No wire hangers? “Jane” admits she would not have had an illegal abortion
What would you have done if you weren’t allowed an abortion?
Jane: This is a really tough question. Honestly, I would have done everything in my power to obtain a safe abortion. I would have contacted organizations such as Women on Waves or Women on Web and sought them out to have the procedure done in the safest manner possible to my body.
If this pursuit turned up with no results, I would have given my child up for adoption.
~ “Jane” of thisismyabortion.com, as quoted by RH Reality Check, July 10
[Image via freethoughtblogs.com]
Jul.12, 2012 2:00 am |
Adoption, Inconsistencies |
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.
Births went down at least slightly after Roe v. Wade, didn’t it?
And the number of babies placed for adoption went down, right?
Anti-abortion laws prevent SOME abortions although how many is definitely ambiguous.
Wait… I was informed by some pro-choicers that women who don’t have legal access to abortion would definitely have an unsafe illegal one, every time. You mean that isn’t accurate???
JackBorsch says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:09 am
Wait… I was informed by some pro-choicers that women who don’t have legal access to abortion would definitely have an unsafe illegal one, every time. You mean that isn’t accurate???
(Denise) I believe there are MANY girls and women who would get an abortion no matter what. There are some who might commit suicide.
However, it seems there are at least SOME who will carry to term. Most will then raise their babies and some of those will place for adoption.
There are probably some women who want to have a baby. When the baby arrives, she realizes she doesn’t want to raise. She places for adoption. There are also women who die in childbirth.
However, usually both abortions and adoptions are the result of unplanned pregnancies.
David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz killed young women in lovers’ lanes because he feared they would get pregnant, have babies, and place for adoption — as he had been placed for adoption.
Joel Rifkin killed prostitutes because he thought if they had babies, those babies would be placed for adoption — as he had been placed for adoption.
Conquer the problem of unwanted pregnancies!!!!!!! Abortion will pretty much disappear and adoption will become a rarity.
Back in the days before Roe v. Wade, family members (grandparents, aunts & uncles and older siblings) cared for the children of unprepared teen mothers. There were plenty of orphanages and adoption placements for families who could not care for the child.
That’s just how it was. There was never a huge demand for illegal abortions, safe or unsafe.
We have grown accustomed to abortion, legal and available, some nasty and none as “safe” as we were promised. There will probably be a higher demand for illegal abortion for a while, if in general we can restore a life-affirming culture.
But soon enough, our habits will return to what they were — with extended families keeping children and adoptions becoming common. Unwanted pregnancies will also reduce, as we come to remember that a child is often the consequence of sex.
Jack, you were misinformed. I travel in very pro-choice circles and we don’t say that women would always have an abortion if we go back to the dark pre-Roe days. What we do say is that many women would avail themselves to illegal procedures or do something really bad to themselves. Ask older women what women did pro-Roe. You’ll get lots of interesting answers. Funny, I went to Catholic school and many of my classmates got very creative and for some, it didn’t work out well. Those, however, who had rich Catholic daddies had nice, safe “D&C’s.” Others douched with acne medication. Good times….
CC, maybe you haven’t noticed but our society has softened considerably toward unwed, pregnant young women since the pre-Roe days. I find over and over that it is not the young people putting a stigma on unplanned pregnancy but those who were adults at the time of Roe.
The young generation is way more forgiving of girls and women getting pregnant young and/or before marriage. When I was unwed and pregnant in the late 80s, it was the people older than me that pressured me to quickly marry or abort. It was the people my age and younger who supported me and threw the big baby shower for me.
It was your generation (yes, many “religious” included) that put the stigma on pregnant women in the first place and then pressured them to hide pregnancy through whatever means necessary i.e. being sent away, adoption, marrying immediately or killing the child.
Young people are seeing through the lies that a unplanned child will take away their hopes and dreams. Many of our unplanned child became the best parts of our dreams.
Unplanned turns to unwanted when we have a society telling mothers and unborn children in so many ways how worthless they are. Women and children should be seen and not hurt.
It takes a whole village to raise a child but it also takes a whole village to kill one.
Get out of the dark ages, CC, and become progressive. Encourage others to help one another rather than encouraging women to remain in the dark ages where we were stigmatized for the sole reason of being pregnant.
For Del: There are many people today who understand the link between a certain type of sex and pregnancy. One teen girl commented, “My father doesn’t want me to get pregnant until I’m ready so he’s very supportive of the girl thing.”
Another teen girl said she prefers to spend her intimate time with her own sex because “another girl isn’t always trying to [get the type of sex resulting in pregnancy].”
Of course, this is also the basis for prejudice against lesbianism: it seems like they’re getting away with something because they can enjoy sexual intimacy without the cost of pregnancy.
For anyone who makes assumptions about me based on the above truths: I prefer male company and most of my friends are men. I’ve found them, on average, less bitchy and judgmental than women although there are many individual exceptions. I’ve known men who are just as harsh and severe as the mother-figures from “Carrie,” “Splendor in the Grass,” “A Summer Place,” and “Marnie.”
The sheer selfishness of “Jane’s” statement, not to mention the pathetic euphemisms, is astonishing. She’d seek out every possible way of “safely” killing her baby, but if none could be found, then she’d give her child up for adoption?!? So, if I can kill the child “safely” then I will, but if I can’t, then I’ll let her live and give her for adoption…
If I can destroy that other person without harming myself, then I will. But if it might harm me, then I guess that other person can live.
That’s abortion.
Jen, women who have abortion available still chose adoption. The man who impregnated David Berkowitz’s biological mother urged her to abort but she chose to carry to term and place for adoption.
Berkowitz has never said he wished she’d aborted but she he wishes she had raised him. He was embittered that he was placed for adoption as other babies of unplanned pregnancies sometimes are.
Jen- You hit the nail right on the head!
all the women over there talking about how much better abortion is *FOR THEM* than adoption:
Do you even know what that sounds like? That sounds like an abusive significant other saying “IF I CAN’T HAVE YOU, NO ONE ELSE CAN!” before killing his spouse/girlfriend/lover.
Yeah. You guys found equality alright. Now you’re just as horrible as those men you love to denigrate.
Michele says:
July 12, 2012 at 10:41 am
Jen- You hit the nail right on the head!
You sure did, Jen!
“Wait… I was informed by some pro-choicers that women who don’t have legal access to abortion would definitely have an unsafe illegal one, every time.”
Not only that, there is by some magical argument actually MORE abortions when it’s illegal. Because that’s the way the world works right?
I was thinking that, too, Xalisae. Or a spoiled child with a toy:
“I don’t want you, but I don’t want anybody ELSE to have you, either!”
Praxedes, I noticed the same thing. The older generations are the ones who get all hot and bothered about unwed mothers, both religious and non religious. But the young people, even young people in the church who don’t think you should have sex before marriage, are far more accepting of unwed mothers. Not because we condone it, but because we realize that we’re all human after all. And we all sin. And we all make mistakes. And the best way to handle those mistakes is to love and support, especially when something unplanned results in a brand new life. After all, that is what Jesus would do. He would lovingly reach out to those unwed mothers and offer then grace. Were we not offered grace?
The problem with unplanned pregnancy is that it’s just more visible. It’s a physical manifestation of something we’ve done. But in the end, that doesn’t mean that hundreds of other kids your age haven’t had sex; they have. they just haven’t gotten pregnant. And I think the way girls who got pregnant were treated back in the day was entirely hypocritical (and still is in many circles). So she made a mistake. SO has every single other person in the world. She just created a new life. And now, the best thing to do is to love and support her and the baby and make their lives as easy as possible.
CC, maybe you haven’t noticed but our society has softened considerably toward unwed, pregnant young women since the pre-Roe days
And that is a very good thing. We need to support those who do have a child in difficult circumstances as well as supporting (not shaming) those who exercise their legal right to an abortion. It’s all about choice.
And BTW, orphanages in the good old pre-Roe days were terrible places where children, especially those in Catholic orphanages (Ireland is finally coming to grips with that scandal) were abused physically and sexually. Today we have foster homes which are a step up but not perfect. Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough of them. If abortion is re-criminalized, the situation will reach a breaking point as states would not have the resources to care for the unwanted children especially those with behavioral/physical disorders who are, at present, difficult to place. (And those who take them are wonderful people.) Minority children are also difficult to place. So be careful what you wish for.
Ask older women what women did pro-Roe. You’ll get lots of interesting answers.
I get lots of interesting answers when I ask my friends about Coke and Pop Rocks. I get lots of interesting answers when I ask my friends whether it’s possible to fail to catch a Pokemon using a Master Ball.
