Per UPI, abortionists are “health officials”; mills are “agencies”
The first two paragraphs of the July 30 UPI article likely duped the vast unwashed:
Several U.S. health officials argued that the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Act is forcing more dangerous procedures to occur.
Health officials through agencies like Michigan’s WomanCare have pointed out that since the U.S. Supreme Court passed the act, they have been forced to use medical procedures that make abortions increasingly risky and painful….
Let’s translate.
The “U.S. health officials”? Only one was identified: Alberto Hodari, a late-term abortionist.
The “agencies”? A group of six MI late-term abortion mills (seven in August!) named WomanCare.
Whoops. Hodari is WomanCare’s “medical director,” i.e., lead abortionist.
(A July 30 Detroit News article from which this piece was spawned named other “U.S. health officials” and “agencies”: Renee Chelian, executive director of Northland Family Planning Centers, another group of late-term MI abortion mills; Kate Palmer, “a health care advocate at a local abortion clinic”; Janet Crepps, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights; and Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. All unbiased, and none with self-interests, to be sure.)
The “medical procedures that make abortions increasingly risky and painful”? Injecting the heart medication Digoxin into a preborn baby’s heart to cause an instant heart attack and death, which is off-label use according to the FDA.
The journalistic deception here is staggering. Not only is MSM clearly attempting to portray the PBA Ban as dangerous to the health and safety of women according to many health authorities, but also that it’s all our fault.
[Photo of Hodari courtesy of Detroit News.]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
They are also implying that these women “need” these late term abortions for medical reasons, which we know is not true. So to imply that a procedure is dangerous to women, when the procedures themselves are optional, is ludicrous.
What their real problem is, is that they can’t control how large the cervix gets and if the baby were to “slip” out past the navel before they have a chance to kill it, they will be stuck with a live birth. Also, if the cervix opens to much in an earlier abortion, the baby might come out too quickly and the same problem would occur. A living breathing human being that is suddenly, by virtue of a few centimeters, granted “personhood”…nuts! Just nuts!
Astute observation on the “health” point, MK. They are still trying to portray PBA as sometimes medically necessary, which it is not. When asked by Supreme Court justices to name a specific instance of medical need for PBA, the PP attorney could not.
MK is also right on the real problem here for abortionists. The Supremes allowed for accidental slippages past the baby’s navel before the abortionist kills him/her, but abortionists are rightfully becoming paranoid. There is likely a growing number of threatened or real turncoats – abortion accomplices in the OR who don’t want to get charged with murder.
The MSM is very liberal (90% vote democrat, from a recent pol) so yes, they’re almost as bad as the abortionists themselves because they propagate the big lie. They don’t even try to hide their bias.
Yes, I’ve long lamented how blatantly liberal Fox News has become
*chuckle*
“mills”
:: chuckle ::
Jill: They are still trying to portray PBA as sometimes medically necessary, which it is not.
That is at least a bit obfuscatory. “Not necessary,” perhaps, in the sense that there are other abortion procedures beyond D&X or D&E which can be used, though they present more danger to the woman. Maybe “not absolutely medically necessary,” but the best way is still the best way.
Doug
MK: What their real problem is, is that they can’t control how large the cervix gets and if the baby were to “slip” out past the navel before they have a chance to kill it, they will be stuck with a live birth. Also, if the cervix opens to much in an earlier abortion, the baby might come out too quickly and the same problem would occur. A living breathing human being that is suddenly, by virtue of a few centimeters, granted “personhood”…nuts! Just nuts!
D&X abortions are done as early as 14 weeks. Rare indeed is the case where the fetus is healthy and viable, and an abortion of any type is done. That late in gestation, if the pregnancy is to be ended on an “elective” basis, delivery can be induced.
Doug
This guy looks like a nut!
“This guy looks like a nut!”
LOL! …he looks like an abortionnist Heather…
jasper, That’s what I meant. LOL!
