Be a voice
When Jesus walked upon the earth
On the shores of Galilee
He’d say to his disciples,
Let the little children come to me
I wonder if up in heaven
Do you suppose we’ll see
Little children ask Him,
What was I supposed to be?
–Ray Boltz
Today marks the beginning of Sanctity of Human Life Week–seven days dedicated to prayer and action on behalf of those who cannot speak up for themselves–the unborn, the handicapped, and others.
If (as seems more possible now than at any other time in my life) Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will be more like the beginning of the struggle than the end. The fight to ensure every child is protected in law and welcomed in life will continue at the state level and, more importantly, in the hearts and minds of the people.
39 Responses to “Be a voice”
legal kill
i only know what i believe / the rest is so absurd to me / i close my eyes so i can’t see / but the picture just gets clearer everyday
I hope that we also remember that the struggle does not end once we ensure that every child has the right to be born. We must also work towards the day when each and every child – regardless of the circumstances of their conception – has the same opportunities as every other child. We should not accept the idea that some children are condemned to a life of poverty simply because their parents made a bad choice.
Life After Birth
Eric Seymour is looking beyond Roe v. Wade:
If (as seems more possible now than at any other time in my life) Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will be more like the beginning of the struggle than the end. The fight to ensure every child is protected …
I read that for Catholics, Saturday, 22 January, is, under pain of mortal sin, to be observed as a particular day of penance requiring abstinence from meat (or other penance). Cool. Apparently, the bishops are turning up the heat on all those Catholic political sorts.
As for Roe, the sooner the better it should be recognized for what it was. I don’t think “overturn” is the right word for letting dumbass lawyers loose.
Steve, you can forget that one. Remember that in the opinion of most of those who agree with Eric’s post the only worthy way to help those children is non-governmental. And those folks don’t have nearly enough resources to meet the existing needs much less the ones that will exist in the future.
Too bad human life is sanctified enough for all of us to denounce war.
I wish the church would also condemn all opposition to artificial birth control, such as condoms or birth control pills.
For much of the church to oppose artificial birth control in nations with starving populations is simply immoral.
Remember that in the opinion of most of those who agree with Eric’s post the only worthy way to help those children is non-governmental.
Jim, that’s one of the most asinine assumptions I’ve ever seen posted on ITA that wasn’t by an anonymous troll. I’d ask you to back it up with evidence, but it’s quite obvious you’re just trying to slander conservatives.
Eric,
I appreciate that Jim’s comment may not reflect the true views of conservative pro-lifers, but to be honest, I haven’t ever heard anything from the pro-life movement about what we should do to help the 900,000 or so more children who would be born each year if abortion could be stopped entirely (including illegal abortions). What do you feel is the appropriate role of the government in helping these children (many if not most of whom would be born to single mothers) stay out of poverty and have similar opportunities to those born to families at higher rungs of the socioeconomic spectrum?
This is an honest question from me. As a progressive, I have no problem having the government (taxpayers) pick up the tab for childcare and perhaps subsidize adoption to a much higher degree than it does today, but I would be interested in hearing what a conservative approach would be to accomplish the same thing.
I wish the church would also condemn all opposition to artificial birth control, such as condoms or birth control pills.
For much of the church to oppose artificial birth control in nations with starving populations is simply immoral.
Immoral, Eric? Did you know that the Pill does not, in every case, prevent conception? But it does cause a change in the lining in the uterus, making it an inhospitable environment for any child conceived to thrive. And the child is aborted. So, the Pill has a secondary function as an abortifacient when it’s primary function fails. And it often does. This is why the Catholic Church is against the Pill in all cases when specifically used as a contraceptive.
Ever heard or Natural Family Planning? If not, please check it out. It’s been proven to be 99% effective. It does so by using a woman’s natural – & God-given – menstrual cycle to prevent pregnancy when a couple has deemed it necessary to delay another child.
So . . . which is more immoral, Eric? The general refusal in the international community (due, mostly, to pressure from pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood – which BTW primarily targets minorities) to allow NFP or abstinance info to be widely spread or the use of the Pill, which causes abortions itself?
Which do you think if more in keeping with God’s will for His children? Which choice would a responsible, informed Christian make? And which would that Christian recommend to others, even if they’re not Christians, keeping in mind they’re still children of God with immortal souls?