Interesting answers do not constitute meaningful data.
If abortion is re-criminalized, the situation will reach a breaking point as states would not have the resources to care for the unwanted children especially those with behavioral/physical disorders who are, at present, difficult to place.
The same argument was made against the criminalization of the slave trade. “What will we do with all these PEOPLE???”
It amazes me that women are supposedly so “empowered, informed and strong” while choosing abortion but if it becomes illegal they will become mentally ill, self abusive folks jamming sharp objects into themselves with blood running through the streets. Sick, desperate women with coat hangers make gory visual images but don’t adequately argue for the continued legalization of the 3,000 deaths of innocent humans every.single.day.
You really are the poster girl for proabort propaganda CC. A propaganda machine.
And completely out of touch with reality.
PS I know of only two coat hanger stories. One was used and exploited by the proabort side to garner public sympathy to legalize abortion.
The other was a young girl that was forcibly aborted by her father with a wire hanger.
Kel says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:37 am
If abortion is re-criminalized, the situation will reach a breaking point as states would not have the resources to care for the unwanted children especially those with behavioral/physical disorders who are, at present, difficult to place.
The same argument was made against the criminalization of the slave trade. “What will we do with all these PEOPLE???”
(Denise) Perhaps that “breaking point” will lead to more funding for the social programs necessitated by all those babies.
For Carla: Had the girl’s father also IMPREGNATED her?
The only coat hanger story I know is Whoopi Goldberg. So she says.
Am I the only one who thinks CC just contradicted herself in her first statement? Or am I just confused? (I wouldn’t put it past being confused. I seem to have a foggy brain these days).
So if I experience any sleeplessness tonight, I’l either take the Lunesta or I can listen to CC rail on the Catholics again.
Sweet dreams!
Sydney–it’s all the nursing! LOL!
xalisae says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:10 am
all the women over there talking about how much better abortion is *FOR THEM* than adoption:
Do you even know what that sounds like? That sounds like an abusive significant other saying “IF I CAN’T HAVE YOU, NO ONE ELSE CAN!” before killing his spouse/girlfriend/lover.
Yeah. You guys found equality alright. Now you’re just as horrible as those men you love to denigrate.
(Denise) Part of the reason abortion is much more popular may be the big belly. I asked, “Do you every wish you had had the baby and placed for adoption?”
She answered, “No, because I wouldn’t have wanted people to see me pregnant.”
Roe v. Wade is grounded in a supposed “right to privacy” — although the word “privacy” is not mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion may be preferred because this is something that can indeed be kept private — no big belly.
Another reason adoption is so unpopular is that many women may INTEND to place a baby for adoption but change their minds after the birth. Such a mother realizes that the biological process has bonded she and the baby to each other. At that point, she doesn’t want to rupture that bond.
Hey CC here’s a thought: maybe, when women don’t have the option of going out and ending the life of their child, they’ll discover that – gasp – having a baby isn’t so bad. and they’ll want the child. It happens.
it’s called love triumphing over difficult situations. You know what love is, don’t you, CC?
Love wins LB.
I’ve read stats that say approx. 97% of abortions are procured for social and/or financial reasons. So, is it safe to say that 97% of women knew they didn’t want children before they engaged in sex? Guttmacher’s own website says that over 50% of women who attend their child’s abortion were using birth control. If these stats are true, tell me this:
If you are pro-choice, what are you doing to address the planned obsolesence of the condom and the unreliable statistics of many birth control methods? We see you here and we see you engaging pro-lifers as if we were your adversaries. Why? Are you spending the same amount of time and energy addressing and engaging the pharmaceutical companies and other birth control product manufacturers? It seems to me that women, and taxpayers, and everyone are paying a financial price for abortions at $400-$4,000 which is money that could be spent elsewhere.
Tell me, pro-choicers, aren’t you angry that women are being victimized for money? What are you doing about it? Isn’t engaging pro-lifers a little too after-the-fact?
I repeat: tell us, are you expending the same time and energy to engage those corporations that are using women’s bodies like ATM machines???????
Back in the days before Roe v. Wade, family members (grandparents, aunts & uncles and older siblings) cared for the children of unprepared teen mothers. There were plenty of orphanages and adoption placements for families who could not care for the child.
In the African American community, pregnant teens were often sent “down South” to live with a relative. The reason for the girl’s departure was never really explained, but everyone pretty much knew what was going on. After the baby was born the young mother suddenly reappeared, without the baby, who was being reared by the relative. This lead to many children finding out that their “aunt” was really their mother.
I think this also happened to Jack Nicholson.
Ninek, are you saying the pharmaceutical companies don’t want to come up with better contraception options? I doubt that. There is a lot of money to be made if someone could perfect the product.
CC-
You are conflating Foster Care and infant adoption. They are not the same thing.
When birthparents voluntarily and selflessly make an adoption plan, they relinquish their parental rights to the adoptive parents. Thus these adoptions are much smoother both legally and emotionally (I am not saying they are emotionally easy, particularly for the birthparents, but easier for all involved). In Illinois (where I live), adoptive parents have full legal custody once birthparents sign their papers a minimum of 72 hours after the birth (though they can wait longer if they are unsure), and the adoption is final and irrevocable after a simple court process that takes six months. Because it is more straight-forward, there are families waiting to be chosen by birthparents who are planning a voluntary infant adoption.
It is a different process entirely from waiting children in foster care. If you want to argue that more people should adopt through foster care, fine. But that argument is not impacted by the abortion debate at all. Presumably a woman who does not want to parent and so chooses abortion would realize she does not want to parent, and so choose infant adoption if abortion were not an option. Do you feel that women choose abortion now because they are afraid their are not enough adoptive families out there to choose from? If so, they are tragically misinformed. I recently read an estimate of 36 waiting families for every 1 infant placed in adoption, but I feel that is conservative.
And minority children can be somewhat harder to place, but that is changing as blended families (through marriage, step-parenting, or adoption) become more common. My three minority kids (through infant adoption) and I don’t seem to have much trouble :-)
So…Foster Care NOT EQUAL to infant adoption. Not the same. At all. That point of argument may confuse some, but to anyone familiar with adoption, it just shows that you don’t know very much about the adoption process.
Yes it does, Carla, yes it does. :)
‘Women on waves’ posts instructions on DIY abortions
http://moronicprochoicequotes.blogspot.com/2012/01/do-it-yourself-abortion-instructions.htm
Hi Hal,
I’m asking if any of our pro-choice readers have engaged the companies that make birth control.
You’re pro-choice, right? Have you asked? Have you asked anyone who works at a business that produces contraceptive products if they think there’s more profit to be made preventing pregnancy? Or is there more profit to be made destroying “products of conception?” If that’s true, are you angered by that? Do you think it would be more cost effective for them to, as they say “build a better mousetrap”?
If the taxpayers are going to foot the bill for elective abortions, then, I’m asking: are you angry that abortion costs YOU more money than prevention of conception? Are you angry? If so, what are you doing about it?
The math is simple: if Americans are paying taxes and if Americans are paying abortionists, wouldn’t we all save money if there were less abortions? Aren’t you interested in saving money?
phillymiss says:
July 12, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Back in the days before Roe v. Wade, family members (grandparents, aunts & uncles and older siblings) cared for the children of unprepared teen mothers. There were plenty of orphanages and adoption placements for families who could not care for the child.
In the African American community, pregnant teens were often sent “down South” to live with a relative. The reason for the girl’s departure was never really explained, but everyone pretty much knew what was going on. After the baby was born the young mother suddenly reappeared, without the baby, who was being reared by the relative. This lead to many children finding out that their “aunt” was really their mother.
I think this also happened to Jack Nicholson.
(Denise) It has often been reported — although there is dispute about this — that serial murderer Ted Bundy grew up being told that his mother Louise Bundy was really his older sister. The story is that the Cowell family (as he was born) didn’t want Louise stigmatized as an unwed mother or little Ted stigmatized as illegitimate. He supposedly “discovered” the truth when he was a young adult. There have been many reports that he sometimes called Louise “Mom” and other times “Louise” and was confused as to what their relationship really was.
Many of the kids in foster care aren’t eligible for adoption. They are often there because the mother is sick or somehow temporarily distressed. She is hoping to care for her child in the future.
Riddle me this: we can send a man to the moon. We can send a rover to Mars.
We buy a product that can fit our entire music collections onto a device the size of my thumb. We can’t buy a simple little condom that doesn’t break? Is that impossible to manufacture? Really? Seriously?
