Abortion or Murder?

This was a response I had for someone who disagreed with me on abortion. This person thought abortion was okay because over 40% of American women have had an abortion, according to her, plus abortion was ‘pc’.

If something is wrong, I don’t care how many people go along with it, it doesn’t change it from being wrong. I hate to tell you this, but I am not ‘pc’. Never was and never will be and I’ll tell you why. It is fake, it hides people’s true feelings and it is used to manipulate or take advantage of. Those are the main reasons for me, but to get back to the abortion issue for a minute.

What are the reasons we should abort? I didn’t know there were any, please enlighten me.

Try this little experiment, replace the word abortion with the word murder, and then tell me if you still believe it is not awful.

There were over one million murders in the United States this year committed by women of various ages and ethnic backgrounds. This has become an epidemic. The murder rate is expected to rise in the coming year. There is a remedy to stop the murders, but the women refuse to listen to the good advice. All they have to do is stop having sex until they marry, or at least use protection to help reduce the problem, but the women refuse to participate in either solution. What is one to think about women according to these statistics.

The number one answer to the survey taken was this:
I don’t think murder is wrong and 2nd. was I think it is my choice alone whether to murder or not.
If you think this is silly or stupid; it’s not.
The approved length of pregnancy has just be denounced by the recent birth of a living, breathing, viable baby that is younger than this mystical age set by government. What say now? It is murder and that is the truth. You can take God out of the equation and you still get the same results.
But, for one minute, think about this. What if there is a God, how do you think He would feel about abortion?
Some people are born gamblers, I was not. I would much prefer to live my life believing there is a God, and finding out that there is not; then to live my life as if there was no God, to find out that there is.

Advertisements

49 Responses to Abortion or Murder?

  1. Try this little experiment, replace the word abortion with the word murder, and then tell me if you still believe it is not awful.

    Heh.
    Try this one. Replace the word vote with the word murder. Still believe in voting? Hah!
    In any case, I think you are right on in that the number of people participating in an action does not dictate the inherent morality of said action.

    I think with regards to abortion, the question comes down to what constitutes a life. If we consider anything which is a potential life to be a life, well, every time you have sex you commit murder (think of the sperm that don’t make it!). If basing the start of life on a religion is acceptable, why not go with the belief that the soul selects the family it is to be born into a full 2 weeks before conception?

    I think we have to have a scientific explanation for what life is, and where it begins to move forward on the abortion debate. What do you think?

  2. kayinmaine says:

    The choices of a pro-choice woman:

    1) Have the baby
    2) Give the baby up for adoption
    3) Abstinence to prevent pregnancy
    4) Birth control to prevent pregnancy
    5) Abort it

    The reich wing choices:

    1) Keep the baby no matter what the physical, emotional, and financial circumstances of the mother is and if after having the baby the mother cannot afford to feed & clothe the baby…then the mother will be damned by the reich wingers for using welfare!

    Madmouser, are you a woman? Do you know how it feels to be a woman?

    I bet you support Bush’s illegal occupation in Iraq where Iraqi babies are dying everyday whether by bombs or from starvation/malnutrition. People like you could care less if any baby starves to death as long as the mother didn’t abort it in the first few weeks after conception.

    Do you push for men to be more responsible to use condoms, Madmouser? Do you push to make the fathers of these babies pay the child support and be their for their youngsters?

    I bet you don’t.

  3. madmouser says:

    In response to ‘fitnessfortheoccasion’, I understand what you mean about the scientific clarification. An example now is the 24 week time period allowed by government. Just recently, a baby girl was born at 21 weeks and she weighed 9 oz. She is doing well and is now weighing over 4 lbs. We have a three week time period where the government says you can murder another human being. Leave religion out of the debate, this is wrong.

    In essence every woman who had an abortion between 21 and 24 weeks has truly committed murder with government approval. Doesn’t that scare you just a little?

    As far as every time you have sex and the sperm don’t make it (because they wouldn’t stop to get directions, haha), that would not constitute murder because there was never a chance of creating a life. You cannot murder something that isn’t there.

    Abortion is the result of a more serious problem, promiscuity. We need to address this issue better and you will see abortion drop off dramatically.
    Thanks for your comment.

  4. I don’t think there is a problem with promiscuity. Why is sex always framed as immoral, as a problem? That line of reasoning stinks to high heaven of “anti-fornication” and other religiously based reasoning.

    I think you really need to address Kay’s points on the inherent gender inequality of the anti-choice position.

    By the same token, yes, of course the notion of baby-killing worries me. It worries most if not all people, which is why anti-choicers strain so very hard to make the case that one is killing a baby rather then stopping a fetus from developing.

    The problem of letting whether or not there was “a chance of creating life” dictate the morality of an action should be immediately obvious. If chance dictates legality so overtly, I don’t think I’d trust the courts.