Doug, what possible justification can you come up with for killing an innocent human being? Arguing that it’s okay to kill a fetus in the womb because it could NOT survive outside anyway is akin to arguing that it’s okay to drown a nonswimmer in your bathtub because he’d die if thrown into the ocean. The fetus in the womb is where he’s supposed to be, living and thriving. The fact that if you took him out of that safe place, he’d die, isn’t justification for killing him. It’s just showing your own ruthlessness.
Shall we take a closer look at Hodari and Woman Care?
Hodari was responsible for the death of Tamia Russell and Chivon Williams. Dr. Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, reports that there have been 23 lawsuits in the past 20 years against WomanCare facilities and Alberto Hodari, for abortion injuries including complications resuting on hysterectomies on 19, 22, and 23-year-old women. All were dismissed, with many referring to undisclosed settlements.
So much for all the concern about women’s health and safety. And lives.
Oh — another point. When abortion facilities simply choose to administer digoxin for their own reasons, they tout it as being ever so safe. But here these abortionists are lamenting how much terrible, needless danger women are being subjected to.
Either injecting the digoxin is risky — meaning digoxin abortions are risky — or it’s not. Right?
Oh — the digoxin injections are only risky if it’s a cover-your-ass measure, and not just the abortionist’s standard M.O.
Jill — DOESN’T TILLER USE DIGOXIN?
Everybody and their uncle on the abortion advocacy side has been rushing to his defense, telling everybody how safe his abortions are. But if I recall correctly, he injects digoxin for all his late abortions.
So, if Tiller does it, it’s safe, safe, safe. If Hodari is “forced” to do it, it’s “unnecessary” and “dangerous”.
Christina: Doug, what possible justification can you come up with for killing an innocent human being? Arguing that it’s okay to kill a fetus in the womb because it could NOT survive outside anyway is akin to arguing that it’s okay to drown a nonswimmer in your bathtub because he’d die if thrown into the ocean. The fetus in the womb is where he’s supposed to be, living and thriving. The fact that if you took him out of that safe place, he’d die, isn’t justification for killing him. It’s just showing your own ruthlessness.
It doesn’t have any capacity to be guilty, so “innocent” is not a big deal. “Justification”? It’s not wanted. I don’t have to justify it. You don’t have to justify it, and the pregnant woman doesn’t have to justify it. It’s her decision.
I didn’t say that being non-viable is any reason to kill the fetus. It’s either wanted or unwanted – that’s the bottom line. If it’s wanted, fine and dandy, continue right along, but if it’s unwanted then we don’t need to force anything on the woman – let her do what’s best for her. The point with D & X abortions on nonviable fetuses is that the fetus is going to die anyway, so what, really, does the specific abortion procedure matter?
The nonswimmer you mention is not inside the body of a person, can suffer, is mentally aware, has relationships and desires, has had rights attributed, etc., etc., much, much different from the unborn.
As far as “supposed to be” – that’s not up to you unless you’re the one pregnant. It’s up to the woman who is.
Doug
Doug, Abortion has turned men and women into reproductive slobs.
Up to the woman, up to the woman, up to the woman. Ya, that’s generally what pro choice men say. It’s okay when women turn their bodies over to the pro choice man. He’s in it for the sexual gratification. It’s then okay with the pro choice man for her to turn her used up body over to the abortionist, so that he/she may kill the unwanted “product of conception.” Heck, no child support, no commitment, no wedding to plan. Abortion. What a wonderful thing! *sarcasm*
Doug, What is your explanation of the fact that the vast majority of battered children were wanted children? And the unwanted children carried to term are the least battered?
Wouldn’t it be better to “welcome” or already conceived children, rather than treat them as possessions that we “want” or “don’t want”?
It doesn’t have any capacity to be guilty, so “innocent” is not a big deal.
Neither does a newborn baby.
Heather: Abortion has turned men and women into reproductive slobs.
:: laughing :: Maybe so, Heather, maybe so.
But I don’t think that them being slobs really hurts you. I know you don’t like the idea of abortion, but if a woman across town or across the world has an abortion, what is that to you? You’d almost never know of it in the first place.
Whether she ends the pregnancy or continues it and the population goes up by one, is your life really affected? I don’t think so.