Many years ago, I stopped wearing pantyhose because it galled me to buy a product that was made deliberately to not last so that I would buy the product again and again.
Why doesn’t it gall pro-choicers to be used for their money? Once a child is conceived, you get angry at us. But it’s not our fault. I don’t make faulty condoms. Why do pro-choicers spit at me and give the condom manufacturers a free pass???? I’m angry. Why aren’t you?
The same argument was made against the criminalization of the slave trade. “What will we do with all these PEOPLE???”
Freed slaves were able to find work and they were absorbed into the system. Unwanted babies don’t have that luxury.
PS I know of only two coat hanger storie
Ever read “Revolutionary Road” or seen the movie? That included a graphic scene in which a woman douched with a chemical in order to abort the fetus. It was written by a man, in the late 40’s. If you think that women didn’t harm themselves, in the “good old” pre-Roe days, you’re even more deluded than you appear to be. And if your peer group consists of devout Christians, they probably won’t admit to having done anything to abort a pregnancy in the pre-Roe days.
having a baby isn’t so bad. and they’ll want the child. It happens
Sometimes. Other times it doesn’t and that’s why we have child welfare services.
”I’m asking: are you angry that abortion costs YOU more money than prevention of conception?”
Actually, no. In my state, the criteria for Medicaid abortions is very strict so not much taxpayer money spent there. And (right, you don’t and won’t believe it), Planned Parenthood doesn’t use taxpayer money. But even if it did, it would still be cheaper than what the taxpayer pays for women on public assistance to give birth – plus the additional social service costs which I have no problem with either. Then there’s the taxpayer money spent on abused and neglected children. Abortion is much cheaper.
Yes. Sick, desperate women harmed themselves.
You want me to watch a movie? For all the coat hanger abortions you guys babble on about you think there were thousands upon thousands of them. But there is this movie/book…………that has nothing to do with coat hangers.
You are losing the battle. We are winning the war.
And no
I’M NOT SORRY!!!
Yeah. I am totally deluded. Helping young mothers, walking with women who have been raped and put their children up for adoption, leading post abortive women to healing, telling my abortion story and hearing later that young girls CHOSE LIFE!!
Deluded.
CC,
The babies will *become* citizens who can find jobs and get absorbed into society. It took slaves many years to actually do that; at first, it was very difficult for them to find work as free citizens.
Has any woman ever had her menstrual period come and exclaimed, “Drats! Now I can’t get an abortion!”?
The goal is to make pregnancy a time of joy.
“Have you asked anyone who works at a business that produces contraceptive products if they think there’s more profit to be made preventing pregnancy? Or is there more profit to be made destroying “products of conception?”
What? Seriously, just what? Are you saying that contraceptive manufacturers are intentionally selling flawed products in order to cause unwanted pregnancies? This is a new level of idiocy, even for you. Tell me, which companies that produce contraceptives also perform abortions? or are the private hospitals and clinics that perform the majority of abortions giving them kickbacks?
Joan, I am asking pro-choicers to answer my questions. I am asking IF YOU have asked them? Have you? Have you expended the same effort and time questioning why they make products that lead women to pay more for abortions than the products that were supposed to prevent them?? Tell me! I’m doin’ the askin’ here.
Even if a woman gets an abortion that the tax payers don’t pay for, aren’t you angry if she’s being targeted by people who make money on that? She’s paying out of her own pocket. Why don’t you care?
I was going to type a response, but LibertyBelle beat me to it! :D
Oops, editing time ran out. I mean to write: are you expending the same time and effort questioning and criticizing them as you do criticizing US? Why not? Do you think women should be targeted like ATM machines? Why? Why doesn’t the high cost of abortion make you angry? Even if it were “free”, you’d be paying higher taxes for it. Wouldn’t you rather see your tax dollars used better? Why don’t you hold condom manufacturers accountable for their products? Why do you get angry at us, when their products fail, and we simply protest human-on-human murder? I didn’t make the inferior condoms.
PS calling my question a new level of idiocy is very impolite.
Freed slaves were able to find work and they were absorbed into the system. Unwanted babies don’t have that luxury.
Hold on, hold on. I just can’t get over this little gem of absurdity. You are denying unPLANNED babies that “luxury” because you’re…. killing them in the womb. Victims of abortion absolutely do not have the luxury to become functioning members of society because they were denied even the chance to live, let alone “be absorbed by society.”
Besides, there have been so many very famous people who started out as unwanted babies. People who grew up in foster care, who grew up in orphanages, but still overcame their circumstances.
Abortion just denies them even that possibility. To me, CC, I’d rather give those babies a shot. Sure, they might turn out to be bums. But they also might grow up to be great parents, successful citizens. Who knows? We won’t because they’ll never even have that chance.
I believe in choice, and giving people chances, because I’ve seen people make choices and overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. People can always make choices to overcome their circumstances; unless you kill them before they take their first breaths.
“Besides, there have been so many very famous people who started out as unwanted babies.”
And the other side of the coin is that some serious psychopaths have started off on the same path.
The babies will *become* citizens who can find jobs and get absorbed into society
So none of the babies will be disabled? None of the babies will turn out to be criminals who will spend their lives in jail? None of the babies will be so damaged from psychological or physical abuse that they can’t hold jobs? Do you actually think that all aborted “babies” will become self sustaining citizens. Are you that deluded? Not all “normal” babies turn out fine. Ergo, the argument that all aborted babies will turn out fine is so ludicrous.
She’s paying out of her own pocket. Why don’t you care.
Same reason why I don’t care if somebody gets liposuction. Not my business and certainly not yours.
The truth is that SOME pregnant females will get abortions no matter what the circumstances.
SOME will reluctantly carry to term if the circumstances are frightening enough.
There is an inevitable trade-off here.
Criminalize abortion and some girls and women will commit suicide or be butchered.
But some will have babies who would have aborted if it were legal.
So none of the babies will be disabled? None of the babies will turn out to be criminals who will spend their lives in jail? None of the babies will be so damaged from psychological or physical abuse that they can’t hold jobs? Do you actually think that all aborted “babies” will become self sustaining citizens. Are you that deluded? Not all “normal” babies turn out fine. Ergo, the argument that all aborted babies will turn out fine is so ludicrous.
You could (and still can) say the same thing about newly freed slaves. Look at racial disparity in crime rates.
CC, Jeffrey Dahmer was a planned, wanted baby. Your point then is what??? That we kill ALL babies because we, gasp, just don’t know how they’ll turn out!!!!
Yes, some people grow up to be murderers and rapists and psychopaths. But murderers and psychopaths can be planned, wanted babies. Being planned or “wanted” by your parents does not mean you will turn out wonderful and being unplanned and “unwanted” by your parents does not doom you to a life of crime. See this is where we see who is truly pro-choice. I believe people have the choice to become good citizens or the choice to become criminals. You believe people have no choice and are doomed based on the feelings and plans of their parents at the moment of conception.
If you truly believe that it does I suppose you advocate killing all kids in the foster care system right? You might even advocate killing my first son since he was unplanned. My second son should be okay though. He’ll probably be president some day cause he was planned!
“Gem of absurdity” is right LibertyBelle.
CC, Jeffrey Dahmer was a planned, wanted baby. Your point then is what???
Where, on this thread, did I mention Jeffrey Dahlmer? Your point then is what???
But fine, if you think that all unwanted children grow up happily ever after, enjoy your little pro-life delusion.
“PS calling my question a new level of idiocy is very impolite.”
It’s also accurate. You’re alleging, without the slightest bit of evidence, some kind of plot by contraceptive manufacturers (most of which are actually subsidiaries of large multinational corporations with interests in a wide range of consumer goods and for whom condom sales are only a small part of their overall revenue) to sabotage their own products in order to drive up the number of abortions. Not only can you not supply a motive for why they would do this, as these companies don’t even perform abortions and therefore would not make any money from them, your theory is actually counter-intuitive on top of that because its end result would drive consumption of their products down for obvious reasons, undermine their reputation with consumers, and potentially expose them to litigation.
Are there any other crackpot conspiracies I can debunk for you today using basic logic?
CC – “Your point then is what???”
Keeeeeeep reeeeeeeeeeading. Herrrrr pooooost gooooooes onnnnn tooooo explainnn herrrrr pooooooint.
Forget 9-11 is an inside job – we now have condom manufacturers deliberately producing bad condoms to up the abortion rate. And up the AIDS incidence, too. Wow.
If you truly believe that it does I suppose you advocate killing all kids in the foster care system right? You might even advocate killing my first son since he was unplanned.
Right, pograms for foster kids. Is the hyperbolic straw man argument all that you’ve got?