    However inadvertently perhaps, your comment on promiscuity does touch on a point pro-choicers and anti-choicers should agree upon. To reduce abortions, we need to create more options for women. In other words, to truly hold the mantle of a pro-life position, one must accept the necessity of a social safety net.

  5. madmouser says:

    kayinmaine, once again, you are the most wrong person I know on the web. What is it with Maine? I met another person from Maine and I hate to say this, but, he was a big jerk. Is there something in the air or the water in Maine?

    Your choices for a pro-choice woman are out of order, they should read like this:
    1. Abstinence will definitely prevent pregnancy
    2. Birth Control will prevent pregnancies over 90% of the time
    3. Have the Baby
    4. Put the baby up for adoption
    5. You have ‘abortion’, I do not have a number 5.

    The reich wing choice that you stated is completely wrong; see previous list of 1 through 4. If the woman isn’t smart enough to give the baby up for adoption when she doesn’t want it, then there must be an underlying reason for keeping the baby, like getting all kind of benefits from the government. I object to children being used this way and you should as well.

    The reich wing as you call them are not damning her for using welfare, they are damning her for not keeping her slutty legs closed and wanting the working reich wing pay for her 6″ long fingernails.

    Yes, kayinmaine, I am a woman, but I am more than that. I am a lady. You should try it sometime, you might like the feeling of fresh air it brings you. Your old, stale verbiage gets so tiring and boring and the name calling only reflects your intellectual shortcomings.

    To make a statement that I do not care about the children losing their lives in Iraq is totally irresponsible and repugnant. You don’t know me, so you have absolutely no grounds to make that statement. You do not know if I participate in sending boxes of clothes, blankets, toys, coloring books and crayons and etc. to Iraq. You are a stupid, vile individual for making such a claim you cannot defend.

    I hope you bet your house on whether or not I feel the need to go after the men, who are the fathers to these abandoned children, because you would have lost the farm, dearie. I think father’s should have the right to stop an abortion if he is willing to take custody of the child and raise it. How do you like that, sister? I think every father who does not pay his share of child support, should be incarcerated. I think all men so be held equally responsible with the women.

    Better luck next time, ol chap!

  6. madmouser, your statement on folks from Maine is a touch lacking. You met one guy from Maine (who is a big jerk), and hence all Mainers? Holy logical fallacy batman! I suppose I could reply with my own argument along the same lines. I know two people from Maine, and they are *awesome*. Principled, witty, and kind. Ergo…..

    Anyway, onto the substance.

    If the woman isn’t smart enough to give the baby up for adoption when she doesn’t want it, then there must be an underlying reason for keeping the baby, like getting all kind of benefits from the government. I object to children being used this way and you should as well.

    Have you considered the possibility of emotional attachment? That might be one “underlying reason”.

    You do not know if I participate in sending boxes of clothes, blankets, toys, coloring books and crayons and etc. to Iraq.

    Sending bombs more than negates this, it calls out the inherent hypocrisy. If you are for the war in Iraq, no amount of clothes and toys will ever make up for the loss of life you are also sending via your political support.

    I think father’s should have the right to stop an abortion if he is willing to take custody of the child and raise it. How do you like that, sister?

    Forced Birthing is an interesting proposition. I wonder how that would play out…

    Especially in conjunction with your strange view on women:

    they are damning her for not keeping her slutty legs closed

    Why does it always have to come down to women being punished for having sex? Why do you have to vilify women who choose to have sex?

  7. marty says:

    All of you have a point and an opinion…some of them should have been kept to your self. All the name calling and demeaning words are not going to fix anything. I would think as a human race we would all want to band together to find a solution, not create more problems. It really doesn’t matter where you come from, the basics of life should not change, nor should one’s values. As a country we need to get OUR prioities straightend out before we try fix to another country’s problems, and that can be done by staying on top of the politics of this country…how much more do YOU want to be dictated to.

  8. madmouser says:

    fitnessfortheoccasion, the reference to Maine was a small attempt at sarcasm. Back to the Bat Cave…

    No, I have not given emotional attachment any validity on the grounds of if you could possibly consider killing your baby for any reason, your only emotional attachment is to yourself and your primal pleasures, in my humble opinion.

    Are you including protecting the US from terrorists? What if they have children strapped with explosives running through a mall here in America, would you object to killing that child or would you allow the child to explode in the center of the mall killing hundreds and hundreds of people. What would you do?

    When another country is under attack like Kuwait when Saddam invaded them, are you against us protecting the country being invaded and slaughtered? Do we just stand by wringing our hands while thousands of men. women and children die at the hands of monsters? Is there ever a right time to go to war in your mind? If so, please elaborate.

    It took two to make the baby and you want to hold fathers responsible when the mother decides to keep it, why should it be only one way, in favor of the women. Why can’t fathers have a say. What if a father wants to abort but the mother does, should the father be held responsible when there was a perfect way out but the female would not take it. This is a two-way street. Its time to stop thinking that women rule the planet and always get their way. I am very sympathetic to the men in this situation.