Moochie, the comment you’re replying to is from Joel, not from me.
Steve–Jane Galt does a good job in this post explaining that “if women having abortions instead carried the fetuses to term and then offered them for adoption, they could almost certainly place each and every baby, especially with our aging population of professional women whose fertility has declined.”
In other words the glib answer is that there simply would not be such a problem as you suppose. To answer your question more directly, I frankly don’t have a well-developed idea of what the best way is to provide for unplanned children and their parents. Some public involvement is inevitable, I think, although I do believe that private social services are always more effective and efficient than those provided by the government.
“Natural Family Planning”? The rhythm method? 99% effective? The range I’ve read for ideal usage varies between 90% and 98%, not considering that actually usage makes this option less effective thank just about anything else available.
Morally sound option? Perhaps depending on your viewpoint. Effective? Not likely.
Considering the fact that the average number of adoptions in any given year is 120,000, and that there are something on the order of 900,000 abortions every year, I suspect that the answer “they’ll all be adopted” is wildly optimistic.
As for the Jane Galt argument – it’s entirely anecdotal, not scientific. Unless I see some statistics showing that there is a backlog of 500,000 to 900,000 adoptions PER YEAR, and that it is increasing by the same amount each and every year, I’m not going to buy it. Because that’s what we’re talking about here if we don’t provide resources for the mothers to keep their children.
As for the public/private question – I’m not wedded to one side or the other, as long as we can meet the goal of making sure that unwanted pregnancies don’t become a life sentence to poverty for both the children AND the mothers.
I’m so sorry, Eric! Thanks for letting me know.
And, no, NFP is not the old rhythm method. Quite different, actually. And, as I stated before, 99% effective. Assumptions are made & there are a lot of folks out there who want you to keep making those assumptions about non-contraceptive practices.
Now, why would that be?
Umm, feel free to tell me how this differs, but it still hinges on predicting ovulation. Which may be 99% effective in theory, but will not be in practice. Feel free to URL me with different information, but Google wasn’t agreeing with you.
Speaking of contraception, when are we getting a male pill?
Miillions, including a lot of infants and children, die from starvation and then some parts of the church says that it is immoral to artificially prevent conception of children that there is no ability to physically provide for? I’m not speaking of a morning after pill. I’m referring to the normal birth control pill, as well as condoms, vasectomies, or female devices. Frankly, although I respect the Pope in many areas, I think his views on birth control are repugnant and cruel.
Historically, I believe that the church opposed artificial birth control because original sin was thought to be conveyed by each and every act of sexual intercourse and the church believed it was wrong to allow people to escape the punishment for original sin. I accept the doctrine of original sin but don’t subscribe to any “biological transmission” theory.
Steve,
Unsurprisingly, your response to Jane’s argument was covered in a follow-up post by Jane. Jane claims there are more than 1 million on the adoption waiting list right now (she doesn’t link to a statistic showing that, but I trust her on this…especially since she’s neither staunchly pro-life or pro-choice).
She also argues that the number of unplanned pregnancies would go down because some people would stop engaging in risky sex, so there would not continue to be nearly 1 million babies to be adopted. And also more people would be willing to adopt.
In reality, of course, many mothers would choose to keep their children even if Mr. & Mrs. Perfect were waiting right outside the delivery room door. So it will always be necessary to provide help for those who unexpectedly become parents. I just don’t agree that restricting abortion would exacerbate this problem to a significant degree.
“She also argues that the number of unplanned pregnancies would go down because some people would stop engaging in risky sex, so there would not continue to be nearly 1 million babies to be adopted. And also more people would be willing to adopt.”
I have to disagree with Jane, those willing to engage in risky sex arent likely to change if one of their options is removed, after all these are the people who werent smart enough to use other forms of contraception.
Historically, I believe that the church opposed artificial birth control because original sin was thought to be conveyed by each and every act of sexual intercourse and the church believed it was wrong to allow people to escape the punishment for original sin. I accept the doctrine of original sin but don’t subscribe to any “biological transmission” theory.