You could (and still can) say the same thing about newly freed slaves. Look at racial disparity in crime rate.
Newly freed slaves and crime rates? WTF?
Sydney M – “But murderers and psychopaths can be planned, wanted babies. Being planned or “wanted” by your parents does not mean you will turn out wonderful and being unplanned and “unwanted” by your parents does not doom you to a life of crime.“
CC – “But fine, if you think that all unwanted children grow up happily ever after, enjoy your little pro-life delusion.”
CC, do you have reading comprehension problems?
that young girls CHOSE LIFE!
And the important thing is that it’s a choice. You would deny them that.
lrning, CC has HUMAN comprehension problems.
CC, do you have reading comprehension problems?
No, but you obviously do. While abortion might “kill” an Beethoven, it also does the same thing for a Charles Manson. Obviously, not all psychopaths were unwanted but unwanted children have a higher chance of being abused and neglected – with all that goes with that. But again, in happy pro-life land everybody lives happily ever after. And that’s just not true. Do you honestly think that an unwanted child has the same kind of happy life that your children do? Really?
Alleging nothing, just asking questions. Question which you are dodging and not answering.
What energy and time do you expend holding accountable the manufacturers of birth control products that don’t work? After they fail and women show up for abortions, you are angry at us for protesting human-on-human killing. Why? Why don’t YOU ask Trojan what’s up with that?!
“we now have condom manufacturers deliberately producing bad condoms to up the abortion rate.”
cc, are you admitting that a condom manufacturer told you that they are deliberately doing that? Have you asked them?
Your point then is what??? That we kill ALL babies because we, gasp, just don’t know how they’ll turn out!!!!
No, but if that’s what floats your boat, go for it. My point is that abortion should be available for those who want it especially for those whose situations, at the time, are dysfunctional. And while many dysfunctional situations straighten themselves out, many don’t. Again, it’s up to the woman to decide. It’s None of Your Business what they do with their reproductive organs.
It’s true that some wanted, planned babies will turn out badly. However, if we’re talking about abortion or suicide during pregnancy (which means the embryo or fetus isn’t carried to term), I think everyone should acknowledge that women who want to get pregnant are unlikely to either abort or commit suicide when they do get pregnant.
Thus, the knot of this issue is how to prevent those pregnancies in the first place.
After they fail and women show up for abortions, you are angry at us for protesting human-on-human killing. Why? Why don’t YOU ask Trojan what’s up with that?!
It’s interesting that you only cite the “killing” of “human beings” in abortion and not the AIDS virus. And BTW, do you have any actual data on this “conspiracy?”
And Ninek, I know you protest in front of abortion clinics. Do you also do the same thing outside IVF clinics cuz they’re killing little “babies” inside.
Ninek, I’ve been asking for a You Tube of you saving babies. So far, bupkis.
CC says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm
And Ninek, I know you protest in front of abortion clinics. Do you also do the same thing outside IVF clinics cuz they’re killing little “babies” inside.
(Denise) Most people who want to outlaw abortion oppose IVF.
Ninek said,
“If the taxpayers are going to foot the bill for elective abortions, then, I’m asking: are you angry that abortion costs YOU more money than prevention of conception? Are you angry? If Americans are paying taxes and if Americans are paying abortionists, wouldn’t we all save money if there were less abortions? Aren’t you interested in saving money?”
Of all the arguments pro-lifers bring up I have no idea why you would bring up this one?
From a strictly financial prospective abortion is dirt cheap. Abortion only cost $400. A typical Medicaid birth cost taxpayers $10k. Michelle Duggar’s last baby Josie cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars
So, if we are strictly talking about saving money we should be a lot more ‘angry’ that (poor) women are having babies instead of abortions
CC – Do you also do the same thing outside IVF clinics cuz they’re killing little “babies” inside.
Some pro-lifers do.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/March-2012/Naperville-Right-to-Life-Activists-Protest-IVF-Clinic/
CC – “My point is that abortion should be available for those who want it…”
Yes, and the point of pro-lifers is that abortion is wrong. Abortion doesn’t cure dysfunction.
CC – ” It’s None of Your Business what they do with their reproductive organs.”
Yawn. We don’t much care what they do with their reproductive organs. But we do care if they kill innocent humans.
“unwanted children have a higher chance of being abused and neglected – with all that goes with that.”
Ah, the old “better dead than unwanted” b.s.
Shannon, Guttmacher says that more than 50% of women who attend their child’s abortion were using birth control. Why aren’t pro-choicers more concerned about the failure of birth control?
Abortion isn’t “dirt cheap” although I guess if you think $400 is dirt cheap, then I can understand how you can’t relate to the poor. Still, if women are being charged for abortions after their contraception fails, are you saying that you are alright with that? Why don’t you have any concern for women? Is it fair that birth control is so unreliable? Why don’t pro-choicers demand better more effective condoms, for example? Why are you angry at pro-lifers and not one bit angry at the manufacturers of unreliable birth control?
Ninek,
LIKE!! You have me thinking. :)
Newly freed slaves and crime rates? WTF?
It makes sense if you actually try to follow it, and you’re a rational person.
You originally said that ending abortion would result in an influx of new people into the foster care system that we wouldn’t know what to do with. It was then pointed out that a similar problem held true for ending the slave trade. You countered by saying that newly freed slaves were able to get jobs and become productive members of society, but the same would hold true for babies that aren’t killed before they grow up. You then said that not all babies would grow up to become productive members of society, so I noted the racial disparities in the crime rate (the implication being that some of the newly freed slaves and their descendants also clearly didn’t become productive members of society).
In other words, your original argument would prove too much (it was wrong to insist on an end to slavery).
CC says: “I went to Catholic school”
If you want your children to fight for their faith, send them to public school.
If you want them to lose their faith, send them to Catholic school.
~Bishop Fulton Sheen
CC, do you like born babies? toddlers, etc? do you have children?
Ninek,
I suppose I don’t blame the birth control industry for ‘typical use’ failure rates. Very few people consistently and perfectly use birth control. Do you believe that the 50% of women who had an abortion were taking their pills astthe same time each day and always using a condom, because I don’t.
“Still, if women are being charged for abortions after their contraception fails, are you saying that you are all right with that? Why don’t you have any concern for women? ”
Are you asking why birth control is not 100% effective and doesn’t come with a guarantee? Because nothing in a pharmacy does? Not Advil not Lipitor. Why don’t I storm the drug companies and ask them to make better drugs? Perhaps this is naive, but because I assume they can’t right now. Certainly if I found out they had the technology to make better birth control I would be upset if they were hoarding it…if that answers your questions
How does this equate to not having concern for women?
My point is that abortion should be available for those who want it especially for those whose situations, at the time, are dysfunctional.
And who is the decider of what constitutes dysfunction? What do you think are dysfunctional enough reasons to abort a child?:
My prom dress will be too tight – oh the dysfunction!
My boyfriend drives a 1992 beater car – oh dear!
I don’t yet have my 18th pair of shoes yet this year – baby must die!
My great grandpa on my dad’s side was a raging alcoholic – damn the dysfunction in our family!
I might not get that promotion that ‘s coming up – gotta call Planned Parenthood!
I’m too young, I’ll never be able to take another class! Then I will be dysfunctional forever.
My baby just turned one. It would be so dysfunctional for her to have a live-in playmate so close in age to her!
Proaborts make up the dysfunctional family. Abortion is the dysfunction.
CC said, “The important thing is that it’s a choice. You would deny them that.”
No, ultimately I can’t deny them their choice. Even God almighty allows them a free will. Ultimately, He only saves His adopted children from themselves; the other people go to the hell they have chosen. And that’s why some deceived, desperate , unloved mothers might conceivably resort to a coat-hanger today. While God’s minister, the civil government, is supposed to keep its citizens from killing each other, in the case of abortion, it currently is not doing so.
Also, CC, you are denying the unborn child his choice. He is trying to live, but you don’t care.
Also, CC, you don’t care about God’s choice, which is pro-life. May His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
CC… abortion isn’t reduced to a “might kill” someone (a Beethoven, a doctor, a researcher, what have you)… abortion kills a human being. period. end of story. Doesn’t matter their potential because every single day our own potential can change based on any given choice we make. But to kill another person just because some stupid law says we have the “choice”, and society has made us believe that person’s mere existence is inconvenient at that exact moment in our life, is reprehensible and cowardly.
To try to admit otherwise constitutes a form of an intellectual growth stunt.
some choices are good, some are not. Ending the life of another, especially a child, is not a good choice. Abortion is one of those choices – the not good choice.
