teaches women to kill their own---and to CELEBRATE that killing---in order to achieve what they believe they deserve. I will never, ever, ever understand how we got to this point. Ever. It is indefensible, inexcusable, violent, demeaning, and horrifying....not only for the babies, but for women. As a woman, I do not believe for a SECOND that the linchpin to my freedom is the "right" to kill my own baby. The linchpin to my freedom is EDUCATION, true education. I demand equality....not SAMENESS. Not defeminization. Equality. Abortion does not help women, it does not help anyone. It just teaches women to destroy something in order to get what they want. You'd think we'd know better by now.Posted by: MaryLee at May 23, 2010 8:16 PM
The reason the countries with more restrictive laws about abortion have lower abortion rates is because there is far less poverty and inequality of income there,and there is a secure safety net for people.
Posted by: Robert Berger at May 23, 2010 5:35 PM
Do you have any data to back up your claim that restrictive laws have no impact on abortion rates and that rates are soley due to income levels and "safety nets?"Posted by: Fed Up at May 23, 2010 8:22 PM
Looks like my comment didn't get posted on the MS Blog. Oh well. Maybe computer glitch.Posted by: Mother In Texas at May 24, 2010 1:50 AM
"Abortion is/should be safe, legal, and rare"
It is not rare. It is not safe. It should not be legal.
I think safe and legal have been covered, but not sure about rare--don't remember. Not to mention the contortions involved in pro-choice-to-dismember-one's-own-unborn-offspring persons saying abortion should be rare.Posted by: ycw at May 24, 2010 8:37 AM
If abortion is such a necessary evil and poor women should legally be allowed to kill their soon to be poor children WHY SHOULD ABORTION BE RARE???
Mary, you are right aboult the black churches. The ministers openly endorse candidates and no one says anything about it. This is one reason why I am turned off by them; I stopped going long ago. Privately the ministers will tell you they're prolife and then endorse all these extremely pro-abort Dems. There are a few that are consistently prolife, but they are rare. In big cities, the black churches are basically the religious arm of the Democratic party.
There is an organization here called Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity and they do it all the time. After Obama won, this group sent out a letter to be read at all the black churches. Can you imagine if a group called White Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity supported McCain? What a double standard!
Meanwhile, my Catholic prolife friends have to be a certain number of feet from the church to pass out literature or prolife information. No offense to the many Catholics here, but this is pretty wimpy.Posted by: phillymiss at May 24, 2010 9:13 AM
Abortion is inevitable whether it is legal or not. You cannot stop it,period.Comparing it to murder,something which of course should be illegal is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Abortion is not done out of malice,unlike murder.
It's a tragedy,not a crime.But being born is often a far greater tragedy than being aborted.
That's why,in order to prevent abortions, it's necessary to crate conditions in society where women will be far less likely to seek and obtain them.
A pregnant woman who has the means to provide for that child is much less likely to have an abortion.
This hasn't been done in America, so abortion is still common.Conservative politicians have failed utterly to create such conditions. Therefore, THEY are responsible for the high abortion rate in this country,not pro-choice politicians.
FYI, a faithful is in dire catechetical need... please consider doing a corporal work of mercy... such as sending your posts with doctrines and key passages highlighted.
Re: Sister McBride
"After the incident, Phoenix television station KTVK spoke with Peggy Sherman, an employee at a Catholic bookstore. “[Abortion] is not what we believe, and I don’t think it’s ever okay. I think there’s always an option," she argued. “As in any rule, the more exceptions that you make, the more problems you have. If it’s made for one person, then you make it for six, and these are the rules of the church."
These sans theological quotes make me cringe. Sad to read the faith knowledge bar isn't the highest at this particular Catholic bookstore especially in a time of extreme catechetical need.
PS... phillymiss... ((((hugs)))))... imagining your pain likewise when the Grand Jury report came out on AOP... talk about double standards and hypocrisy in the highest degree.Posted by: Sensus Fidei at May 24, 2010 11:19 AM
We can continue to work for the day when abortion is illegal AND unthinkable. The pendulum is swinging back and the young people aren't buying the lies anymore.