    I am not vilifying women who choose to have sex, only the ones who are irresponsible and want me to pay for their mistakes. They need to pay for their own mistakes. I think sex is great, I am not against it at all. For women who want to have irresponsible sex, they should demand payment as a prostitute does so they can bankroll some money for their abortions. Then, they can have as many as they want. One every nine months, its their body, their morals, their business and I will be happy to stay out of it. Just leave my checkbook out of it as well. You put your kid up for adoption and it does not get adopted, I will help pay for that child’s welfare and never say a word. Not the fault of the child.

    Just how much more do you want from me? I will not give up my values to satisfy those without any. You can screw until your privates rot off and rot inside out. I don’t care what you do as long as you leave me out of it and keep it to yourself and out of my face.

  9. chiggers says:

    Wow I have sparked a post!

    Abortion tend to get things heated up!

    I also didn’t say it was okay because 40% of american women have had an abortion by the age of 20. I was asking if “God” was unhappy with them all. I don’t think you should impose your religious views on those who have a bortions, and may not share your views.

    Abortion should be kept safe and therefore legal. Regardless of whether or not YOU think it is morally right, or if it is murder or not, it will still go on. Period. If it goes on illegally, chances are women will die. Hmmm…

    What about rape cases? Should the female not have the choice to abort? She didn’t choose you get pregnant.

    It is a women’s body, she has the choice, not the male. No ifs, ands or buts.

    How is it muder to the government if you abort up to week 24 (or 25, whatever)? It is legal… Remeber Roe v. Wade?

    Having sex doesn’t make you promiscuous. You are clearly not a feminist. SHAME!

    Oh and what’s wrong with the beautiful state of Maine? There you go again justifuing a point based on one or two circumstances. Kind of like most anti-choice folks… one woman regrets her abortion and feels bad so it’s wrong for EVERYONE! boohoo! I’m gonna carry around a pocket size fetus and show it to you, ’cause that’s how small it was when it was aborted! waaaa! waa!

  10. cinemelo says:

    It’s not murder.

  11. marty says:

    Oh My Gosh Chiggers: Are you on “Ludes” or something? What a tantrum your throwing for yourself. Let me put it as briefly as I can.
    There are women in this world who would do anything to have a child. All they ask is the women who don’t want theirs, is to give them to someone who does. There are also thousands of women who have a miscarriage. What about their feelings. How do you think they feel everytime they hear of some teenager or older women having an abortion just because they didn’t care enough about theirself to keep their panties on like their Mother’s told them too. I agree, sex is great. But if you don’t want a baby, you have the responsiblity to prevent it. A rape victim can also put that child up for adoption. So try getting your panties out of a knot for a change and don’t be so high handed.

  12. madmouser says:

    Chiggers, I did not use your name as the author of the post regarding abortion, you did that yourself. I just wanted to make that point clear to the readers. You apparently are proud of yourself and your stance on this issue.

    I believe most feminist are all about the ‘moment’ and do not think beyond that moment. Thinking beyond that could cause a brain hemorrhage in feminist.
    Its self-gratification to them. So, you think a million or more abortions a year are a good thing, let’s take a look down the road, oh brilliant one.

    When you turn 65-67 whatever the age for retirement will be at that time, you will not be able to draw Social Security for your old age. Ain’t that a hoot! Why, you ask?

    Because you aborted all the people who would be working to pay for it. Hahaha, the joke is on you and justly deserved. Waaa Waaa all the way to the poor house.

  13. Just one question, chiggers. You say that we should not “push” our religious beliefs on others because they might not agree. (I fail to see how protecting innocent lives is pushing religious belief, but I’ll let that go for now.) So then please explain to me why the fifty percent of America that thinks that humans had a Master Designer within the last ten thousand years has to listen to theories that say we are a product of evolution over millions of years. We don’t agree with it. So why should we have to listen to it? (Don’t tell me because it’s fact, because for one it’s not, and for two abortion is murder. Fact. It only takes one look at an ultrasound to tell that.) I could give several more examples but I said only one question.

    The pushing religious beliefs thing doesn’t work here, ma’am.

  14. thelonedrifter, if you want to remain ignorant, yes, that is your choice. But when you advocate creationism being taught as though it actually counts as science, you cross that church/state line.

    With regards to abortion, if you believe religious authorities have the right to tell women what is moral, and what they are allowed to do with their bodies, then yes, that is pushing your religious beliefs.

    madmouser, I do not want you to give up your values at all, just don’t force them upon the rest of us. Most feminists are not “all about the moment”. That language just continues to bash women for having sexuality. You are not required to pay for their choices (well, unless Giuliani gets into office maybe).