This issue comes down to your opinion against the opinion of the pregnant woman, and I say let her make her own best decision.
Doug
Doug, what possible justification can you come up with for killing an innocent human being? Arguing that it’s okay to kill a fetus in the womb because it could NOT survive outside anyway is akin to arguing that it’s okay to drown a non swimmer in your bathtub because he’d die if thrown into the ocean. The fetus in the womb is where he’s supposed to be, living and thriving. The fact that if you took him out of that safe place, he’d die, isn’t justification for killing him. It’s just showing your own ruthlessness.
Very good points, Christina.
but if a woman across town or across the world has an abortion, what is that to you? You’d almost never know of it in the first place.
If a woman who just stuck her newborn baby in a microwave was walking down the street, I doubt I’d know about it either, but that doesn’t make it morally justifiable.
Whether she ends the pregnancy or continues it and the population goes up by one, is your life really affected? I don’t think so.
Read my last point.
Doug, I know a woman who has had 7 abortions. Another woman had 9. Okay, these women are bedding down with anything with a pair of pants on. Have we forgotten about AIDS, Herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia?? These pregnancies weren’t all from the same guys. These women “got around.” So, the only word that I can think of is “slob.”
Bethany: What is your explanation of the fact that the vast majority of battered children were wanted children? And the unwanted children carried to term are the least battered?
In no way do I believe that unwanted children are the least battered. Does that make sense to you?
The incredibly vast majority of children are wanted, so for most battered kids to come that way is no surprise. There is a difference between unplanned pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies. I think it’s right around half of unplanned pregnancies that are willingly continued. Those are wanted kids that come from that, not unwanted. Short of being physically compelled otherwise, if the pregnancy is unwanted, it will be ended.
Wouldn’t it be better to “welcome” or already conceived children, rather than treat them as possessions that we “want” or “don’t want”?
No, because if a pregnancy is unwanted, on balance, then that’s the bottom line. It’s not a question of “welcome” or not – that comes from being wanted or unwanted. Lots and lots of pregnancies are already being continued willingly, and that’s fine with me. If a woman will not feel right without in effect saying the “welcome,” then her pregnancy is going to be wanted, in the first place.
Amy Grossberg hid her pregnancy @ the age of 18. She gave birth in a motel room, and then she and her boyfriend threw the child into a dumpster on a frigid November night. She only served 2 and 1/2 years in prison for this act, and today she owns her own business. Is it okay with you that she’s free to roam around society? She showed a callous disrespect for life. The life of her son. I hear that pro choicers showed support for Amy and her family during court proceedings. Is it any wonder?
Heather, there are women with 7 kids, 9 kids, etc., who you’d call slobs too. In many cases I think it’s at least just as well that they have abortions rather than have kids.
Doug
Heather, there are women with 7 kids, 9 kids, etc., who you’d call slobs too. In many cases I think it’s at least just as well that they have abortions rather than have kids.
No, if children are being abused or neglected, a better thing to do would be to take the children away and put them up for adoption. Which of the 7-9 already born children do you think deserve the death penalty for having an irresponsible mother?
but if a woman across town or across the world has an abortion, what is that to you? You’d almost never know of it in the first place.
Bethany: If a woman who just stuck her newborn baby in a microwave was walking down the street, I doubt I’d know about it either, but that doesn’t make it morally justifiable.
The baby has had right to life attributed to it, and is not inside the body of a person, and there’s no real argument about that anyway.
Doug, I would have respect for the woman who gave birth to her children. Do you feel that after abortion the baby just disappears? Wrong! It just makes the woman the mother of a dead baby/babies.
In no way do I believe that unwanted children are the least battered. Does that make sense to you?
No, because it is statistically incorrect to believe otherwise.
The incredibly vast majority of children are wanted, so for most battered kids to come that way is no surprise. There is a difference between unplanned pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies. I think it’s right around half of unplanned pregnancies that are willingly continued. Those are wanted kids that come from that, not unwanted. Short of being physically compelled otherwise, if the pregnancy is unwanted, it will be ended.