Links, please, Joel? I’ve never heard of this being a reason for the denouncement of contraception & I’m unable to Google it into existence, as well. It has been the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. There are many writing from the Early Church Fathers, in the first 4 centuries, that support this. The reason is always given that contraception denies procreation & that it’s a grave sin to do so. In fact, every Christian denomination taught this until the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Council. It was the very first time any Christian denomination decreed it was OK to contracept. Most are genuinely surprised to discover that. Just 75 years ago.
Foltz, please refer to the link below. It’s from the Couple to Couple League website & quotes numerous studies from around the world. Sorry, I’m not html savvy so you’ll hafta cut & paste. And this is just one example.
http://www.ccli.org/nfp/effect2.shtml
While her second post was significantly better than the first, I still think her conclusions are based on “what she thinks” more than what the facts show. That being said, I don’t have any facts either. We really need some studies to confirm or refute what she has to say.
Some counters to her assertions:
- She claims that some women would elect to keep their babies. This is probably true, but it reinforces my contention that we need to do something to help these families from slipping into poverty.
- I will take her assertion that the number of unwanted pregnancies would go down 30 percent, even though I don’t think comparing STD rates with a number of other variables occurring in the early 1970s (namely, the explosion of the sexual revolution) is really valid. But going with that, we’re still talking 650,000 to 700,000 new babies. A significant number of those would be given up for adoption.
- With those numbers, 1 million on the waiting list would quickly go to zero. And I am NOT convinced that there would suddenly be this significantly larger pool of parents wanting to adopt or that most people would decide to adopt 4 or 5 rather than the one or two they adopt today.
She also mentions that some would choose to get illegal abortions. This is yet another reason that we should have a significantly more robust safety net in place for these mothers and children. Because the reality is that ending abortion won’t end abortion unless we address the root causes – which in most cases boil down to economics.
Wishful thinking isn’t enough if we hope to end abortion in a truly compassionate way. And unfortunately, I think that’s all Jane’s got right now.
Moochie, check out this link.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=WO00035
While it’s more effective than I would have expected it’s not 99% effective. Especially in practice as opposed to theory.
Eric, throughout the ’90s taxes were cut in many states where they assumed the good times would keep going. Rainy day funds were either not considered or underfunded. The good times go away. States are short of funds after the cuts made in previous years. Families are hurting. The governments are nice conservative Republicans. What do they want to do? Leave taxes where they are and cut every social program that has already been cut some more rather than have any tax increase, even one that would still leave taxes well below where they were before the cuts they championed in the previous decades. Conservative anti-tax ideology over any other consideration is their credo. It’s happening in Missouri right now. The Republican governor and legislature have announced that since revenues didn’t go up as much as expected the only programs in the state that won’t be cut are education and roads. Mind you, the social programs have been being cut already the last few years. There will be no consideration given to taking any steps to increase state revenues. None. To the best of my knowledge this is the exact attitude taken by every conservative Republican in office. If you know of any exceptions let me know. But even then can you show me anything to persuade me that it’s not just a minority opinion? Also, wouldn’t you say that the Cato Institute is a fairly influential conservative think tank? A quick Google search shows that it was only recently that Cato moved from eliminating Social Security to speaking of reforming it. Even Andrew Sullivan, who isn’t considered that conservative writes of “unraveling” this inefficient legacy of FDR.
Jim, didja check the link I posted? Per Mayo, it’s not. Per the numerous, verifiable studies in the link I posted, it is, at least, 99% effective. Put your faith in one entity. Sure looks to me as if there’s more evidence that NFP is more effective than the folks at Mayo & other entities would have us believe.
Why?
Moochie,
It was at the same time, generally, that the church was opposed to the use of pain killers during child birth (as interfering with the punishment prescribed in Genesis) and that many clerics opposed vaccination against smallpox as interfering with divine providence. I can’t recall off hand where I came across the materials.
Gee, Moochie, could it be because the link you posted is NOT anyone even attempting to objectively look at the data but instead an organization affiliated with the Catholic Church that has an agenda in hyping NFP? If you think it’s not then might I suggest a Google search on the name of the organization and note how often it’s mentioned on much more openly Catholic sites including one on Catholic culture? I also notice that none of their studies are less than 20 years old and that they dedicate a section of their research to dissing people who disagree with them, especially because the professional group of ObGyn’s takes a pro-choice stance. As far as the evil, sinister, motivations of the Mayo Clinic, maybe they’re right. This is one of the things about modern conservatives that disgust me. If someone disagrees with them they ascribe some terrible motive to them. It can’t be that they could be correct and doing their best to be accurate, oh no.