Causing harm to another, indeed causes death to another on purpose is not a choice a civilized person should make. Choose love. help with the problems.
We just had a case with a woman, a mother with several children with one on the way and she was about to lose her housing. She was being pressured, and who should skew the decision? Planned Parenthood – yes – the reassured her: you need a late-term abortion, but we can get that for free for you (yuck). She almost took that deal since the pressure on her and her family was so great.
Instead of offering to end the child’s life (for free), we found her housing, and moved her family there. no killing needed.
This does not insure no further suffering or difficulties, but it does insure a living child, at least for now. This woman needs help and services. She does not need help to end the life of her child.
CC, i brought up Jeffrey Dahmer because you were insinuating that “unwanted” children would be killers. My point is that “wanted” children can grow up to be killers too. And you knew why I was making that point. Stop pretending you’re that dense.
Cc, you said “ While abortion might “kill” an Beethoven, it also does the same thing for a Charles Manson. ”
You could apply that logic to all newborns and toddlers too. Really. We could kill all the children that are currently being abused by their parents since obviously they are “unwanted”. We could argue that hey, we might be killing some Oprahs or Beethovens by doing so but we’re statistically probably killing a lot of Mansons and Dahmers!
Here’s an idea CC. How bout we don’t kill ANY children, “wanted” or “unwanted”? How bout we allow them to live and we make sure they don’t suffer abuse? How bout we pour our lives into the children around us so they feel loved and so they can reach their full potential as human beings? Instead of eradicating future bad adults by killing kids lets eradicate child abuse? Wouldn’t that make more sense?
I understand some are using the idea of unplanned people’s potential for success to make a rhetorical point, but …
As we all know, it’s not our lack of a crystal ball to tell the future that makes abortion horribly wrong. And the coulda been the one to cure cancer argument, not without its truth and effect, borders on insulting in my book.
“Why don’t I storm the drug companies and ask them to make better drugs? Perhaps this is naive, but because I assume they can’t right now.” So instead I spend time arguing with people who are pro-life. I assume that if the drug companies sell shoddy merchandise, women should just keep using it especially because many of them are too stupid to use it correctly. I refuse to ask for better condoms because i would rather ask pro-lifers to stop protesting human-against-small-human murder. We shouldn’t expect products to perform as advertised. We should instead mow down the innocent children that we created. What the hey, killin’ em is dirt cheap anyways…
There, finished that for ya.
Ninek,
what are you even talking about? Refuse to ‘ask for better condoms’ lol? What is big pharma, a fairy god mother. I want better condoms and more effective birth control and weight loss pills and heart meds without side effects, it doesnt work that way sweetheart. They make what they make and we decide whether or not we want to buy their product, assuming the small risk or not. Now, if there is a defect in a certain batch of bc, as in all medicines, I would hold the company accountable.
I am not saying women are too stupid to use it correctly, statistics are saying that. I don’t know many young women who take their birth control exactly as expected or always always use condoms, statistics will say the same thing. Americans are horrible at taking all pills on time not just bc. How is this the fault of the drug companies
Seriously…if “Kill ’em, they’re unwanted.” is CC’s attitude toward poor, neglected, and abused kids, I really don’t see how she was ever in child welfare. EVER.
Well, pro-lifers, that was a fascinating experiment. Pro-choicers are (on this site) not the least bit motivated to demand a better product (that they now expect all the taxpayers to fund!). Nope, they’d rather expend the time and energy to fight with us over the results of bad attitudes and bad products. I don’t tell people that inferior birth control is going to make sexual activity “safe” from the evils of mammalian reproduction. But Planned Parenthood, for example, does. And they dispense cheap inferior products, soon after charging $hundreds for abortions. It is conspiracy or simple stupidity? One thing we do know, the pro-choicers aren’t asking and don’t care. They are in fact, pro-Abortion.
Combine that, if you will, with Jane’s admission that if abortion weren’t legal, she wouldn’t hurt herself to get one.
Simmer for a bit, and what have ya got?
Let’s make abortion illegal again, because little else will reduce the bloodshed.
Your point then is what??? That we kill ALL babies because we, gasp, just don’t know how they’ll turn out!!!!
As far as I know those school shooters at Columbine came from upper middle class families and look at the havoc they caused!
CC, I had a pretty crappy childhood and as far as I know I was a planned child. The problem was that my mother was severely mentally ill and no one tried to help her. She was so sick that she literally tried to kill us on more than one occasion, but obviously didn’t succeed. I am not angry at her anymore though, because she was ill. The point I’m trying to make is — none of us have a crystal ball. We don’t know how anyone is going to turn out.
CC cares only about a woman’s access to “reproductive choice.”
And little else.
Carla says:
July 13, 2012 at 2:38 pm
CC cares only about a woman’s access to “reproductive choice.”
And little else.
(Denise) Carla, do you believe there will come a day in which the only women who get pregnant are those who greet the news with joy?
Seriously…if “Kill ‘em, they’re unwanted.
One more time. It’s should be the choice of she who is pregnant whether or not to continue a pregnancy based on her judgement about her circumstances. Or do you think that women are too stupid or too childlike to make an informed decision. But right, kill all the babies and roast em up for dinner.
You, CC, are either too stupid or too dishonest to say that abortion is the same thing as killing a fellow human being.
And, CC, I think you might be childish too.
” . Do you honestly think that an unwanted child has the same kind of happy life that your children do?”
Of course they don’t. My life as an unwanted child was absolutely hell. I still don’t get how my death would have made that better. Like, no one has ever explained that to me sufficiently. You all bring it up enough, you should at least have a justification besides “abuse sucks and unwanted kids could be serial killers!!@!!@!”
Seriously, if it is all about a woman’s choice for herself, stop going off on these offensive tangents about how life as an unwanted or abused child is so terrible death is preferable. Thanks.
The coat-hanger has become the pro-choice movement’s rallying cry and you will often hear the claim that when abortion was illegal, large numbers of women either attempted abortion on themselves with sharp or caustic liquids or went to back alley, medically untrained, practitioners, and often died in the process. And they further make the claim that if abortion is restricted or made illegal again, abortion will become unsafe and women will resort self-induced abortion or dangerous means of obtaining one. But how accurate or true are these claims? Let’s take a look at the facts of abortion practice before legalization:
“Mary Claderone (then Medical Director of Planned Parenthood) and Nancy Howell Lee (a pro choice researcher) both investigated the practice of criminal abortion in the pre-legalization era. Calderone estimated that “90% of all illegal abortions are presently (1960 – ed) being done by physicians.” Calderone further estimated that 8% were self-induced and that 2% were induced by someone other than the woman or a doctor. Lee estimated that 89% of pre-legalization abortions were done by physicians, an additional 5% by nurses or others with some medical training, and 6% were done by non-medical persons or the woman herself. Calderone’s numbers came from “43 men and women from the various disciplines of obstetrics, psychiatry, public health, sociology, forensic medicine, and law and demography.” Lee interviewed women who had undergone pre-legalization abortions. The discrepancy between Lee’s and Calderone’s breakdowns of non-physician abortions is probably due to sampling errors.”
And on the 5% of amature and self-induced abortions: “Lee’s interviews with women who had self-aborted found a different picture from the women who had sought professional (however illegal) abortions. These self-aborting women tended to be less rational, and more self-destructive, than the women seeking competent abortionists. Lee also found that the women attempting self-abortion were likely to have had a death wish at the time of the abortion.
This finding is in keeping with psychiatric literature of the time, which treats self-induced abortion as a peculiar manifestation of the self-mutilating behavior common in patients with certain psychiatric disorders. Self-mutilation in patients with these disorders can range from superficial cuts and cigarette burns to self-trepanning (drilling holes in the skull), enoculation (gouging the eyes out), and amputation of limbs.
Mutilation of the genitals is not rare in these patients, and self-induced abortion was often regarded as an extreme form of genital mutilation aimed at attacking the patient’s own femininity. It was in the political context, not the psychiatric or psychological context, that self-induced abortions were considered to be the expected behavior of normal women. This politicized view of self-aborting women eclipsed the reality, and case studies stopped showing up in the literature, although occasional stories still do make it into the newspaper.
This is not to say that all women who self-induce abortions are mentally ill. Investigators of post-Roe self-induced abortion injuries and deaths found other factors, such as distrust of the medical profession, a perception of home herbal abortion as more “natural,” cultural preferences, and “ideosyncratic” factors nobody could readily explain. These women, however, carefully research abortion methods and use common sense and intelligence to select a method likely to be efficacious and comparatively safe.