No, Doug, that is not always true. Many times it is not the child that is unwanted, but the situation surrounding the pregnancy, or the pregnancy itself. Once the person sees the child, they usually will welcome him or her with open arms.
Here are the stats that I have:
The landmark study on this was done at the University of Southern California. Professor Edward Lenoski studied 674 consecutive battered children who were brought to the in- and out-patient departments of that medical center. He was the first to go to the parents and study to what extent they wanted and planned the pregnancy. To his surprise, he found that 91% were planned and wanted, compared to 63% for the control groups nationally. Further, the mothers had began wearing, on the average, pregnancy clothes at 114 days compared to 171 days in the control, and the fathers named the boys after themselves 24% of the time compared to 4% for the control groups. E. Lenoski, Heartbeat, vol. 3, no. 4, Dec. 1980
Both parents (or parent figures) lived in 80% of the homes. Two-thirds of the mothers were “house-wives” and presumably were at home. Almost all mothers were in the 20-30 age group, and fathers were in the 20-35 age bracket. No special social, racial, or economic class predominated. Francis, “Child Abuse, A Nationwide Study,” Amer. Humane Assn. & Child Welfare League, 1963
The parents commonly “…grew up in a hostile environment, and were themselves abused. When the children fail to satisfy their [unrealistic, neurotic expectations of perfection] emotional needs, the parents react with the same violence they experienced as children.” 258 J. Walsh, IL Dept. of Child and Family Services Newsweek, July 24, 1972 Not much has changed since these earlier investigations.
There is much that we still do not know about the sick psychology that leads to child abuse. One thing does stand out, however: Prenatally, these were not unwanted pregnancies, they were super-wanted pregnancies.
From abortionfacts.com
I?ve been told that aborting unwanted babies would leave more wanted ones and, therefore, there would be less child abuse.
Exactly the opposite has happened. In New York City during the ?60s, the number of abused children had averaged about 5,000 cases a year. Abortion was legalized in 1970. By 1975, over 25,000 cases were reported. The figures for the entire U.S. are:
Date Total Number
1973 167,000
1979 711,142
1993 1,057,255
1996 1,220,000
U.S. Dept. H.H.S., Nat. Center of Child Abuse,Child Maltreatment 259
Canada?s statistics show the same:
Year Abortions Child Abuse
1971 16,172 422
1978 38,782 1,762
1994 104,403 30,366*
Child Welfare Branch, Ministry of Human Resource, Ontario, Canada *These are the totals reported from all provinces except PEI and includes physical,sexual,and emotional abuse. Note that provinces vary in definition of “child abuse” and reporting requirements.
Ohio reported 27,248 cases in 1981 and 65,965 in 1985, a 142% increase according to a survey by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Families and Youth for the largest state increase. The same survey reported over a 55% increase nationwide from 1981 to 1985. Assoc. Press, March 3, 1987.
D r. Phillip Ney, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Christ Church, New Zealand, while still at the University of British Columbia, published a widely read study of this. His analysis clearly pointed to the fact that abortion (and its acceptance of the violence of killing the unborn) lowered a parent?s psychic resistance to violence and abuse of the born. P. Ney, “Relationship Between Abortion & Child Abuse,” Canada Jour. Psychiatry, vol. 24, 1979, pp. 610-620
The baby has had right to life attributed to it, and is not inside the body of a person, and there’s no real argument about that anyway.
My point was that your point was a moot point.
No, because if a pregnancy is unwanted, on balance, then that’s the bottom line. It’s not a question of “welcome” or not – that comes from being wanted or unwanted. Lots and lots of pregnancies are already being continued willingly, and that’s fine with me. If a woman will not feel right without in effect saying the “welcome,” then her pregnancy is going to be wanted, in the first place.
Wanting a pregnancy, and wanting a child are two different matters. The pregnancy is many times uncomfortable, and even I don’t enjoy many aspects of pregnancy. However, I do know that my child is worth it. And many women who don’t necessarily want to be pregnant, continue the pregnancy anyway, and end up loving their child very much.