At least you do reveal in your posts that those of us who perceive the pro-life faction as also opposing birth control other than NFP aren’t just imagining things.
Moochie my arguement is any method that requires a chemistry set is one that the general population isnt going to be able to use. In theory is one thing (like the link you posted), but actual practice is going to be lacking.
Personally, the patch looks like the most effective option (moral issues ignored).
Of course we are back to my complaint of no functional male pill. Sign me up for those studies.
Jim, your “Republicans are eeeeevil” screed is off-topic and patently ridiculous. I suggest you go to the Democratic Underground if you want to post such drivel.
‘Zacly, Eric.
Please, Jim . . . where did I state anything about my “conservative” political views? And where did I say that the Mayo clinic was either “evil” or “sinister”? I didn’t. Because I don’t believe they are. The real, on-topic, question I posed – too succinctly, it seems – is: Why is all the funding going to chemical contraception like the Pill & why is there an outcry when someone like Bush comes out for funding in favor of abstinance programs? (Think of Senator Clinton a couple weeks ago who spoke vehemently aginst Bush’s stance.) This, IMO, is a double standard. OK, so what if the studies are over 20 years old? So’s Kinsey’s report & I’m not seeing folks who oppose his findings using the report’s age as reason to debunk them. Why? Because it’s an untenable position. Instead, they tear apart the techniques he used & to great effect. If there have been studies that consistently show NFP to be effective in the 99th or 100th percentiles, don’t you think it’s something that should be given further study? If the studies were scientifically controlled & repeatable, why ignore the model? That’s bad science. The problem is that Bush is the first president in a while who has brought attention to abstinence programs by funding them & this chaps NARAL & Planned Parenthood to no end. Why? Because it’s all about killing little babies, Jim. It’s all about the dehumanization of the baby – oops, I mean “fetal/placental unit” – with the same tactics used by slave owners before the Civil War & the Nazis toward the Jews. There’s never anything mentioned about the physically & psychologically destructive effects of abortions have on women. Why? These disgusting procedures, including “partial-birth abortion,” are all in the name of “women’s health,” right? So women won’t have to get “back-alley” abortions, right? Do your research. Planned Parenthood has artificially inflated the numbers of illegal abortions prior to 1973. Why? I’d give you links to sites like the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s Genocide Awareness Project, which has hard fact on thier side. But they’re Catholic-based so there’s no way they can be “objective” is there? (Besides, the pictures would sicken you.) Instead, start with a Google of Margaret Sanger’s ties to the eugenics movement of the early 20th Century & how they’re perpetuated in PP to this day. She wanted to target minorities, Jim. Why? I have no truck in conspiracies & don’t believe there’s one here; but, to quote Fox Mulder, the truth is out there.
Thank you, Moochie for proving everything I said in my previous post to be correct. Did you actually think there was anything in that post to prove my contentions wrong? I worked in the back office of a Planned Parenthood affiliate for two years. I know the books I know their numbers. It’s all about killing the babies? It’s all about de-humanizing them? Your entire post is about de-humanizing those who disagree with you. You did nothing but confirm your conservative religious viewpoint once again.
Where did I say all Republicans are eeeevil? Where I used that kind of phrase I was basically accusing Moochie of claiming a kind of conspiracy theory against the Mayo Clinic. Her follow up post only seems to prove my point. Evil? No. Theocratic? Yes, at least some of them are. Notice the “some of them”.
I have used Natural Family Planning (NFP) for about 15 years and it’s worked great for my husband and I. It requires some effort on my part, but it’s more than worth it to not take potentially harmful birth control pills. I am a firm believer in “Pro choice before conception – Pro life after.”
So you assume, Jim, that I’m a conservative proponent of Theocracy with a conspiracy fetish AND a woman? Lots of assuming going on here. I’ll take the compliment.