Source
Just how many criminal abortions were there before legalization?
Because this is before the Centers for Disease Control began Abortion Surveillance Activities in 1968, and began looking at abortion mortality in earnest in 1972, all abortion deaths were typically counted together: legal (or “therapeutic”), illegal, and spontaneous (miscarriage). Mary Calderone, who was then Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, reported on a conference studying abortion in America. She indicated that in 1957, there were 260 abortion deaths nationwide. That number included all abortions: legal, illegal, and spontaneous. The caluclations based on state maternal mortality investigations are fairly close to Calderone’s numbers based on national data. These numbers were based on alerting doctors, law enforcement, coroners, and hospital administrators, along with public records officials, of their responsiblity to report these deaths. However, even without the CDC’s intervention, public health officials were watching maternal mortality in general, and abortion mortality in particular, very carefully. Mary Calderone, who was then Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, reported on a conference studying abortion in America. She indicated that in 1957, there were 260 abortion deaths nationwide. That number included all abortions: legal, illegal, and spontaneous. The caluclations based on state maternal mortality investigations are fairly close to Calderone’s numbers based on national data. These numbers were based on alerting doctors, law enforcement, coroners, and hospital administrators, along with public records officials, of their responsiblity to report these deaths.
Source
So the numbers aren’t as high as abortion-rights advocates would have you believe.
Also, if you looks at statistical trends for abortion deaths from 1940 to 1970, the number of deaths actually began to decrease even before the legalization of abortion began in the 1960’s, with 1,407 deaths in 1940, 744 deaths in 1945, 263 deaths in 1950, 224 deaths in 1955, 251 deaths in 1960, 201 deaths in 1965, and 119 deaths in 1970. Source: “Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v. Wade” JAMA, 12/9/92, vol. 208, no. 22, p. 3231-3239.
Despite abortion-rights advocates crediting the legalization of abortion, much of the decrease in maternal/infant and abortion mortality during from that time period (from 1940 to 1970) can be better attributed to improvements in antibiotics (such as the finding of penicillin), improved access to blood products, improvements in surgical techniques, improvements in emergency medicine, broader access to adequate prenatal care, improved vaccinations, and improvements in environmental health/sanitation, to name a few.
From My Blog
My Life In Reflection: Debunking the Coat-Hanger Myth
No. By no means was my statement that you were saying “…kill all the babies and rost ’em up for dinner.”
That is not what I was saying at all. What I am saying, as the mother of an “unwanted” child, just as Jack is/was an “unwanted” child-Why should my “informed decision”, or Jack’s mother’s “informed decision” mean that my daughter or Jack should die? Why should that be legal? Why should the fact that Jack’s father would abuse him and his mother would resent him for that-why should the fact that Maggie’s father would not want her and would not work to make certain we both were provided for-why should those things mean that it should be legal that Jack and Maggie should be executed at our hands, and why should that be legal for us to carry that out? Why is that okay, CC? Why do you support that, CC? Why does the fact that I wish Maggie’s father didn’t have that recourse-to pressure me to legally have her killed in utero-why do you think that means that I wasn’t informed, or that I was “stupid” and “childlike”?
Please. Answer me. Honestly. Truthfully. I can take it. You know me.
Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but do you pro-choicers have any idea how cruel you are to people who grew up unwanted and abused? I realize that you think you are being compassionate and.”saving” children by advocating abortion in less than ideal circumstances but for pity’s sake, can you imagine how uncomfortable it is to constantly hear how you should be dead? Like, your defining characteristic will never be anything great that you will do in your life, it will always be that your mom didn’t want you? Seriously, stop living in hypotheticals for a couple seconds and pay attention to people who are actually being harmed by your rhetoric.
Look, we all know the statistics. Kids that grew up like I did have a higher chance of becoming addicts, of becoming criminals, of becoming abusers ourselves. And I will admit I was a pretty terrible human being as a teenager due to all the stuff I had to deal with. But, I grew out of it. I’m a good dad, a good person. I help people. I didn’t deserve to be condemned before I was even born just because I was unfortunate to be conceived by a pedophile and a crazy woman. Honestly, I don’t see how advocating for MY DEATH and death to children like me before we even do anything, before we even have a chance to commit the terrible crime of being born to crappy parents, is compassionate. It’s not progressive, its not human rights, it is just terribly unfair. I am so sick of hearing how I am better of dead. Just, knock it off already. My mom told me I should be dead every single day when I was a kid, I shouldn’t have to hear it from “compassionate” people as an adult.
^I am pretty proud of that last comment of mine, it was a pretty epic smackdown. Quote of the day material! Lol. But seriously, people should knock that crap off. It’s annoying. And pretty victim blaming, if you ask me. Instead of condemning abusive parents and people who emotionally damage their children by treating them badly for being unwanted, pro-choicers punish the kids for being born into the circumstances with death. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Hi JackBorsch,
Arguing that we will end the problem of child abuse and neglect by aborting the unborn is like arguing we would solve the problem of wife abuse by killing engaged women.
The human race would have died out long ago if people had always expected everything in life to be planned, perfect, and wanted.
Isn’t the problem of abortion really a sub-set of the entire problem of unwanted pregnancy?
And isn’t unwanted pregnancy in turn really a sub-set of the problems intrinsic to growing up female?
“Honestly, I don’t see how advocating for MY DEATH and death to children like me before we even do anything, before we even have a chance to commit the terrible crime of being born to crappy parents, is compassionate. It’s not progressive, its not human rights, it is just terribly unfair.”
^This! You tell ’em, Jack!
“These self-aborting women tended to be less rational, and more self-destructive, than the women seeking competent abortionists.”
Makes sense, after CC claims she self-aborted and she seems completely irrational.
Jack, what does it do to the coming of age of females to have the possibility of a disastrous pregnancy constantly hanging over their heads?
*Sighs* Speaking of beating a dead horse, I’m getting tired of needing to post the same statistics & info on illegal abortions to debunk the same old coat-hanger/illegal abortion myths repeated over & over by pro-choice proponents here. CC, repeating the same old subjective opinions to yourself over and over doesn’t necessarily make them true.
Rachael C. says:
July 14, 2012 at 11:19 am
*Sighs* Speaking of beating a dead horse, I’m getting tired of needing to post the same statistics & info on illegal abortions to debunk the same old coat-hanger/illegal abortion myths repeated over & over by pro-choice proponents here. CC, repeating the same old subjective opinions to yourself over and over doesn’t necessarily make them true.
(Denise) Rachael, what can be done to ensure that the women who get pregnant are those who want to have babies?
CC, you never answered me. Are you in any way associated with the FFRF?
Great posts, X and Jack. Do either or both of you speak at prolife events or at legislative meetings? If not, would you ever consider it?
Jack, your last posts are awesome and would make a great letters to our proabort legislators or letters to the editors.
Sigh, in my above post the word all should follow the word after. What happened to my typing?
Sigh, in your above post, JDC, I didn’t even notice the missing word. What happened to my reading?
Thanks, Praxedes. You’re too kind.
I’ve always wanted to do stuff like that, but I have no idea how on Earth I’d manage it. Also, Jack would have to come with me to balance my nonsense, and he’s too far away. ;_;
hehehe. <3 Jack!
*Purposely ignores Denise Noe’s baiting*
Hmf. It’s rather a catch-22, as I seem to have two main options:
1) Keep my peace, and let my only comments be warnings against feeding the trolls… whereupon a new generation of commenters to this blog will think that warning about trolls is all I ever do! :)
2) Comment, and risk throwing food at some of the very trolls (or proto-trolls, or lurking trolls, etc.) which I wanted to discourage.
Ah, well… I must need the exercise.
I can’t possibly surpass the comments of Jack and Xalisae for brevity, incisiveness and power… but I can at least (in my own pedantic, tiresome way) reply to some of the absurd claims (and rather disingenuous, illogical deflections) being offered by some of our abortion-tolerant regulars, here.
First: the very idea that “adverse family conditions will yield suffering which is worse than death” is not only puerile and illogical, but it makes me wonder whether such commenters have ever met anyone from “non-ideal families” (whatever that might mean!) at all. A moment’s rational thought would show that, even to these commenters who aspire to be bloodless (or bloody?), cold utilitarians who spread the compassion of “death before discomfort” should at least allow such “presumably, probably doomed individuals” to RUN THE EXPERIMENT (i.e. live, for a while), see if they’re truly so miserable that they prefer death, and THEN rip them limb-from-limb (or some other abortion-comparable execution). Yes? Isn’t killing them before their post-womb life a bit premature, even for ruthless utilitarians? Why destroy the experiment before it’s even run… unless you don’t want to see the results?