My point about Amy Grossberg? A lot of people say that she gave herself her own abortion. I guess she did. Why wasn’t a life sentence handed down? Because we don’t value children in this society. If an abortionist had done this to Amy’s baby, it would have been perfectly legal.
Heather, I really get frustrated when I see stories like Amy Grossburg’s… I don’t understand how people can give someone so little punishment for doing something so dreadful…especially when you hear cases of people who killed their neighbors dog who attacked them, and they get 10 years in prison! I mean, how twisted is this nation at times?
By the way, I have to get going…gotta do my Once a Month Cooking shopping today…LONG list (5 pages long). So I will talk to you later, but it has been so good seeing you again. I missed you while authentication was on! :)
Bethany…Please excuse me for not saying hello. I agree. Adding to the list; Melissa Drexler. She suffocated her son, and she only served 2 years in prison. Jessica Coleman is serving 6 years for stabbing her son. What’s with the light sentencing? Give them life! A guy in my state received harsher punishment for killing cats! What kind of message is SOCIETY sending?
The baby has had right to life attributed to it, and is not inside the body of a person, and there’s no real argument about that anyway.
Bethany: My point was that your point was a moot point.
Do you know that “moot” used to mean worthy of discussion, debateable, etc., while now it commonly has come to mean the exact opposite?
Anyway, I do see the argument coming down to your perceptions against those of the pregnant woman. I know you don’t like abortion, but what real *need* can you present for not letting the woman make her own free choice in this matter?
Doug
Murder is a good start.
No, because if a pregnancy is unwanted, on balance, then that’s the bottom line. It’s not a question of “welcome” or not – that comes from being wanted or unwanted. Lots and lots of pregnancies are already being continued willingly, and that’s fine with me. If a woman will not feel right without in effect saying the “welcome,” then her pregnancy is going to be wanted, in the first place.
Bethany: Wanting a pregnancy, and wanting a child are two different matters. The pregnancy is many times uncomfortable, and even I don’t enjoy many aspects of pregnancy. However, I do know that my child is worth it. And many women who don’t necessarily want to be pregnant, continue the pregnancy anyway, and end up loving their child very much.
Okay, but again – if the pregnancy is continued willingly, then a child is “wanted” on balance. Certainly enough for the pregnancy to be continued. If not, then it won’t be. Yes, some women end up loving their kids very much, even though they might have originally thought otherwise. And of course some kids are born and things go downhill from there.
So I see it as not necessarily better to continue an unwanted pregnancy. If there was a real need to increase the rate of population growth beyond what it is, etc., – some demonstrable and persuasive deal – it’d be different. As reality is, however, I think leaving it up to the woman who is actually pregnant is the best.
Doug
Bethany: The landmark study on this was done at the University of Southern California. Professor Edward Lenoski studied 674 consecutive battered children who were brought to the in- and out-patient departments of that medical center. He was the first to go to the parents and study to what extent they wanted and planned the pregnancy. To his surprise, he found that 91% were planned and wanted, compared to 63% for the control groups nationally. Further, the mothers had began wearing, on the average, pregnancy clothes at 114 days compared to 171 days in the control, and the fathers named the boys after themselves 24% of the time compared to 4% for the control groups. E. Lenoski, Heartbeat, vol. 3, no. 4, Dec. 1980
Those were still all wanted pregnancies. They might have been planned to a lesser extent, but they were willingly continued. That is not the same as taking the pregnancies which are willingly ended, and forecasting from there. And it doesn’t take into account any kids who weren’t brought to the medical center, which could be due to them being wanted less/cared about less. It’s also not looking at truly “unwanted” kids that have been placed in foster care, etc. The rates of abuse in foster care or at home before foster care is a lot higher than for the general population, which makes sense. What you posted really pointed the finger at the parents’ own upbringing, among that group.
Women who have abortions tend to be minorities, poor, single, etc., in higher rates than for the US population as a whole.
“I’ve been told that aborting unwanted babies would leave more wanted ones and, therefore, there would be less child abuse.”
Exactly the opposite has happened.