Specifically, what language did I use that was dehumanizing to abortion supporters? I stated facts. Abortion kills a human baby. Many women – many more that PP would have the general public believe – suffer from psychological, emotional, & physical trauma because of this co-called “simple procedure.” But let’s look at the legacy of your former employer.
Do you know about Margaret Sanger’s stance on eugenics? How she supported it. How she determined that PP centers would be predominantly in minority neighborhoods. How she was a racist & advocate of population control . . . for minorities. Not for rich, educated whites. Here’s what she said in support of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act:
“. . . to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by immigration laws of 1924.” (”A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932). This same document she advocated an option “to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization.”
Yeah, that’s compassion. Who determines who is a “moron”? How would these “morons” be segregated? Remember, this was before Nazi Germany. Sanger appointed Lothrop Stoddard as a board member of the Birth Control League, PP’s forerunner. Stoddard, an avid supporter of eugenics, forced sterilization, and (surprise!) Nazi Germany, wrote a book called The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. He described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” Dr. Harry Laughlin, another BCL board member, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”
From What Every Boy and Girl Should Know, Sanger’s first handbook for adolescents published in 1915: “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence.” But if one is educated, rich & white, that’s just OK! Demonstrate a good quality gene pool & you’re an esteemed & valuable part of society. In her book Women and the New Race Sanger wrote: the ‘most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.’” More compassion!
And this from Norman Himes, a frequent contributer to Sanger’s BCR: “Are Catholic stocks genetically inferior to such non-Catholic libertarian stocks and . . . Inferior to non-Catholics in general? . . . my guess is that the answer will someday be made in the affirmative.”
This is PP’s legacy. It continues to affect PP to this day. Talk about dehumanizing. And it’s all info PP doesn’t want out. They are the #1 abortion provider in the USA. Go here to see what it does: http://www.abortionno.com/GAP/gap_signs.html
Where did I say all Republicans are eeeevil?
For the record, Jim, I was referring to your comment about Republicans cutting social services and hurting families. The idea that Republicans don’t care about poor people is just as bankrupt as the idea that Democrats don’t care about national security. That’s all I have to say about that.
I know about Sanger. I also know, which you apparently do not, that it was an unfortunately all too common type of belief back then. You state without equivocation that those beliefs are part of Planned Parenthood now. I know those people, which you don’t, and I will state unequivocally that that statement is false. The truth is that you know that you’re so perfect you can’t be wrong and that the people who disagree with you must be evil murderers who know that they are committing murder. You accuse them of lying, of cooking the facts and every other kind of perfidy you can think of in order to make them seem like evil monsters.
Eric, that’s precisely what they are doing. They are cutting social services drastically. In Missouri they tried to do it last year but it didn’t fly with a Democratic Governor. Now they have a Republican in the Governor’s mansion and it’s already been announced that the only programs that won’t be cut are schools and roads. I’m not making it up or misrepresenting it. To the best of my knowledge (Please note the qualifier.) this is true of every Republican dominated state that is having budget problems. The Republican run federal government is not going to help because they passed massive tax cuts that they want to keep and possibly even deepen so they are also planning on cutting social programs. Now I’m being completely serious here, can you tell me of an exception?
Moochie,
I think that your rhetoric does more harm than good to the cause of reducing and ultimately halting abortions. To call pro-choice individuals genocidal and Nazis is first of all false (and I call Godwin’s Law on you) – in both of those cases, intent is everything, and from their standpoint, they do not see an early-term fetus as a human life. Second of all it is polarizing and will guarantee that we have no hope of changing anyone’s heart or mind.
Furthermore, it is a fallacious argument to state that because the views of one person in the past were wrong, the organization today shares those views. If that were the case, we would have to denounce practically every single church in this country for their support of positions that we find horrifying today. We would need to denounce our very government as well, for it held for 100 years that it was legal to own another person.
“The truth is that you know that you’re so perfect you can’t be wrong and that the people who disagree with you must be evil murderers who know that they are committing murder.”