Second: do these abortion-tolerant, preemptive-euthanasia advocates realise the sheer ARROGANCE needed in order for THEM (rather than the “poor, sufferers born into bad circumstances”) to pronounce the death penalty? However could they be qualified to do that… unless the true reason is to kill such children in order to alleviate the COMMENTER’S distress? The very idea of “it’s better for you to die than for you to disgust me” is, I think, disgusting enough to need no specific refutation.
Finally: is it not a wee bit inconsistent for abortion-tolerant people who happen to be anti-death-penalty to say “far better for such people to die, rather than gamble on what I consider an increased risk of letting them become axe-murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.”? Are you not advocating the death-penalty for non-capital crimes, and before the crimes have even been committed?
Please do explain the logic, to me, if you can. I’m honestly curious.
Thanks Praxedes. No… I am actually incredibly shy. People I meet online never believe me lol, but I can barely speak to like one new person I have just met, much less a group.
Xalisae :D
:) There’s another thing we have in common, Jack (i.e. shyness, especially around new people). I can handle the math classroom easily enough (it has a ready-made topic/focus), and even if I’m in a social setting with at least a few friendly extroverts, I can “play off of them” and hold my own… but by myself, meeting one or more new people with whom I’m expected to “make small talk”? That’s when I wish I could crawl under the rug!
Small talk, lol. I have no idea how to make small talk, it is socially crippling to not know how to naturally do those things.
I’m terribly awkward as well. I’d take a stage to stand on in front of a packed house over a one-on-one conversational situation. I guess I’m just weird. I’m a different person when I sing, though.
I would love to hear you sing xalisae
(Re: Xalisae & singing)
(!!)
MP3’s! I want MP3’s! :)
Pffft. You’ll feel differently after you hear it. :p
:) Says you!
Okay… failing that, a duet, then! We’re both in the same state; how hard could it be? :P
lol, taking requests, then? MP3’s to be posted thereafter? :P
Maya Angelou may have to write a sequel: “I know the wild bird sings.”
Xalisae and Paladin doing a cover for “Ya Gotta Get Out” by Ryan Bomberger. That I’d pay $5 for.
Not my usual fare, but I’ll give it a shot once my lappy gets back from getting fixed and I have the chance to practice. :)
HA X I’d take a crowd of people over one-on-one as well. :) Though I’m even pretty outgoing one-on-one… I could talk with a rock! lol
LOL! X, you can be the lead singer for “Those Anti-Choice Rascals!” I don’t have much of a voice, so I’ll just sell T-shirts at the door ;>) !
JackBorsch says:
July 14, 2012 at 3:57 am
^I am pretty proud of that last comment of mine, it was a pretty epic smackdown. Quote of the day material! Lol. But seriously, people should knock that crap off. It’s annoying. And pretty victim blaming, if you ask me. Instead of condemning abusive parents and people who emotionally damage their children by treating them badly for being unwanted, pro-choicers punish the kids for being born into the circumstances with death. It just doesn’t make any sense.
(Denise) This is true. Ultimately, people want abortion legal for only one reason: they believe that girls and women can’t be legally forced to carry to term and that they are much more likely to either commit suicide or damage or kill themselves in illegal abortions if abortion is made illegal. As I’ve pointed out before, this is part of what causes such turmoil when a girl child reaches puberty: she might get pregnant. And if she feels that she simply cannot complete the pregnancy, she is likely to get severely injured or killed.
There is a sense in which people who want abortion legal do so because they are “pro-life,” that is, they believe the embryo or fetus is doomed — it can’t survive outside the pregnant girl or woman’s womb — and they want to ensure that the girl or woman is apt to live. She can live without the cargo; the cargo can’t live without her. Thus, having abortion legal keeps the one alive who can be kept alive.
Denise… come, now.
You were previously, unless I’ve misunderstood you grossly, defending the practise of abortion on the grounds that it allowed for a sort of “treatment” for “unwanted children who are born into less-than-ideal circumstances” (and who would, by your reckoning, be much more likely to be destructive influences on society, much more likely to suffer in life, and so on. You went to great pains, in fact, to quote ideas and figures to that effect (i.e. that the vast number of children killed by abortion would have been very likely to end up as what you deem “the dregs of society”). You seemed to strive very hard to cover both bases: “kill them, since they’ll likely be criminals”, and “kill them, since they’ll likely be laden with suffering”! You also leave the impression that both circumstances (i.e. being born into painful circumstances, or being a thief, etc.) are both worthy of death… but death which should be enacted well before any of your predictions could be tested, and without any regard for the utter lack of humanity in your machine-gun approach to things.
And now, you seem to be trying to present an even-handed presentation of the “facts” (loosely called) while staying very silent about your own position… perhaps because of the fact that Jack’s comment was a “perfect storm”, or sorts: personal experience (which you cannot refute), poignant and powerful (which you cannot deny, nor can you contradict it without risking the wrath of anyone with any empathy at all), and logical (whose logic you cannot seem to face directly, despite your comments in the past). I admit to being a bit puzzled by your approach.
Tell me then, Denise: what is your position? Do you believe that abortion is morally evil in all circumstances, or do you think that it is allowable in the situations that you mentioned earlier (e.g. children born into poverty or abusive homes, etc.)? It really would help clear up this matter if we could know what your own position is, and why.
Ultimately, people want abortion legal for only one reason: they believe that girls and women can’t be legally forced to carry to term and that they are much more likely to either commit suicide or damage or kill themselves in illegal abortions if abortion is made illegal.
Except that this ultimate belief/reason is demonstrably proven false by this entire blog post. Denise, you’ve obviously missed the point of this particular post, and should re-read it for comprehension. Welcome back to Square One.
If anything, from MY personal experience, I’d say illegal abortion would give all the women you read about being beaten/abused/murdered by lovers who want them to abort a legal recourse they currently do not have, and at first mention of abortion by their partners, they’d have the option of calling legal authorities who could arrest that person instead of having it seen by law enforcement as it currently is-a domestic issue to be worked out between the two parties. What is the leading cause of death of pregnant women currently? Murder. How many more lives do you think illegal abortion would save due to this fact than illegal abortion would cause through attempts to abort illegally?
Paladin: A human life exists early in the pregnancy. I’m not quite willing to grant full humanity at the point of fertilization but a human life exists within the first trimester. This life is in a special position as outlined above because it must live inside another body.
I don’t believe it is natural or desirable for women to have babies and place them for adoption although this may sometimes be necessary.
It seems to me that the best way to work to prevent abortion is to work to ensure that the only women who get pregnant are those prepared to become mothers. Such pregnancies don’t necessarily have to be planned but the women who becomes pregnant should be one at least PREPARED to become a mother by carrying to term and giving birth.
There are several ways to work toward this goal:
1) Forced Information. Girls and women seeking abortions required to see pictures of the embryo or fetus at their stage of pregnancy and be informed of exactly what will happen to the embryo or fetus in abortion.
2) Greater protections for teen girls and young women from sexual exploitation.
3) Research into better contraception.
4) Popularization of sex acts that can’t result in pregnancy.
5) A guaranteed annual income for all citizens.
6) A family allowance.
I will add that the fact that there are about 3 million unplanned pregnancies per year, roughly half of which end in abortion, is a disgrace.
Denise wrote:
Paladin: A human life exists early in the pregnancy.
All right.
I’m not quite willing to grant full humanity at the point of fertilization
May I ask why not? How do you settle your mind on the matter, above and beyond mere personal taste, whim, and/or emotion?
but a human life exists within the first trimester.
I agree… though I’d repeat my previous question.
This life is in a special position as outlined above because it must live inside another body.
All right; I agree, so far. I’d add that “special” does not logically imply “more worthy of death”, in my general view.
I don’t believe it is natural or desirable for women to have babies and place them for adoption although this may sometimes be necessary.
Three questions:
1) What, exactly, do you mean by “natural”? You seem to mean, in this instance, that “not natural” means “not desirable”; correct?
2) Even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that “not natural” means “not desirable” (and I would disagree strenuously with this, without some severe qualifiers): do you really mean to say that this level of “not natural, therefore not desirable” is so severe as to merit death? For example: it is not “natural” (in the fastidious sense of “most humans would expect it”) to be born with unusually-coloured skin, hair, etc.; would you (Denise) say that such people would, by definition, be better off dead, because of their “unnatural” state? If not, then there’s something you haven’t yet told us about your standards for this issue.