The rate of reporting is much higher now than it used to be – it is not simply that the actual rate of abuse is higher now, if at all.. There are also any and all societal factors at work, not just the legality or not of abortion. Is there less child abuse now than there would have been without legal abortion? That is the correct way to look at it. If among all the kids that would have resulted from lesser numbers of abortions in the past there was one that would have been abused, then legal abortion can be said to have resulted in one less case of abuse than would otherwise have been the case. And of course the truth is that the number is vastly above one.
Ohio reported 27,248 cases in 1981 and 65,965 in 1985, a 142% increase according to a survey by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Families and Youth for the largest state increase. The same survey reported over a 55% increase nationwide from 1981 to 1985.
I think you’re copying this stuff from a pro-life site. Abortion was legal in 1981 and 1985, so what is the point? Higher reporting rates, just as I said.
Doug
You don’t have to justify it, and the pregnant woman doesn’t have to justify it. It’s her decision.
But you haven’t explained why you’re so dead certain that women have this unfettered right to kill soembody else, just on the grounds that they don’t want them.
John List didn’t want his family. Did that make his choice to shoot them all a right and just one? Do you defend his choice?
if a woman across town or across the world has an abortion, what is that to you? You’d almost never know of it in the first place.
Do you take this attitude toward all killing? Does the fact that I didn’t know the victim personally make the killing okay?
Law enforcement experts believe that Ted Bundy killed more women than he told anybody about. Were those murders perfectly morally acceptable, because nobody found out?
Your “I didn’t know the victim so why should I care?” attitude is very disturbing.
“Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”
No, because if a pregnancy is unwanted, on balance, then that’s the bottom line.
An unwanted pregnancy does not equal an unwanted baby. My pregnancy with my son was decidedly unwanted, and thanks to the rhetoric of people like you, I was robbed of my joy, certain that I’d never love the BABY because the PREGNANT STATE came as an unwelcome surprise.
Thank God I had a true friend who helped me avoid abortion, and I got to have a beloved son. Many women have nothing but the memory of an abortion because they bought into the lie that if the pregnant state was an unwelcome surprise, the baby will be, too.
Why do so many people preach hate? Why teach women that a surprise pregnancy means that they won’t be able to love their child? I was robbed of my joy, and nearly of my son, by the kind of hatemongering you preach — that unplanned children deserve death.
Why do you hate my son, and other children like them? Why do you promote their murder?
What makes you so full of hate and rage that you take it out on innocent children who have done nobody wrong? And why do you seek to bring grief ot mothers that could have known joy, had they only known that the rhetoric you prate is a black lie?
Christina, I’m so glad you had that friend!!
Another butcher abortionist? Wow!…. Now that’s a shocker.
You don’t have to justify it, and the pregnant woman doesn’t have to justify it. It’s her decision.
Christine: But you haven’t explained why you’re so dead certain that women have this unfettered right to kill soembody else, just on the grounds that they don’t want them.
The unborn in this argument are not “somebody else” as far as having attributed right to life, not being inside the body of a person, etc. Late in gestation most states have restrictions on abortions, and in all states it’s not practice to do third trimester abortions just because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. I’m fine with those restrictions – I do see some limited personality late in gestation, tending toward what
most full-term newborns are like.
I realize that you may think of the unborn as “somebody else,” and if so then it’d probably not be good for you to have an abortion.
John List didn’t want his family. Did that make his choice to shoot them all a right and just one? Do you defend his choice?
Good grief, no. They were born people with rights granted. There’s no real argument about such cases.
Doug
if a woman across town or across the world has an abortion, what is that to you? You’d almost never know of it in the first place.
Christina: Do you take this attitude toward all killing? Does the fact that I didn’t know the victim personally make the killing okay?
No, not to all killing. Of course not. I am saying that the unborn do not care, don’t have any conception nor desire about any of the stuff we’re talking about. This argument is you against a pregnant woman who may want to end a pregnancy. I am saying that even though you don’t like the idea of abortion, it does not “hurt” you when you don’t know about it and don’t need more people on earth for the sake of “more.”