    I won’t get into the wierd “working fetuses of america” argument…

    marty is right in that we need to find a way to come together on this issue. Some positions are just clearly anti-woman, as chiggers points out. Yet we can all agree we would like to reduce the number of abortions that occur. So. Why not advocate social safety nets for mothers who choose to carry to term (without then vilifying mothers who do an are also poor). Why not also stop attacking Roe vs Wade, and stop attacking exceptions for rape, incest, and health?

    Its just a start.

  15. Why do women abort? Easy. Lack of support by their husbands and/or boyfriends. Pressure by their boyfriends to abort, because the boyfriends enjoy sex but don’t quite want a baby right now. Abusive men. Lack of support from an undergraduate or graduate school. (Note that 98% of college students who get pregnant have abortions.) Adoption laws may prevent a woman from giving up a baby for adoption when her abusive boyfriend does not consent.

    Some women are simply callous and don’t particularly feel like using birth control or having kids. In fact, 70% of women who abort were not using ANY form of birth control at the time.

    Occasionally, there are health or life issues, but we aren’t really talking about those.

    So yeah, abortion is a feminist issue. We allow women to kill their babies, suffer extreme emotional reactions, and allow men to sleep around without consequences… and we certainly don’t demand that they support their girlfriends and babies.

    The early feminists saw abortion as a great evil that could be rectified if women had enough social power. Self-determination would lead to a culture of life (and who really thinks that women are designed to kill their children without remorse?); modern feminists think that one must abort in order to be empowered. Somewhere along the lines, we messed up.

    What really kills me is that the Darwinists, who talk about survival of the fittest and us being designed to pass along our genes, think that women can abort without repercussion. Really, if anything, aren’t we designed to, more than anything, want to protect our babies? Of course, this just gives men a mandate for sex without consequences and dumps all of the problem on women. How anti-woman is that?

    Rant over. 🙂

  16. With regards to abortion, if you believe religious authorities have the right to tell women what is moral, and what they are allowed to do with their bodies, then yes, that is pushing your religious beliefs.

    Why do we allow women to dictate what can be done with their babies’ bodies? I mean, it’s the woman’s body and all, but it’s also the kids’ body that, last time I checked, is involved (when its skull is collapsed and its brains suctioned out). There’s not much that you can say about a woman and her right to self-determination, bodily integrity, or the life she wants for herself that doesn’t apply doubly to the baby.

  17. If you are talking a bout a baby, then yes theobromo, right on. If you are talking about a fetus?
    I think one step would be more contraception, and ending the stupidity of abstinence only sex “education”. Let’s stop it from ever getting to a point where abortion is even an issue.

  18. What’s the difference? If the fetus isn’t alive, then the woman has miscarried and has no need for an abortion. If the fetus is alive, then it’s protected life. Women know this, intuitively; there’s a reason why men are more pro-abortion than women.

    I disagree re: abstinence only sex education. Birth control has only led to the ridiculous notion that you can have sex without consequences, and a woman who gets pregnant is entitled to murder her fetus/embryo/zygote/baby because she doesn’t happen to want to be pregnant.

  19. madmouser says:

    fitnessfortheoccasion, I agree with your final statement, “let’s get it from ever getting to a point where abortion is even an issue.

  20. madmouser says:

    theobromophile, you added yet, another look at feminism and abortion. Thank you for your insight. It is strange that I find men are divided by this issue as well as women. But, for the men and women who agree with abortion, I do believe it is to escape their responsibility and provide the opportunity to have free sex.

    We haven’t even talked about the spread of STD’s throughout the population. This is not a pretty topic and it is on the rise. It’s so sad.

  21. Abortion is nothing but a blasphemes affront to God, as well as slavery of the womb and licensed by the Democrat’s, Godless Culture of Death.

    So many narcissist women feel they own this child in the womb, and this sense of ownership is carried over once the child is born, if it even makes it — These women either exercise their need to be God like when they can and kill the child in the womb, or try to create the child they spared according to their own image as they raise it.

    Psychiatrists offices are filled with people, “especially women,” who have been screwed up by their mothers sense of God like ownership and women who have committed infanticide.

    “But those who have sinned against my commandment, who teach something else, subtract from and add to and work for their own glory, alienating those who rightly believe in me, I will deliver them to ruin” — Epistula Apostrolorum — From 19…

    …”At age 25, 42 per cent of those who had an abortion had also experienced major depression at some stage during the previous four years – nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant and 35 per cent higher than those who had chosen to continue a pregnancy.

    The risk of anxiety disorders was raised by a similar degree, while the women who had at least one abortion were twice as likely to drink alcohol at dangerous levels compared with those who had not terminated their pregnancies, and three times as likely to be dependent on illicit drugs. The study was published this week in the Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology.

    Professor Fergusson said the results had surprised him, but they were statistically strong. Separate analysis had confirmed the mental health problems followed abortion – not the other way round. The study, funded mainly by the New Zealand Government, had assessed the young women’s mental health regularly through adolescence, and had also considered their family and educational circumstances.”…

    …and it’s only the beginning of ones torment!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/01/02/1136050394322.html

    P.S. Maine-ers, entirely too many of them, are just as inbreed as those Appalachian folks depicted in Deliverance. The I.Q. is negatively impacted upon when one gets busy with their sisters and cousins too often.

