Obama’s insane plan to lower worldwide maternal/child mortality – by pushing worldwide abortions?
NJ Republican pro-life Congressman Chris Smith had an eye-opening op ed in yesterday’s Washington Post, exposing the Obama administration’s insane plan to push abortion as a means to reduce maternal and child mortality worldwide in the UN’s Millennium Development Goals.
Action needed: Pro-aborts are filling the comments page with their counter position, and we could use some support from pro-lifers, particularly since international health activists are meeting at the UN in NY this week. Please read Congressman Smith’s piece and add your thoughts.
Sep.21, 2010 1:46 pm |
Inconsistencies, Population |
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.
To the Left, the problem with poverty is not war, famine, and corrupt governments. It’s poor people.
Hope you made that comment at WashPo, too… :)
How disgusting… abortions are by far more dangerous than giving birth. That man and his administration need to be stopped.
Oh my. The answer to everything is ABORTION! Reduce poverty by pushing abortion. It is all the prez knows how to do.
How about we offer more than killing?
How about we provide pregnant mothers in poverty the help they need to deliver their babies safely??
http://rescuebabiesnow.org/give-once/
I’m always amazed at the scientific dishonesty and lack of logic in the pro-abortion community. And they always like to use “rape” as an excuse, don’t they? They’re not helping women NOT get raped, they just want to make sure women abort as much as possible.
‘abortions are by far more dangerous than giving birth’ – what do you base that on concerned?
‘The answer to everything is ABORTION!’ – no it’s not. It’s part of the answer, a small part.
‘scientific dishonesty and lack of logic’ – where? How?
‘they just want to make sure women abort as much as possible’ – that simply isn’t true.
You keep claiming that pro-choice people attempt to leverage off rape and risks to womens health in pregnancy yet you make bald propaganda statements like these.
Cranium, they’re not propaganda statements. And if you want to believe they are, then you would have to concede the slogans and rhetoric that fuels the pro-abortion movement are also propaganda. The pro-abortion community denies that the unborn are human beings, when science and logic tells us that they are—not religion, but SCIENCE and logic. The fact that abortion kills a child is either scoffed at by vehement pro-aborts, or else it’s admitted that YES it’s a child, but that the mother’s so-called “bodily autonomy” overrides the child’s right to exist. Pro-aborts block health regulations for abortion clinics, they don’t want women to see their unborn children on the ultrasound, there is denial of future physical and mental health risks for post-abortive women–though these risks have been proven over and over and over…..There is SERIOUS denial of science in the pro-abortion community. What it boils down to is this: Either we are people, at all stages, or we aren’t people, ever. And if we are people, then we have the right to exist. Abortion is not a medical procedure, and it is not necessary. Scientific ignorance and self-serving rhetoric, that’s all you pro-aborts have. It is not convenient for me to admit the unborn are persons; it doesn’t make my life easier. But it is the truth. If you are going to dehumanize an entire class of people based merely on functionalism and moral relativism, then none of us really stand a chance, do we? None of us should have rights, not by pro-abort logic. The rights of the unborn and the rights of women are not diametrically opposed; they are intrinsically linked.
MaryLee, while I completely understand your rhetoric and the reasons behind it, it still doesn’t justify statements such as ‘The answer to everything is ABORTION!’ or ‘they just want to make sure women abort as much as possible’ which are nothing more than emotive slogans.
Cranium,
Do you get off on being ignorant, or at least feigning ignorance? Really, do you?!?!
Are we supposed to rewrite all that we have written because you are too damned lazy to read what we have written at our blogs? My blog is brimming with over 280 articles linking to primary source material.
Why don’t you stop the act and read before you speak, instead of accusing people here of making propaganda statements. It’s really wearing thin. You’re just not in the same league as those you presume to label as ill-informed. That cranium is in dire need of some fact-based material.
God gave you two eyes, two ears and only one mouth for a reason.
I shall rephrase just for Cran. :)
The answer, so it seems to the powers that be, to end poverty is to make abortion more readily available to poor people. I can only conclude that the answer to poverty is to kill the poor before they are born.
I pray that the poor tell the powers that be to shove it.
Gerard, not accepting opinion or non-evidential claims is not ignorance. I read the blogs I interact on. You’ll understand that yours isn’t one of them.
I get the impression that you haven’t quite comprehended what I said. I may be wrong of course but let’s see.