You are so blessed with the ability to see into the hearts & minds of others, Jim. Can you respond to the facts I’ve laid out rather than ad hominem attacks on my person? Seems not ‘cos you haven’t yet. Not sure why. Just because I disagree with your stance I’m “perfect” or a “Theocrat” or think you’re an “evil murderer”? When did I say that? These are your assumptions, Jim, & only that. You have never addressed my point about the traumatic effects of abortion on women. PP’s numbers say otherwise, of course, but there are numerous independent studies that show the brutal physical, mental, & emotional effects of this procedure. Why? I’ve not yet mentioned that, as of a little over a year ago, 28 out of 31 studies proved that there is an abortion/breast cancer link which PP also refuses to acknowledge. Why? I’m only asking questions & giving facts. And I am aware that eugenic thought existed 100 years ago & Sanger was not the only one with those beliefs. But how many others actually made it their life’s work to rid society – global society – of undesireables like the poor, the disabled, criminals, epileptics, & morons. We now have drugs for epilepsy. We’re helping disabled folks in ways Sanger couldn’t even have imagined. Christ said the poor will be with us always & that it’s our duty to help them. Sanger wanted to shove them aside & even kill them. How could anyone look into the beautiful face of a Down’s Syndrome person & think to do harm to them? Sanger would have. Undeniably, this is PP’s legacy.
I never said folks who work at PP now or in the past were Nazis. (In fact there’s no evidence that I’ve seen to show that Sanger actively supported Hitler.) I never called “pro-choice individuals genocidal and Nazis” – the words Steve has put in my mouth. I referred only Sanger & her associates who lived 100 years ago. I only stated that their tactics were in the past, & continues to be today in PP, to get the general public to view a baby in the uterus as something less than human & disposable. I tried to do this through inference. I’m sorry if it led folks to other conclusions. This is the effect of the legacy begun by Margaret Sanger & her like-minded associates. Where, please show me, did I say that all current PP supporters today are Nazis? Or eugenists? Genocidal? I did not. (I did point out the Genocide Awareness Project, but I did not coin their terminology. It refers to the fact that more lives have been lost by abortion since 1973 than because of Nazi Holocaust.) My point is, the groundwork was laid 90 years ago for PP. But PP has never said, “Yes, Sanger was that but we are not” & continually sweeps the truth under the rug so the general public will remain unaware of their legacy. Please show a statement from PP in print that seeks to divorce the modern entity from it’s eugenic roots. I’ve not found one! I can show you dozens of examples of the same from our government or the various faith communities that Steve points out. How many times has Pope John Paul II apologized for past events? From what Steve said, JPII shouldn’t have had to because that was then & this is now & we should all know better. But he did, Steve, & that’s very telling. PP representatives become irate when this info is brought up to them. Why? I’d think they’d want to actively distance themselves from it ASAP! Why don’t they? Jim has been reading what he wants to read into my statements, making multiple assumptions, without ever addressing one fact I’ve mentioned. When did I accuse “them” of lying? Did I not state fact about Sanger & her associates? Steve, you’re correct: intent is everything. But please do not kid yourself into thinking that it’s all about early-term, so-called “non-viable” pregnancies. It’s simply not. (And as for early-term pregnancies being “non-viable” – well, modern technology keeps making it possible for babies to be viable earlier & earlier in the 2nd trimester. So please define “early-term” for me.) PP wants abortion legal at any time during the pregnancy. They whole-heartedly support partial-birth abortion. Have you aware of how that procedure is peformed? If not, please find out & explain to me how anyone can find benefit in such a gastly procedure. Read, also, PP’s views on what sort of limits should be placed on abortion. They advocate none. Meaning that a baby would be able to be aborted at any time during the pregnancy for any reason. But don’t believe me. Do the research. Start with PP’s website & look below the attractive surface. It’s all there. Why do they target kids as young as 5? The advocate kids having sex at astonishingly young ages & actively seek to have condoms available in middle schools. Why?
Do you mean “rhetoric” to be a slam? It simply means to engage in communication. I’ve stated facts. These may not be facts with which folks are comfortable. I know I wasn’t when I was pro-abortion. But I’ve seen & read the truth. And it’s not my fault that this truth, these facts exits. But I do feel folks need & have the right to know. I have no doubt that supporters of abortion believe they are doing good work. I have no doubt that Sanger believed that, too. I have a dear friend who has also worked at PP. I do not believe these folks to be evil. (Please re-read that last sentence.) Not one of them. The practice of aborton is, however, because it purposefully ends a human life. I believe the vast majority of PP supporters have no clue who Margaret Sanger was & what she believed. But I believe that, if they knew the truth, many of them would change their views just as I did. And, let’s face it, that’s really what PP & abortion supporters are afraid of, isn’t it?