Why do you hate poor people so much? Why can't you offer them something more than the killing of their own children? How about some hope, Mr. Berger??
I love when poor people tell people like you to shove it. They will have their babies and love them and overcome without your two cents, Mr. Berger.Posted by: carla at May 24, 2010 11:20 AM
best and most insightful comment:
And there are people who make abortion their religion, though they seem to be a subset of the people for whom sex is a religion.
Posted by: Christina at May 22, 2010 1:44 PM
RB-- comparing abortion to murder is not intellectual dishonesty, it is in fact, exactly what abortion is. Abortion is murder. It is the taking of innocent life, period.
To say that this country does not provide a place for a mother to raise a baby, is ridiculous. Didn't you read my post? I am living proof that a woman can be young (I was 18 when I got pregnant) and alone (the father moved to a different state when I wouldn't abort) and raise a child. This wonderful country provides opportunities for anyone to succeed, no matter their background. Isn't that why you live here? Because this is the land of opportunity. I don't care who you are or your background, anyone can make a life for themselves and their children here, if they are motivated and willing to learn and work. Period.
Your excuses are so lame and ridiculous. I have lived the life that everyone is talking about here and don't regret it one bit. There were times when it was tough, but I never lost sight of what I was doing and why. Being a mother is the most wonderful thing to ever happen to me. The problem is being a mother is looked down on in this society. Children should be celebrated, not treated as a burden or curse.Posted by: Allie at May 24, 2010 11:39 AM
YOU GO GIRL!!! :)
You have lived it and have much to share with us!!
Robert Berger appears to live in an alternative reality. Christians call it hell. But misery loves company. C.S. Lewis wrote in Perelandra about a "creature [that] was, by all human standards, inside out—its heart on the surface and its shallowness at the heart. On the surface, great designs and an antagonism to Heaven which involved the fate of worlds: but deep within, when every veil had been pierced... nothing but a black puerility, an aimless empty spitefulness content to sate itself with the tiniest cruelties, as love does not disdain the smallest kindness."
Those who make abortion their religion have literally embraced death. God's blessing was to come from filling the earth with His resemblance--more people made like Him--and after the Fall, people re-born by His power--but the pro-choicers are blind to Heaven. They are determined to continue as gods in the hells of their own making, masters of their own realities, slaves to their own passions. As zombies, they only lust after more corpses, spiritually dead people making a form of love but denying the fruit thereof. As bad trees, they cannot produce good fruit.
I was a bad tree. Miracles happen! I believe I was transformed from the race of Adam to the race of Christ. And so I believe that from the one race of spiritual zombies walking the broad road down to destruction, there are some who are reborn, who turn around and welcome salvation.
"[So] you, [fellow Christians,] building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh." (Jude 21-23)Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2010 12:28 PM
Robert Berger said that "in order to prevent abortions, it's necessary to create conditions in society where women will be far less likely to seek and obtain them."
Exactly, we should study "Lessons on 'Reproductive Health' from Europe" (National Post article by Ian Gentles c. Feb. 5): banning abortion caused Poland's annual abortion rates to plummet. We should also set a good example by proper family planning (no fornication or adultery) and fruitful family relationships (many disciplined, educated children who become the best citizens any country could wish for). And, as Robert Berger said, we should reach out to those in need--as indeed conservatives generally do much more than their often hypocritical liberal countrymen. Then these despairing down-and-outers will experience grace along with the wages of sin. They will find hope.Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2010 12:56 PM
Thanks, Carla. Didn't know at the time that my life would be a testimony for the pro-life movement and against the evils of abortion. All I knew was that I was a Mother, carrying a child. Believe me, I was scared, but the humanity of the life inside of me was always there.