On what basis is it justified to exclaim ‘The answer to everything is ABORTION!’ or ‘they just want to make sure women abort as much as possible’ – what is the rationale behind these statements?
Not even the most avid pro-choice people advocate abortion as an answer to EVERYTHING. Nor do they want women to abort anything and everything that gets planted in their womb. The statements border on ludicrous.
It’d be like me exclaiming ‘all anti-choicers are anti-woman, women have no value to them, they are just incubators – the fetus rules!’ or ‘anti-choicers believe that every sexual act must result in a pregnancy followed by a live full-term birth’.
No deity gave me anything Gerard, I am a product of evolution.
Cranium – just for your info – just this week one of the pro-choice people posting here this week said just that: anti-choicers are anti-women. It certainly generated a lot of posts and interest, for sure.
I think that the frustration is that it appears that many pro-choicers are advocating abortion for many things. take the health insurance bill that is being mandated. Abortion is in there, and the American people will pay for those abortions thru the money they send to their states via taxes. This does not lessen abortion, but will expand it because it’ll be ‘free’ thru health care.
If women had to pay for their own abortions all the time, they would at least consider how to pay for it and the cost may have a woman choose not to abort, and therefore save a life (or many more). when it’s free to you, one of the reasons to consider avoiding the cost is gone.
So instead of helping women out of their poverty thru education, job training and other mentoring situations, we are offering them abortion. And for other countries, we want to export the same.
So while I lament the generalization, it seems that for some people, abortion is a solution to many things that can be helped in other ways. Such a waste in so many ways.
I don’t know what planet some other people are living on, but here on planet earth the abortion advocates are deep-pocketed, have the media on their side, and are mobilized on multiple fronts. A developing child is in a dangerous place today.
Actually ninek, I’d like to think a ‘developing child’ is in a less dangerous place than it would have been two or three thousand years ago. We have better standards of medical care, including pre-natal, plus standards of food and hygiene.
You’d like to think but it’s not a fact.
Wow, you just made my point: we have all these advantages and what do we do? Kill our offspring voluntarily and for any reason. Nice culture. real nice. My great great grandparents would be so proud.
Yes, we are a much more advanced society. While we still have some way to go, equality is much greater than it was even one hundred years ago. The rate at which what was science fiction is becoming science fact is amazing. Transport and communications are beyond the comprehension of anyone who lived two hundred years ago.
We don’t kill our ‘offspring’, that would be infanticide. We terminate fetuses, prior to them becoming ‘offspring’.
Our great great grandparents would probably be appalled if they knew women had jobs after marriage let alone after having children.
Cranium: According to Google, the definition of offspring states that “In biology, offspring is the product of reproduction, a new organism produced by one or more parents.” Do you not agree that fetuses fit this description?
I’m not sure about the ‘equality’ part either; that really is a tough one. Both women and African Americans gained many rights, but considering not only the fact that millions have died because they were denied the most basic human right – the right to life – but also the fact that both of those groups that gained rights are included in the group that has lost rights, it is difficult to say whether more ‘net’ rights have been gained or lost. Hmm.
Stop calling unborn children “fetuses”. Stop saying “terminate” when you mean “kill”.
A little bit of honesty and plain English from opponents of unborn human rights and advocates of unlimited prenatal homicide would be greatly appreciated.
If you must support this crime against human beings at least be honest about it.
“Our great great grandparents would probably be appalled if they knew women had jobs after marriage let alone after having children”
Our great great grandparents probably knew that raising children properly is a job.
We don’t kill our ‘offspring’, that would be infanticide. We terminate fetuses, prior to them becoming ‘offspring’.
Say it often enough so you can believe it, Cran. Hardly makes it so. It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
When did your mother deem you hers? Do you have children Cran? When did they become your children? Please tell me when my children/offspring became mine. When I deemed them so?
killing the poor and their youth is a solution out of the Nazi book.
The 21st century version is sugar-coated with “compassion”
It is still evil.
We don’t kill our ‘offspring’, that would be infanticide. We terminate fetuses, prior to them becoming ‘offspring’.
Wow, last I learned in biology class, at amphimixis, the sperm and egg have created a new life, which is the offspring of the male and female from whom the sperm and egg originated. It has it’s own DNA. It is the offspring of its parents. Fetuses cannot be anything OTHER than offspring.
I know you have to grasp at anything to promote your ideology, but you aren’t allowed to disregard biology.
Exactly, Kel. In laymen’s terms, the flame of life is lit at conception. From that moment on, we may give names and nicknames to stages of development, but at every moment along the path from conception to adulthood, a person is alive, growing, and unique.
My granny was a “rosie the riveter,” and she learned her work ethic from her mother who learned it from her mother. Yes its great to be a stay at home mom, but throughout a mom’s life she may need to work outside, even temporarily. How that relates to feticide I don’t know.
By the way, fellow pro-lifers, moms, dads, uncles, and antis, er I mean aunties ;>), 40 Days for Life has begun today! Please set aside a bit of extra prayer time for this amazing pro-life ministry.
cranium
September 22nd, 2010 at 1:23 am
We don’t kill our ‘offspring’, that would be infanticide. We terminate fetuses, prior to them becoming ‘offspring’.
Cranium, you seem to pride yourself on your supposedly high intellect and logic (hence the condescending moniker) yet you make statements like these which are neither rational or logical. You’re playing word games. Do you not know that fetus is Latin for “young one, offspring”? That being the case, let me re-write your statement properly:
“We don’t kill our ‘offspring’, that would be infanticide. We terminate offsprings, prior to them becoming ‘offspring’. “
Hmm. That’s kind of embarrassing, really. Especially for an intellect.
George Orwell wrote a plus good book that described the kind of tyranny that goes along with trampling on language. Saying that a very tiny child can be killed because you call it a certain name is not unlike calling people “proles,” and everyone knows that’s double plus ungood.
The Bard said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Hmm, works for me.
Good morning fine people.
Semantics, opinion and definitional differentiation.
I agree in part with Joe actually. I still refer to fetuses as fetuses because they aren’t ‘children’ until after birth. But I’m happy to say kill instead of terminate. You know, like we ‘kill’ ideas, ‘kill’ political bills by voting, ‘kill’ an engine when we turn it off.
Nice try Bekah.
If you are happy to say kill then say it.
Use kill in a sentence with the word fetus.
The well educated young woman sat and considered all her options and their impacts and eventually came to the conclusion that her best option was to kill her pregnancy by terminating her fetus.
Happy Carla?
to kill her pregnancy by terminating her fetus.
I think you mean “terminate her pregnancy by killing her fetus.”
All pregnancies terminate, btw. But killing the unborn child is a psychotic way to go about it.
Women deserve better than abortion.
Cranium,
So you refuse to read the sources that others here read, and on that basis believe that your illiteracy can be compensated for by your smug pugnacity?
Child –
[n] a young person of either sex (between birth and puberty); “she writes books for children”; “they’re just kids”; “`tiddler’ is a British term for youngsters”
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=child
‘Psychotic’? Really? ‘…loss of contact with reality’, ‘abnormal thinking and perceptions’.
We could argue about this one forever!
Like what Carla? Tell us, please.
Not at all Gerard. I just refuse to give them credence in many instances. Why? Because while some are accurate, most aren’t. Those from anti-choice sites I generally disregard as they blatantly misrepresent the data on so many topics. I make every effort to supply sources which are not from sites which are ‘my side of the fence’. Sometimes I will if the actual information comes from an independent source. I prefer to cite sources such as the CDC and independent cancer groups with no axe to grind.
Illiteracy Gerard? Really? Is that why I can advise you as to why I choose to disregard your ‘over 280 articles’? Is your nose out of joint?
Yes, I have looked at your site. Example – The ABC Literature #1. Hm, 1997. Why not go back a little further and involve leeches? I also don’t think ‘With a 95% confidence interval (meaning the researchers are 95% certain that the results are not due to chance)’ quite tallies with ‘So in plain English, women who had 1 induced abortion, regardless of ever having had a child, had a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer over women the same age, with the same parity status who never had abortions, and the authors are 95% certain that there is no other explanation’, but then maybe I am illiterate! Even if women who had abortions had increased rates of breast cancer, to what extent were environmental or other factors tested?
If I simply cut and paste ‘Cancer Causes and Control, 1997, 8, pp 841-849.’ into Google, in about 5 seconds I find the following:
From 2001 – ‘…concludes that there are, to date, insufficient data to justify warning women of future breast-cancer risk when counselling them about abortion.’
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W85-44KTKJ3-V&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1470736259&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2fc05b82ee14081f3c4762fa54b44666&searchtype=a
and
‘In conclusion, we find no increased risk for breast cancer associated with induced abortion in young women, regardless of parity.’
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/12/3/209.full
there are more but I’ve found it hard to post comments containing more than two links.
‘Psychotic’? Really? ‘…loss of contact with reality’, ‘abnormal thinking and perceptions’.
Sounds about right. Tell me, cranium, do you perform abortions?
No Kel, I do not. Never have. You?
cranium
September 22nd, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Good morning fine people.
Semantics, opinion and definitional differentiation.
I agree in part with Joe actually. I still refer to fetuses as fetuses because they aren’t ‘children’ until after birth. But I’m happy to say kill instead of terminate. You know, like we ‘kill’ ideas, ‘kill’ political bills by voting, ‘kill’ an engine when we turn it off.
Nice try Bekah.
Cranium, you do realize that killing a fetus is a completely different form of “killing” than merely “killing” an idea, don’t you? A fetus is a living human being. An idea is just a thought in your head. In order to “kill” a fetus, you have to snuff out his/her very LIFE – you have to STOP HIS/HER BEATING HEART. According to the CDC, the majority of abortions take place during 7-13 weeks, by which time the fetus has arms, legs, hands, feet, a face, a beating heart. And this is what you’re comparing to a thought in your head? Goodness. This tiny person has to be dismembered with a vacuum in order for death to occur!
Are you playing a game of semantics? It’s more than obvious. You’re in denial and afraid to acknowledge the truth. You’re hiding behind the arrangement of words. Doesn’t seem very logical to me at all. I thought atheists prided themselves on not being afraid of the “truth”?
cranium
September 22nd, 2010 at 6:37 pm
The well educated young woman sat and considered all her options and their impacts and eventually came to the conclusion that her best option was to kill her pregnancy by terminating her fetus.
Cranium,
“Kill” and “terminate” are merely synonyms for destroying/obliterating something. You can go out and murder your neighbor and call it a killing or a termination or an assassination, but at the end of the day, all these words mean the same thing. Certain words express things more clearly within proper context (i.e. give more detail), which is why we have synonyms; but when two words, broken down, mean the same thing at their base, then the interchanging of them to support a particular opinion, is called “word games.” The intention is to deceive, mislead. It’s juvenile.
As Kel pointed out, since a pregnancy is a condition while a fetus is a living human being, the correct grammar and word usage would be: “her best option was terminate her pregnancy by killing her fetus.”
Nope. I was just curious. You just sound a lot like a certain 1 or 2 abortionists who have posted here before, who repeatedly engage in semantic acrobatics in order to continue their livelihoods.
But I should have known you aren’t an abortionist. I haven’t seen many abortionists deny the humanity of the fetus. They know exactly what they’re doing, and have testified to it in court.
Gluteous maximus. Humans do not lay eggs or grow from spores. We gestate our offspring in utero. Play games with words, and sleep well at night as a result, but garbage dumps and landfills contain the remains of human beings who were killed because they are small, easy targets. I have no respect for petty bullies who pick on children. especially before they are born.
(*sigh*) What a day for me to forget my Trollicide spray…
It makes me ill that “woman” are the ones who are pressing abortion more and more. the pro-aborts say “it’s a choice and a woman’s right to her own body” no it’s not it’s a woman’s right and duty to protect her child within. God breathed that life into existence and it’s not negotiable to just decide to murder that life. Why is it when the child is “inconvenient” then it’s tissue and disposable but when it’s wanted and desired then it’s a life? Sick minds! I’ve known woman who got pregnant w incest and were forced to have abortions with out their consent or permission. I’ve known woman who were going to “die” if they gave birth and they are here as well as their child. I’ve known women raped who chose to have their child, as I did. I’ve also known and have dear friends who to this day still mourn their child and wish to go back and not have an abortion. They struggle to forgive themselves for believing the lies that the abortion industry has told them. It amazes me that abortionists have “counseling” for women suffering from PASD when you are the reason they have it in the first place. What a bunch of heartless selfish women playing God over other women. Abortion is NOT an answer to “lower worldwide maternal/child mortality. There are women in other countries FORCED to have abortions by their own govt. This president is SICK in his head to even think this way, what a heartless uncaring individual. Now you’re subjecting women who are poor to abortions? WTH?! Why not use that money to help them and their families instead of putting the money for murders into your own pockets and profiting off of someone elses’ suffering. People are daily using abortion as birth control and pro aborts market it as well. Please don’t treat pro lifers with your feigning ignorance to this, it just makes you look lower. If you’re angry at your life then go fix it, don’t seek to destroy another’s life.