  22. MadMouser,

    I don’t find it strange that men are divided on abortion. Some of them (rightly) view it as murder and understand that they could be in a situation where they are powerless to prevent the killing of their child. Nevertheless, abortion is a mandate for them to have sex without consequences. Modern child support laws make it a virtual certainty that a father will have to pay roughly 17-25% of his paycheck in support; why bother with that? I realised, within a few years of dating, that men really like abortion because they don’t have to worry about pregnancy.

    I would imagine that the generational split on men and abortion is pretty amazing.

  23. chiggers says:

    well if there are so many women seeking babies, why are there so many without homes waiting to be adopted???

    i cannot believe you think it is totally normal for a female to go through a pregnancy from rape! holy crap. that’s terrible.

    feminists do think about the future, that’s why many are PRO-CHOICE, we analyze the future so a woman can make an informed decision for herself.

    there are way too many abortions occuring, so clearly the problem hasn’t been solved in the first place. that’s an entirley different story. even if you think its wrong it will go on regradless legal or not. maybe you anti-choice folks should get together and try to fix the problem or stop being preachy. atleast the pro-choice folks are helping women. i work to help women, what did you do today?

    and i thought religious views were meant to be personal… so yeah, stop pushing it, it’s kind of annoying.

  24. Madmouser says:

    For all you pro-choice people, please read the 2 links that ‘greetingmyson’ has provided. It can’t hurt to read another view that is not religious in nature. I think you will find it interesting.

    ‘theobromophile’ made another good point I forget to mention earlier. So, the woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, but the child is a separate entity, and she does not have domain over the baby’s body, or should not. (I think I got that right, please correct me if I have not stated your thought properly).

  25. Madmouser says:

    chiggers:
    To answer your first question; if there are so many women seeking babies, why are there so many without homes waiting to be adopted???

    Ans: For someone who applauds herself for helping women should know this answer, but since you do not, here it is. The rules set in place by our government to the appropriate agency are so restrictive and inefficient that it takes forever to process one child’s adoption. It is a nightmare. I know a couple who went through this procedure and it was like going through hell and back. The agency needs to be re-organized from top to bottom.

    You also stated that feminist do think about the future that’s why many are PRO-CHOICE, we analyze the future so a woman can make an informed decision for herself.

    If feminist do think about the future, how come 70% of the abortions were due to the women not using birth control. That doesn’t appear to validate your statement. I think what you meant was: feminists weigh the responsibility involved in caring for a baby against their personal pleasures and their pleasures win the analysis.

    You stated you work to help women and asked what I did today. So, I must guess if you work to help women, you might work at a home for battered women. I donate to that cause. I also did a ton of homework today in an effort to make myself a viable citizen and able to help other women.

    I am really sorry that you think God is annoying. God is both, personal and public.

  26. You are right madmouser, it never hurts to check out another point of view. And anyone might have run into the adoption system. It does suck. To the point that it can discourage a family from even trying. Why on earth a politician doesn’t make fixing it a priority is utterly beyond me. It would be a clear win for the left and the right!

    In terms of thinking about the future, I think pro-choice is a stance that opens, rather than closes doors. So in a very straightfoward manner, it is immediately clear why pro-choice is about the future.
    Again, it need not be a stark line between pleasure and responsibility.

    I think you may have missed what chiggers meant with the comment on being “annoying”. Not God, but rather, pushing one’s religious beliefs, is annoying. If a person wants to base their political arguments in religious authority, should they be prepared to have the validity of that authority questioned? Is it off limits? Is it ok to base one’s arguments in something so set in stone as faith?

  27. madmouser says:

    You may be right about chiggers intention regarding the God and annoying comment. She may have meant that I was annoying for using God as part of my argument. Just to make myself clear, I am not trying to force anyone to accept my religious beliefs. I would hope they might choose it, but I would never force it.

    If it is not a stark line between pleasure versus responsibility, what are the other elements that could bring a women to committing such an egregious act of violence against another human, the baby, and why doesn’t the baby have any rights?

    God is never off limits in discussion. God is the center of life, so it is only fair when I argue using God’s law that you certainly have the right to call it into question.

  28. Hmmm. I am undecided about whether God is so off limits if only with respect to the effectiveness and openness of a given discussion. I’ll certainly never set such a limit in such an undecided state!

    I am a man, and I have never had an abortion, so I cannot speak with any kind of experience. I can simply say for a woman to make the choice, I doubt she considers it an act of violence against a human. In other words, if you do not accept that life begins before a certain point, then why would you then accept idea that it is an act of violence?

    One must be alive to have the kinds of rights you are referencing (namely the right to life. Otherwise, things could get sticky. Zombie sticky). So again, we are left with that problem of deciding when life begins.