Moochie,
To quote you:
“Because it’s all about killing little babies, Jim. It’s all about the dehumanization of the baby – oops, I mean “fetal/placental unit” – with the same tactics used by slave owners before the Civil War & the Nazis toward the Jews.”
You say potato, I say po-tah-to. Sounds like you were associating pro-choice folks with slave owners and Nazis to me.
My main point is that the pro-life argument is much stronger without bundling pro-choice individuals and groups in with slave owners, Nazis, and genocidal regimes. You have some good arguments with regard to the emotional and physiological effects of abortion on women. You have some good arguments that PP needs to step away from the views of its founder (note: I don’t know enough about their foundation or their current leadership to know what they would say in this regard – but I think it’s a good thing to press them on if it’s true). And, of course, I am with you in the belief that we should work toward the elimination of abortion worldwide. You don’t need to put people on the defensive by lumping their views in with groups that I’m quite sure they detest to make your case.
I take your point, Steve, thanks. While I was equating the tactics used, I never meant to equate the people. I appreciate your insight & will work to do better in the future. But I’m not sure that the statement of fact puts folks on the defensive. Especially when the response fails to address valid points made & tends toward emotional, personal attacks. I’d encourage you to do your own research in this area. Virtually all the information is easily attainable & verifiable. I invite people not to take my word for it but to find out for themselves. And always ask “why”. I’m sorry if I was too heavy-handed. I’m also sorry Jim never responded to the actual issues.
I won’t repeat Steve’s quote but I will point out that in the same post that he quotes you made other multiple personal attacks on those who disagree with you. You did it in earlier posts as well. You did it far too often in multiple posts for it to be an error. You began the personal attacks, not I. In addition you move well beyond distortion of facts (I’m trying hard not to use the L word.). To quote you: “The advocate kids having sex at astonishingly young ages…”. Advocate it? Show me where they are advocating, that means actively encouraging them, that “astonishingly” young people to have sex. Every one of your sources is a 100% pro-life advocacy source. But of course they and only they can have the corner on truth. Your only “proof” that Sanger’s eugenics views still influence Planned Parenthood is that they perform abortion. You make claims about them targeting poor people and minorities. Well, the young black women who came from a poor background and worked with me at Planned Parenthood somehow never seemed to agree with your views and didn’t have a single nice thing to say about those who tried to make the argument. You speak of studies that prove a link between breast cancer and abortion. Really? Here’s one for you from the web site of the National Cancer Institute:
“In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report . ”
By the time abortion became legal the numbers of deaths from illegal procedures had dropped drastically but read this this statement from William Harrison, a doctor: “I was a young OB/GYN resident at the University Hospital in Little Rock, Arkansas from June 30, 1968 to July 1, 1972. During the first six months of my residency almost all abortions, except for those done ostensibly to save the life or physical health of the mother, were illegal, and safe elective abortion was only sporadically available in most of this country. During the four years of my residency, I saw, or was aware of, perhaps 5,000 or so illegal and infected or traumatic abortions seen in my hospital – either in the emergency room, in the clinics, or on the wards and in the operating rooms. A significant number of these patients required only minor surgery, intravenous fluids (sometimes blood transfusions) and large doses of antibiotics to successfully treat the short term complications that resulted from the illegal abortions these young (some no more than children) and middle aged women endured. Nearly all, with the exception of the most severely ill of these, were extremely reluctant to admit that they had undergone an illegal abortion and only rarely would tell who had done their abortions. Nor would most of them discuss the circumstances that drove them to this painful and dangerous extreme.”
You say that I wouldn’t address the issues but your issues were just a tissue of partisan distortions so far as I can tell. Your independent studies weren’t independent or were countered by other studies. You have your world view and nothing will change it. But don’t expect your extensive quoting of selective samples of studies or other partisans to change mine, either. You and the people like you are why Planned Parenthood feels that they can’t compromise because you will never offer compromise, only your certainty that you should be able to have the government enforce your religious belief about abortion as the law of the land.