Jon-- So true. I know pro-lifers who have adopted children and I know personally myself I would certainly adpopt any child I knew was going to be aborted. There are so many loving Christian organizations out there who help women. I have been to these places and they are amazing. They help with finding Mother's medical care, maternity clothes, job training, parental training, etc. They are the front lines, involved directly in these women's lives because they care. I have never heard of a pro-choice organization that helps women like this. There idea of help is to tell you that your life is over if you don't abort and it's your body, so you can do whatever you want with it. There aren't any pro-choice organizations I am aware of that actually provide any practical, real help for women.Posted by: Allie at May 24, 2010 1:48 PM
Hmm... struggling to think of even one family I ever knew who adopted who WOULDN'T be proven to be pro-life. Or maybe I never asked, just assumed that someone loving and selfless enough to take full responsibility and TLC for a 'stranger' was pro-life in example if nothing else.Posted by: Sensus Fidei at May 24, 2010 2:45 PM
Allie and Sensus Fidei are doing a good job of refuting the abortion myth that "prolifers only care about children before they are born."Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2010 3:10 PM
I'm not worthy, Jon, nor crafty enough. Just "by their fruits you shall know them" came to mind. God bless all who adopt!Posted by: Sensus Fidei at May 24, 2010 3:32 PM
"But being born is often a far greater tragedy than being aborted."
Says who?Posted by: Praxedes at May 24, 2010 4:28 PM
A few pro-abort myths:
It's not a baby, (this one has several variations)
pro-lifers hate women
Pro-lifers don't care about the babies once they are born.
Sensus Fidei, I have read of a few adoptive parents who are pro-abortion, but I haven't actually met any. One example of a pro-abort who adopted was found in a book I read by a leftwing journalist father of two boys. He and his wife decided to make a social statement in the sixties or seventies and adopt two black girls. He was so pro 'choice' that when one of those girls got pregnant out of wedlock he pressured her into having an abortion so as not to 'ruin' her life.
She got pregnant again and that time she resisted his pressure to abort and she kept her baby. Her father was actually angry about this and resented it, blind to all the signals that the abortion he'd insisted on had been devastating for his daughter.
My husband and I adopted two children ages 3 and 5, one with severe handicaps when we already had three children (now we have seven). We are not alone in this. We also regularly help out a single mother we know with three children by three fathers. Two of the children actually live with us about four or five days out of the week. I went to the hospital with her when the youngest was born and was the first to hold him.
We are not alone in this. There are several members of my church (nonCatholic) who do similar things, and others who have asked us what they do to privately help this single mother or her children (or help us to help them).
My 25 year old daughter, a wife and mother to her own baby, volunteers once a week at the local crisis pregnancy center while her own family lives on her husband's eight dollar an hour job. They also help us out with the two fatherless boys. My son-in-law regularly comes over to play with them and read aloud to them so they have a good male role model.
I know many pro-life people who do things like this. I know a lot of pro-abortion people, too, but none of them are very charitable on a personal level, and it turns out this is statistically typical.
DHM-- Bless you for all you do to help children and their mothers.
I live in Houston and there are so many wonderful pro-life organizations here on the front lines caring for women. I sometimes wonder how the pro- choice community can be blind to this, especially when they claim to care so much for women. They are actually just a bunch of angry people spouting off slogans, but offering no real solutions or help.Posted by: Allie at May 24, 2010 9:12 PM
"But being born is often a far greater tragedy than being aborted."
Anyone who holds this view should do the world a favor and abort themselves.Posted by: Allie at May 24, 2010 9:19 PM
"They are actually just a bunch of angry people spouting off slogans, but offering no real solutions or help."
I've heard and seen this on both sides. The behavior you described is typical of any extremist. That's what they do... scream and shout. They don't seek any solutions because that would take away their excuse for being angry. Answers evolve from the reasonable approaches of mature, balanced, thinking, non-inflamed humans.
"But being born is often a far greater tragedy than being aborted."
That didn't require any response but you grabbed the apple.
"Anyone who holds this view should do the world a favor and abort themselves."
An award worthy, apt pro-life quote. I'll have to assume all pro-lifers here agree with your murderous recommendation Allie, since there's certainly no compunction to admonish sin here.Posted by: Sensus Fidei at May 24, 2010 9:42 PM
Robert Berger said, "Being born is often a far greater tragedy than being aborted."
Allie replied, "Anyone who holds this view should do the world a favor and abort themselves."
Allie was merely taking Robert Berger at his word and demonstrating the logical conclusion of his thought as stated another way: "Continuing to live is often a greater tragedy than being murdered."
Proverbs 26:4-5 says,
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
Or he will be wise in his own eyes."
Jesus Christ did make a comparison to not being born, but it is more closely analogous to the abortionist, not the victim: "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about Him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
Here's another such comparison of His (Matt. 18:6): "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.Posted by: Jon at May 24, 2010 10:10 PM
I think it would be interesting to do a study that compared countries where abortion is legal and countries where abortion is illegal and compare the suicide rate. And I want to comment on the Netherlands where abortion is legal, I read this several years ago so the situation might have changed but at one time in their not to distant past their elderly when served juice in nursing homes were not to keen on drinking it. I think death tends to follow death and life tends to follow life.Posted by: myrtle miller at May 24, 2010 10:47 PM
Robert Berger said, "Being born is often a far greater tragedy than being aborted."
Job was one man who opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. He said:
"May the day of my birth perish,
And the night it was said, ‘A boy is born!’
That day—may it turn to darkness;
May God above not care about it;
May no light shine upon it.
Job was essentially wishing that he had been aborted. Read the whole of Job 3 and see especially verse 16:
Why was I not hidden in the ground like a stillborn child,
Like an infant who never saw the light of day?
However, unlike his wife, Job never cursed God and died. He did not seek assisted suicide. He believed that even though worms might consume him, he would still in his flesh see God. He believed that His Redeemer lived.
Robert Berger's call to reality is the cold reality of Satan's hell. There is no grace of God there. There is no trust in God. There is only a refusal to confess God's good sovereignty.
God has said, "You shall not murder."Posted by: Jon at May 25, 2010 5:28 AM
Thanks, Jon for defending my statement. Yes, I was trying to make a point and take RB's statement (and others like it) to their natural conclusion.
If this world is so horrible and aborted babies are so much better off, then why not abort yourself? So, the world is good enough for you, but not for the babies? Not one of these people would ever rid the world of themselves, but they seem to have no problem sentencing innocent children to die. All in the name of saving them a life of pain, of course.Posted by: Allie at May 25, 2010 2:04 PM
I once read in an issue of National Geographic (don't remember what year--late 1990's) that women in the Soviet Union often did not have access to contraception and so used abortion instead. Such women now have astronomically high rates of ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancers.
Moreover, an acquaintance of mine who is pregnant is considered high risk because she has had several d&c's and one d&e (due to multiple miscarriages). Those procedures harm the ability of the cervix to remain closed during pregnancy. How much more so for women who have had abortions?
Another friend of mine had three abortions in her past. She didn't *want* any of those abortions, but did not feel she had any alternative. In the years since, she has had terrible difficulty maintaining pregnancies (11 miscarriages), increasingly dangerous labors (her last child died due to being too preterm), and she has serious emotional scars from the decisions of her younger years. Moreover, after her first abortion, during the aftercare, she found out the embryo had already died before the procedure. If she had just waited, she would have miscarried naturally. Instead, she had been fed false information by PP, cornering her into a decision that wracked her conscience from the start, and extorting money out of her that she really didn't have.
Abortion is harmless to women? I think not.Posted by: Rachel at May 25, 2010 6:19 PM
Abortion Myth #(N+1): Sometimes partial birth abortions are necessary to save the life of the mother.
My dad was an OB/GYN, so I knew there were legitimate medical uses for the D&C (1st trimester abortion) procedure that weren't abortions, such as to end a molar pregnancy (where a tumor grows instead of a baby). And I also knew that one can imagine rare cases where some people feel a first trimester abortion would be necessary on health grounds, such as when the mother is diagnosed with cancer and will die in short order (taking her baby with her) without treatment that would kill the baby. But I didn't know much about the D&X (late term abortion), so I asked my dad if he knew much about this procedure. His face darkened and he said he did. I asked him if there was a scenario, however contrived, where a woman would need a D&X procedure to save her life. He told me that the D&X is even riskier for the mother than simply inducing childbirth and whisking the baby away to be adopted by people willing to pay for a preemie's medical bills, so no, there's no way that a partial birth abortion would be necessary to save the mother's life.Posted by: Wacky Hermit at May 25, 2010 10:03 PM