    A question. If for the sake of argument we agreed that life didn’t start until 15 weeks in, if a woman has an abortion at 10 weeks, are you comfortable with that?

  29. A question: If for the sake of argument.

    Which of the following is not considered a stage of human growth according to The Culture of Death, and can be murdered with impunity at the convienice of other human beings at another stage of growth?

  30. “So again, we are left with that problem of deciding when life begins.”

    No we are not, the Godless ones are!

  31. Hey chigger!

    Do you honestly believe your feminiNazi cult isn’t a religion??

    Well it is, and ranks right up there with non-believers who are also part of a religion.

    So do not think your not believing in Christ sets you apart from a religion and elevates your statues.

    Your faith choice is simply butt ugly in and out.

  32. Chiggers,

    I don’t call the pro-choice side “anti-life” or “pro-baby killing,” so there’s no real reason for you to slam the “anti-choice” label on a poliltical movement that, realistically, offers women more choices than the other side.

    It is a well-known fact that 98% of college students who get pregnant have abortions. Feminists for Life investigated the health clinic at UCLA and found that they did not even SUGGEST that a student remain pregnant. They have two abortionists on staff but NO resources for pregnant and parenting students. The pro-life side does its best to offer women various ways to give their children up for adoption or support them if they keep them. It has also worked (through that whole tough on crime thing) against some of the biggest causes of abortion: domestic violence, lack of financial support from the father, and coerced abortions.

    Given that the only viable “choice” offered by the modern Left is abortion, I have a hard time calling them “pro-choicers.” It is a group that dedicates itself to systematic infanticide. If it were really about a woman’s choice, the Left would want informed consent about abortion; however, they strike down every law that would reasonably inform a woman about the medical and psychological implications of abortion. If the “pro-choicers” really wanted to give women a choice, they would at least make some nominal effort towards providing services to pregnant students, instead of giving them referrals to abortion clinics. If it were about choice, people like Amanda Marcotte would not trash adoption as “not self-deterministic.”

    As for the idea of feminists looking out for the future – ha! If by “looking out for the future,” you mean “propogating systematic genocide against blacks and ensuring a death spiral,” I might have to agree with you, but any other interpretation simply is inaccurate. While the world’s population is radically increasing, it is mostly in China and India; the population of native-born Europeans and Americans is gradually shrinking. It is a recipe for disaster: in 30 years, the population of Europe will have halved, resulting in an unbalanced distribution of the population at older ages who will demand overly generous social services. Oh, fun. In China and India, girl children are disproportionately aborted, resulting in a male/female ratio that will certainly lead to violence, war, and humanitarian issues in a few years. (Gotta love how abortion seems to be used against the most vulnerable members of society, huh?)

    So yeah, I suppose you could say that feminists are looking out for the future and are therefore pro-choice… it’s just that they see nothing wrong with a future in which China and India have killed off so many of their girl babies that throngs of young men kidnap wives, parents arrange for the killing of young women as “ghost brides,” Europe and America hit economic collapse as their elderly populations drain the resources of the working adults, blacks are virtually non-existant as they have disproportionately aborted their children, Laci’s Law and similar are overturned as they give rights to pregnant women and abortionists that the rest of the country doesn’t have, and women (despite a vast array of prophylatic choices) simply do not understand that sex leads to pregnancy, and so they continue to abort.

    The fact that abortion on demand has resulted in nothing more than 1.2 million abortions per year ought to be a clue that it simply does not work. The abortion rate should have decreased in the past few decades, given the societal advances of single mothers, the aforementioned dizzying array of prophlyatics, the demand for equal coverage in health insurance, and a host of other social changes that I’m currently too tired to think of. Maybe there’s a clue that, looking into the future, we ought to change our abortion laws if we want women to stop having abortions.

    Just sayin’.

  33. madmouser says:

    * applause, applause* to the obromophile…great response. Thank you for sharing.

  34. greetingsmyson: godless? how about non-theocratic. I’m pro-choice. I just don’t try to use God to justify controling a woman’s body.

    theobromo, in this country, we do not force people to have abortions. Your argument has no basis in reality. sex does not have to lead to pregnancy. Again, with the reality thing.

  35. unfitfortheoccasion, sex was designed to lead to pregnancy. Even “preventative measures” are faulty and do not always work, and are part of the same sin without responsibility mindset that exists.

    theobromo didn’t say we force people to have abortions, she said clinics that proclaim themself pro-choice give no choice and counsel only to have abortions. That’s not choice.

  36. Thanks, MadMouser. (FYI: Theobromide = chocolate, so I’m not an “ombro” lover, but rather a chocolate lover.)

    Fitness: Again, with reality. Sex doesn’t have to lead to pregnancy: I already stated that in my previous response (“dizzying array of prophylactics”). I can make snarky comments about your apparent inability to process basic English, but I’ll just point out that I never said what you’re implying that I did, and, in fact, I stated the opposite.