You have your feelings about the issue, yes, and I am not denying any of them. I just would not let you enforce your will over that of the woman who is actually the one pregnant.
Law enforcement experts believe that Ted Bundy killed more women than he told anybody about. Were those murders perfectly morally acceptable, because nobody found out?
Nope – those were born, sentient people, not inside the body of a person, and capable of suffering, with rights already attributed to them. They had relationships, memories, cares, desires, were mentally aware, etc. There isn’t much if any disagreement on actions such as Bundy’s because of the differences between born people and the unborn in the abortion argument.
Your “I didn’t know the victim so why should I care?” attitude is very disturbing.
“Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”
There’s no “victim” in abortion with any sentience, any desires, any capability to suffer. I’m talking about “elective” abortion, not third-trimester or beyond 24 weeks, say – I realize a decent argument can be made there for some awareness, etc. I care more about a woman being able to make her best choice rather than about your desire for her not to be able to end her pregnancy if she wants.
There will be many miscarriages in the coming year. I think that is sad for the woman or couple who want to continue the pregnancies and have kids. There will be many failed implantations, and many cases of sterility. Same deal, if kids are wanted then too bad. But it’s not like we have any real need for more pregnancies to be continued, per se, especially not against the will of the woman who is pregnant. If kids aren’t wanted, then it’s not “too bad” when a pregnancy ends or doesn’t begin in the first place.
Doug
No, because if a pregnancy is unwanted, on balance, then that’s the bottom line.
Christina: An unwanted pregnancy does not equal an unwanted baby. My pregnancy with my son was decidedly unwanted, and thanks to the rhetoric of people like you, I was robbed of my joy, certain that I’d never love the BABY because the PREGNANT STATE came as an unwelcome surprise.
That’s silly. “People like you.” Oh please. I am for what is best for the woman, and in your case it sounds like it’s best that you don’t have abortions. Fine with me. There really is a bottom line to the entire thing, and of course a kid may be wanted while the symptoms of pregnancy are not. As I said, if on balance a child is wanted then I say continue the pregnancy. If a child is wanted enough, then being pregnant won’t change the deal.
Thank God I had a true friend who helped me avoid abortion, and I got to have a beloved son. Many women have nothing but the memory of an abortion because they bought into the lie that if the pregnant state was an unwelcome surprise, the baby will be, too.
That’s just a straw man argument. I don’t say that a given pregnancy will be unwanted, nor that a son or daughter will be, necessarily. It’s up to the woman who is pregnant, first and foremost. I say leave it to the woman herself. There is no guarantee that continuing a pregnancy and giving birth will be later seen to have been a good decision, but there too I say leave it to the woman.
Why do so many people preach hate? Why teach women that a surprise pregnancy means that they won’t be able to love their child? I was robbed of my joy, and nearly of my son, by the kind of hatemongering you preach — that unplanned children deserve death.
That has nothing to do with me, nor with the Pro-Choice position as a whole. Just who do you actually see “teaching” that a surprise pregnancy means a child won’t be loved? There is no “deserving death.” It’s up to the woman to decide. I’m not saying she should necessarily do ANYTHING. It’s up to her.
Why do you hate my son, and other children like them? Why do you promote their murder?
I don’t. Not at all, and it’s silly for you to say so.
What makes you so full of hate and rage that you take it out on innocent children who have done nobody wrong? And why do you seek to bring grief ot mothers that could have known joy, had they only known that the rhetoric you prate is a black lie?
Oh brother…. I’m not full of hate and rage. I’m not “blaming” the unborn in this argument. There’s no will, no volition on their part. What is operative is that they will either be wanted or unwanted, on balance, and that will be where the decision is made to continue the pregnancy or to end it. I am for less grief for the women involved, and that is achieved by letting them make the best choice, regardless of which one it is. It is not good to force women who want kids to have abortions. It is not good to force women who don’t want kids to continue pregnancies. There are no guarantees in life about this stuff, and who knows what the feelings will be in the long run? There is still no good reason for taking away the freedom that women have in the matter.
Doug