3) Do you see that you’ve thrown out a great double-hand-ful of somewhat unrelated ideas (“natural”, “desirable”, “abortion”, “adoption”, etc.) and not clarified how you think they interrelate… and (more importantly) WHY you think they relate as you think they do? You’ve really told us nothing more than a primal emotional taste of yours… without explaining why it’s at all good, necessary, or the like. Could you try to explain?
It seems to me that the best way to work to prevent abortion is to work to ensure that the only women who get pregnant are those prepared to become mothers.
Er… the best way to work to prevent abortion is to prevent it categorically, milady… by all means necessary. By all means: let us improve parental preparation; but you’ve yet to explain why this must come at the expense of abandoning all other anti-abortion initiatives (e.g. making it illegal, passing a personhood amendment, promoting healthy and holy sexuality [as opposed to lust], and so on). Why can we not do both?
There is, also, the not-so-small matter of HOW you intend to do that. There’s a tremendous moral difference, for example, between training future mothers in virtue, and machine-gunning the children of all mothers which are judged (by some “benevolent dictator”) to be “unfit”. You really haven’t addressed that, at all… and it’s critically important, yes?
Such pregnancies don’t necessarily have to be planned but the women who becomes pregnant should be one at least PREPARED to become a mother by carrying to term and giving birth.
Ideally, yes; and by all means, let us strive to improve such preparation efforts (within sane reason). But in the meantime, perhaps we might agree that the solution to “unprepared mothers” is NOT “kill their children”?
There are several ways to work toward this goal:
1) Forced Information. Girls and women seeking abortions required to see pictures of the embryo or fetus at their stage of pregnancy and be informed of exactly what will happen to the embryo or fetus in abortion.
2) Greater protections for teen girls and young women from sexual exploitation.
3) Research into better contraception.
4) Popularization of sex acts that can’t result in pregnancy.
5) A guaranteed annual income for all citizens.
6) A family allowance.
(I’m assuming that you don’t think this list is all-inclusive/exhaustive?)
For the sake of argument, re: your list:
1) How would this “prepare women to be better mothers” (aside from the undeniable good of helping them not to kill their children)?
2) I agree (so long as the cure is not part of the problem, or worse than the original problem).
3) I’m afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree, here; contraception is part of the original problem, not a solution. You might as well prescribe pornography, and hope that will settle the problem!
4) Ditto, here; inflaming the sexual passions really isn’t wise, when trying to cure a sexual problem.
5) This is completely unrealistic, if you mean “a guaranteed allowance by the state”; there is no possible way that any sort of socialistic/communistic system such as that could be sustained… and certainly not in a contraception/anti-child-mentality culture such as you’d seek to promote in #2,3,4.
6) Ditto from #5.
(??) Denise, did you delete your previous post (to which I responded)? I don’t see it, above…
Odd…
I will add that the fact that there are about 3 million unplanned pregnancies per year, roughly half of which end in abortion, is a disgrace.
I will add that, other than rape, there are no unplanned pregnancies. If you are having intercourse, you are in the beginning stages of planning a pregnancy.
I’ll deal with sexual exploitation to a small extent in this post. Many problem pregnancies are the result of sexual exploitation, particularly of teen girls and young women, by boys and adult men. Many of them are the result of adult men seeking sex with minor girls. The statutory rape laws are widely violated and ignored. Boys and men tend to seek girls who are mentally disabled or very lonely. It is usually a male who seeks the sort of sex leading to pregnancy, often with a woman who is vulnerable due to social isolation and loneliness.
Note to readers: I took my impromptu survey offline and quizzed some pro-choicers face to face. “With Guttmacher reporting that over 50% of women attending their abortion were using contraception, do you think we should be more concerned with expecting contraception to work better??”
I got laughed at. Why? Because, pro-choicers tell me to my face, those women that Guttmacher is quoting are liars. They said that those women probably weren’t even using bc. Which brings me to my final question: Pro-choicers, are you telling ME that Guttmacher is a)lying, or b) publishing lies and/or false statistics?????
Let’s say that again: Guttmacher is publishing LIES and the pro-choicers know it and laugh about it.
Regarding the question of when a human life is in place: I would rather not beat endlessly on this question. By the time a woman’s menstrual period is late, at the 5th week of pregnancy, the “buds” are in place that will make almost every major limb and organ. By the 10th week of pregnancy, still inside 1st trimester, the fetus is perfectly “formed” with head, torso, arms, hands, legs, and feet.
I’m not 100% certain a human life is NOT in place at fertilization. I just have problems with being sure that it does exist at that point. There is the problem of twinning — what became of the person who was there? Did one person die so 2 could begin? — and that in these early stages they can be artificially stimulated to become something other than what they will naturally become (thus, the problem with use of human embryos to create stem cells).
Again, I’d prefer not to beat on this point forever. By the time the menstrual period is late, a very complex human organism is alive.
Regarding Forced Information: Many girls and women, upon seeing what the embryo or fetus inside them looks like and learning exactly what abortion would do to it, would decide to carry to term. I’ve read that something like 80% decide to carry to term when presented with a sonogram.
Among those who received Forced Information and abort anyway, I think many would exercise greater care in the future, either using contraceptives more conscientiously or abstaining from all partnered sex or limiting partnered sex to acts that can’t result in pregnancy.
The results wouldn’t be perfect but nothing else would be either.
I’m not 100% certain a human life is NOT in place at fertilization. I just have problems with being sure that it does exist at that point. There is the problem of twinning — what became of the person who was there? Did one person die so 2 could begin? — and that in these early stages they can be artificially stimulated to become something other than what they will naturally become (thus, the problem with use of human embryos to create stem cells).
Denise, suppose it were possible for humans to twin after the embryonic state.
(watch this video if you’re having trouble visualizing)
Does it logically follow that you don’t have a living human being prior to the twinning? Twinning is certainly a mystery, but it doesn’t say anything about the humanity of
It’s also possible to artificially stimulate adult tissue to get pluripotent stem cells. The process is more complex, but it can be done. You could also find all kinds of unnatural uses for human body parts (ie using an arm as a door handle). So this also says nothing about the humanity of early embryos.
@ Navi: That video is a comic nightmare because it’s so detached from reality. I don’t see much point to endlessly debating the question of the precise point at which a human life is in place since a woman has to be at least 5 weeks along before knowing her menstrual period is late. The “buds” to form organs are in place by week 6 and the fetus if fully “formed” by week 10.
A 1-celled zygote may be a human being or the blueprint to make a human being. However, the truth that a human is in existence within the 1st trimester and quite possibly by the time the menstrual period is late renders abortions problematic.
Gee, golly, I see that 1 hour after a match is lit and held to my kitchen window curtains, my whole house is burning down. Now, I’m not going to beat on that controversy that a lit match is actually a fire…
Silly ninek. A lit match is only a potential fire.
Denise wrote:
Regarding the question of when a human life is in place: I would rather not beat endlessly on this question.
I fully agree; but I don’t see how that would be at all necessary, either. The concepts in play are not utterly vague, and I do think that we can come to a reasonable and solid conclusion about them.
I’m not 100% certain a human life is NOT in place at fertilization. I just have problems with being sure that it does exist at that point.
Well… even in such a position of uncertainty, should not one err on the side of caution (i.e. that the newly-conceived is a fully human being)? If a hunter hears a rustling in the bushes, but is uncertain as to whether it is a fellow human, should not the hunter put away all efforts to shoot, while such uncertainty lasts?
There is the problem of twinning — what became of the person who was there? Did one person die so 2 could begin? — and that in these early stages they can be artificially stimulated to become something other than what they will naturally become (thus, the problem with use of human embryos to create stem cells).
You’ve already given a plausible answer, and I agree: when twins exist, there are two individuals. When twins collapse back into one, then at least one of the twins has died. Regardless: so long as there is life, there is the soul; and so long as there is the soul, there is a person. At any rate: it’s utterly irrelevant to the point at hand (i.e. whether it’s ever morally licit to kill that human being in the womb).
By the time the menstrual period is late, a very complex human organism is alive.
That is so. But then, if I might ask: why did you go on at length about “unwanted children being likely to become detriments to society”, and the like? I assume you found that idea (though I would strongly disagree with the premise) to be IMPORTANT, at least… yes? Why bring up the idea, unless you found it to pertain to the abortion issue, somehow? You’ve left us, madam, with the impression that you find abortion to be “more okay” in such cases. Is that accurate, or not?
@ Paladin: We have to work for a society in which the women who get pregnant are those prepared to carry to term and give birth. That will be one in which abortion will be — thankfully — rare.