    In addition, “we” do not force people to have abortions? No, we aren’t China, but three facts remain:
    1. the lack of gov’t coercion does not mean that there is no private coercion. Even Planned Parenthood’s statistics indicate that the main reason women abort is pressure from family or significant others.
    2. If abortion is legal and considered to be about as morally wrong as excising a tumour, why will we never force women to abort? If we draft women into combat, could we force them to abort so as to not avoid service? America does not need to realise every possible negative consequence of certain policies before condemning them.
    3. When UCLA, which is a state-run institution, pressures women to have abortions by giving them the “choice” of dropping out or killing their children, there is government pressure to abort.

    We do not allow attorneys to reveal privileged information without disbarment, for the simple reason that people who can reveal information can be forced to do so.

    Michigan has a CAPA. Do some research on that before you accuse me of not living in reality… because last time I checked, everything I said is well-grounded.

  37. I should add to my second-to-last paragraph: “For the same reason, women who can make the choice to abort can be forced into making that choice. This isn’t theoretical; women do not make the decision to have an abortion in a vacuum but are pressured by employers, significant others, and family to do so.”

    Thanks, Lonedrifter.

  38. theo: “and women (despite a vast array of prophylatic choices) simply do not understand that sex leads to pregnancy, and so they continue to abort.”. Ahem, not to be at all snarky or rude, but there are sexual options beyond the biblically approved. But you are right, I should not have directed that argument towards you at all (although by thelonedrifter’s addition, should keep it in there for the odder anti-choicers).

    1. I firmly agree with you that private coercion is wrong, and should be stopped.
    2. That is an interesting question. I think we need laws in place to explicitly prevent this from happening. Forced abortions are absolutely in opposition to everything pro-choice is about.
    3. I disagree with that as well. We should have programs in place to help students stay in school and give birth if they so choose.

    In terms of what you pinned on pro-choicers:
    “Given that the only viable “choice” offered by the modern Left is abortion, I have a hard time calling them “pro-choicers.” It is a group that dedicates itself to systematic infanticide.”

    It is not the only option offered, if it were, then it would be forced de facto. Pro-choicers are certainly not dedicated to systematic infanticide. These words where what I reacted to when I said your comment was not reality based.

    In any case, while I disagree with your assessment of pro-choice, I do think we agree on needing to end coercion. On both sides.

  39. Reality, right here:
    http://pandagon.net/2007/01/22/blogging-for-choice-and-beyond-choice/#comment-349025

    Oenophile, the existence of adoption is not evidence for self-determination but against it. The vast majority of women who give up babies are in coercive situations—why do the poor give up children but not the rich? Real self-determination, real respect for reproductive justice means adoption as we know it would disappear

    A world that respects real self-determination never forces women to be pregnant at gunpoint. That you have this massive blindspot doesn’t make it less true. That Pemberton was blind to that fact doesn’t mean she isn’t the beneficiary of the pro-choice movement, insofar as we are her greatest defenders.”

    That’s the modern pro-choice movement. Adoption is NOT self-deterministic. Sorry, it really is about systematic infanticide… which is sad, because it doesn’t have to be that way.

  40. She is saying that adoption in a coercive situation is not a reflection of choice.
    (Makes sense. If you are coerced into pregnancy, it is not a choice. If you are coerced into abortion, it is not a choice. Directly in line with my comment on ending coercion on both sides).

    How the hell does that translate into “kill all babies”?

  41. Do not think for one moment the Left’s religious zeal for infanticide is based on a desire to give women a choice.

    It is all about continuing in the footsteps of their Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao counter parts.

    “Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization that today is Planned Parenthood, began her crusade for abortion on the theme of eugenics. Her journal, The Birth Control Review, is filled with articles advocating the elimination of the “unfit,” including those with mental and physical disabilities, to produce a superior race of human geniuses. Her slogan, “Birth Control: To Create a Race of Thoroughbreds,” appealed to the type of racist thinking that gave rise to Hitler’s propaganda and the resultant “racial purification” violence of the concentration camps. Her writings are filled with a mix of the popular ideas of her day, drawn from early sexual psychology and Darwinism. She advocated that women separate sex from childbearing so as to preserve the “right” to have an abortion when childbearing does not suit their economic or psychological needs.”

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16919

  42. greetings, do not think for a moment the ugly past of Margaret Sanger represents the politics of the left today. The left does not have a religious desire to kill infants. That is a shrill and baseless attack.

  43. What better means of “Social Engineering,” eh fitnessfortheoccasionexceptformentalfitness.

    I’m sorry, the Left is comprised of some real sweethearts — HaHahaha!

  44. Because she encompasses ALL adoption as coercive. Add in, oh, basic reality (120,000 adoptions versus 1.3 million abortions, and many of those adoptions are overseas), and you can easily see that adoption is not coercive. She wants less of it? Yeah, she’s unequivocally stating that every woman who gets pregnant and doesn’t want the child should abort. No mention of coercive abortions (actually, thinks that CAPAs are patronising) and basically thinks that adoption is more coercive than abortion, despite all evidence to the contrary. (Eye roll.)

    She tempers her first sentence, but it’s still there: ADOPTION IS NOT SELF-DETERMINATIVE. She whines about the “vast majority” of women who are “coerced” into giving up their kids, ignores the fact that most women who ABORT are also poor, and then says that we really need to reduce that evil adoption thing.

    Sorry, but there’s some infanticidal maniacs on the Left, and their real agenda is to ensure that babies get their brains suctioned out as some weird sacrifice to feminism.

  45. lewisintex. says:

    Regardless of everyone’s arquement, it is still Murder. Life begins at conception.

  46. Karen says:

    As a former child care worker and teacher, current child advocate (PTA, coaching and private music lessons) and as a parent, I would ask what the country plans to do for these children that are being born into unwanted circumstances? Also, as an adoptee adopted into a horrible family life of abuse and neglect, and as an adoption reformer, are you aware of the quality of life for these children, or many children in our country today? Adoption and fostercare aren’t always what claim to be. Are you aware of the amount of child abuse, neglect, poverty, etc…that exist in the system, homes, and extended families? I have seen and witnessed it so many times (as I have friends who are social workers) it never ceases to make me ill.

    You are short sighted with right to life. Look beyond living and breathing into qualify of life then maybe you’ll rethink your opinion and or stretch above the “right to life” cry and DO something for these babies once they get here. Right to any life isn’t life at all. And yes, many MANY days I wish I would never have been born at all. I am not alone either with these feelings there are many more like me. Luckily, becoming an adult I had wonderful people who helped me courage and strength to overcome what life handed me and I pass that down to all the children today I can. But, far too many people advocate pro-life without any forsight with what happens to these unwanted children.

    If we put children first here in this country I could agree with the pro-lifers. Unfortunately we don’t.

    I am, and will continue to, attempt to rectify the grevious mistakes we have made in slashing education funding, social programs for children, and other areas where children fall through the cracks. Where I live, in the “great” state of Texas we have enormous wealth and opportunity yet we also have one of the worst homeless populations in the country. I believe we have, or had, the highest rate of children who are homeless, along with neglect and abuse. I also believe we have the highest rates of children who die at the hands of their parents or family members.

    It relates to abortion in that the percentage of unwanted children that end up in social services programs and penal institutions, and unfortunately dead, and it is outrageous. I would like to see every child, even those unborn, have the chance to life and a quality one at that. If we take care of children when they are young with education and opportunity (not just throw money at the problem either), support and encouragement we wouldn’t be taking care of them latter in life with welfare and institutions. I know of several, heck, hundreds here locally that are pro-life but in support of government officials cutting help programs for families kids right and left with tax cuts for the wealthy. That just doesn’t make any sense to me to say the very least. No, I am not an advocate of welfare for life and living off the government.

    I would love to see a right to life movement coupled with initiatives and plans to help insure (or ensure I can never get that one right) that all children born have the chance to be as healthy, happy, and successful as can be. Then, we would truly be the greatest country in the world. Hope this makes sense I am typing frantically from work on break.)

  47. Karen says:

    Yes most women who give babies up for adoption are coerced by the system under the “guise” of what is “best” for the baby. Adoption is a billion dollar industry a year and “non-profit” agencies HA…don’t even get me started I know where the CEO’s of these live in this area and it’s not the slums. The black baby market is alive and thriving. No wonder there is huge gap between the socio economic status of those that give up to adoption and those that adopt and the connection to those that are pro-life and those that have the money to adoption HWI’s (healthy white infants). There are many MANY babies available for adoption but new borns and those that are healthy and of a certain “ethnicity” are becoming more and more scarce because women are aware of their choices and the importance of heredity and the long term ramifications of severing ties with their children.

    Don’t believe me there is evidence in abundance. I’ll refer you to the CWLA-Child Welfare League of America as just one and the local news with baby selling and illegal baby trading. And, the history of orphanages and the message it sends to our communities that our children are throw away commodities.

    If you are pro-life than be that for the rest of our children’s lives. If you turn your eyes to child abuse and neglect in this country and do nothing to attempt to change it then you are guilty too.

  48. Karen says:

    PS it’s legal in the state of Texas to “offer” (as in money, property, gifts) to a pregnant woman in “aiding” her through her pregnancy. Coercion or not it’s at least bribery I’ve seen and witnessed it first hand along with the histories of birthmothers in the past. Luckily adoption is alot more open and losing some of the secretive past that has held the illegalities and lies that abound with in the system.

    If we teach our children to tell the truth than first we must teach it to them. If we want our children to be born and thrive we must be examples and guides of that not just spout off at the mouth without action to back it up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: