A recent report indicates that the number of abortions have risen slightly in the last few years. Immediately, there was the usual hue and cry from the anti-abortion movement. The pro-choice movement chimed in as well, expressing concern.
This reminded me of a statement years ago by Kate Michelman, the President of the National Abortion Rights Action League, who said that abortion was a “bad thing.” Then there was the time when Hillary Clinton said abortion was a “tragedy.”
When a woman is faced with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, there are three possible outcomes: give birth to the unwanted child, give the child up for adoption and abortion. All three options are not perfect. With adoption, the mother will carry a child for nine months and give it up and possibly never see it again. Think of the guilt, the second guessing. With childbirth, it goes without saying that the life of an unwanted child might be fraught with problems. Then, there is abortion where it is possible that a woman might ultimately “regret” that decision later on as her life became more stable.
Then why is it that even the pro-choice movement feeds into the stigma of abortion by saying things like it is a “bad thing?” Could not childbirth or adoption ultimately be a “bad thing” as well?
Abortion is not the tragedy. Indeed, the availability of abortion services has actually saved hundreds and thousands of lives since abortion was legalized in this country. If anything is a “tragedy,” it is the when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy. And, instead of stigmatizing the abortion procedure (and, by reference, the abortion doctors), the pro-choice movement should focus on doing whatever it can to insure that every child is a wanted child and will come into this world under the best circumstances possible.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
February 21, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Well said.
The tradjedy is when legislature tries to create laws that limit a Woman’s control of her own body.
Abortion is not the tradjedy.
LikeLike
February 21, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I appreciate Hugh’s comment above.
When women are faced with unwanted pregnancy we can reflect back to gain wisdom to try and prevent the unwanted pregnancy.
I do not recall Clinton’s “Tragedy’ context, although I do remember the remark. If it was simply that the procedure was a tragedy then she was simply uninformed, I suspect it had to do with more complicated political positioning. Not a defense by any means, just a sad statement about a person, who seems to have had clear advocacy on her mind, yet could say such a thing.
Abortion is a women’s choice.
As Hugh mentions it simply falls under the ability of a person’s liberty to control their own body.
Susan
LikeLike
February 21, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Well put, Pat! The next step is to educate the rest of the country to that fact. The problem of course is that the so-called “pro-life” movement has been so effective over the years in demonizing abortion that it has people reflexively thinking according to their framing. So, how do we get abortion back into proper perspective?
The biggest need is to undercut the credibility of their dysfunctional twelve-step movement. “What?” readers might ask, “the ‘pro-life’ movement is a dysfunctional twelve-step self-help program?”
The very fact that someone would wonder that shows how little thought has been given to the nature of the movement. People really need to educate themselves about it in order to educate others and diminish the influence of the movement. After all, Congress is not likely to move heaven and earth to give thumbsuckers and self-pitiers what they want; it should be the same with the so-called “pro-life” movement.
Once the public in general starts thinking about the true nature of the movement, “abortion” as a term will be eligible for re-consideration. That is when people will start to realize that the real heroes are not those who militate outside the Abortion Store, but depart the Baby Store. Find out for yourself at the Responsible Right to Life site:
http://web.mac.com/charlesgregory/ABORTICENTRISM/RESPONSIBLE_Right_to_Life.html
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 6:33 am
the difference is obvious…abortion kills an unborn baby…
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 8:20 am
I appreciate your chiming in, Teri. It’s always good to hear from an opposing view. You clearly oppose abortion, which is your right. Can I assume that you’re okay with birth control which, of course, would reduce the need for abortion?
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I posted a reply yesterday to this subject, and it should have appeared right after Hugh’s and Susan’s. It dealt with having to re-frame the term “abortion,” to take it away from the so-called “pro-lifers.” Does anybody have any idea as to it having been pulled?
I also checked my blog on aborticentrism and found that a hacker had evidently removed the video in which anti-abortion protestors stated how little they were actually involved in caring for human life. FYI, nothing more. I have re-inserted it and tried to improve the security screen.
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 1:28 pm
cgregor: No idea what happened to your post, sorry…..
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Thanks for putting it back up, Pat. By the way, the link no longer works, so if anybody wants to get to it, they have to google “aborticentrism” and follow links from there…
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Abortiion is wrong. End of story. The point is killing a child is wrong and where I come from killing is murder. Repent U.S.A
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Henry, one abortion– that of the fetal Ted Bundy– would have saved sixty-five lives.
That’s the simple truth. However, to discuss its ramifications is a lot more complex than either so-called “pro-choicers” care to undertake or so-called “pro-lifers” want to understand. But of course, who am I not to try? Five main points:
1. If you know anything at all about feral children, you know that they do not display human characteristics of speech, gait, thought or other behavior until somebody takes them in charge. It stands to reason that a fetal life is not human until someone decides to make it so. Obviously, those around Ted Bundy did not know how to make that decision.
2. The only person who can make that decision is the pregnant woman. If you want to, you can make her fetus human by having it transplanted into your body, or you can agree to meet her price for her to carry the pregnancy to term and then give the child to you to raise. If you will not do that– and only if she will agree to it– you cannot call her fetus an “unborn human.”
3. If you will not do more than simply insist that she bear a fetus to term, you run the risk of unleashing another Ted Bundy on the world.
4. Doing so does not bother you because you have a deep-seated need to combat abortion, but no need to care for human life. By being able to say you are “rescuing unborn humans,” you are claiming victory in an allegorical struggle against the oblivion you face in your own death. You are really trying to rescue yourself.
5. To this end, you will use any argument that comes to hand to carry on your fight, when what you really need is a true Christian’s acceptance of God’s plan for your soul.
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Henry: you say “killing is wrong.” What about killing during war? What about the death penalty? I hope you’ll take a moment to engage in a conversation, versus just saying that “abortion is wrong.” I’m really trying to understand how you see things. Thanks
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Pat, don’t expect Henry to reply. So-called “pro-lifers” view such questions as akin to interrogations from a therapist, and as such very threatening. Any attempt at communication ends up with them dodging uncomfortable questions, such as “How many children have you adopted that you didn’t want to?” or “How many hours a week do you volunteer in public schools?” or else going into rant mode. Notice that Teri hasn’t replied to your innocuous question about birth control.
For the aborticentric, dialogue cannot be give-and-take; it must rather be one in which their statements earn validation. They do not have the emotional strength to contend; they seek comfort and affirmation in their struggle with the finality of their death. Sad, but that’s the way it is.
LikeLike
February 23, 2010 at 9:05 am
In a way, Cgregor, I hope you are wrong in that I would really like to start a dialogue on the issue. I’ve always felt that what this country needs is to have a “national conversation” on the abortion issue to lessen the tensions between the two camps.
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 5:40 am
Pat Richards, you simply cannot have a dialogue with someone who’s displaying a psychopathological behavior (e.g., fixated on cigars because of their phallic symbolism, which is why the cigar-loving Freud had to joke, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”).
The key to the dysfunctionality of the so-called “pro-life” movement is its disconnect between what it says about its care for human life and how little it actually cares. Here’s the link that vividly brings out the difference:
http://web.mac.com/charlesgregory/ABORTICENTRISM/THE_CLOSEST_IT_GETS%3A.html
Previous attempts, even sincere on the part of the so-called “pro-lifers,” have always foundered– Jerry Reiter in his book “Live from the Gates of Hell,” mentions how even after his disillusionment with the movement, his wife participated in the Common Ground effort to establish a dialogue between the two sides.
I believe the real common ground between the two is care for the child, not care about the fetus, and you simply cannot get “pro-lifers” to go there! My challenge since 1993 as the head of RESPONSIBLE Right to Life has been to get others to do what I do– raise to adulthood every “unborn human” I want “rescued.” Membership after 16 years? One person.
These people talk the talk because they are engaged in a harmful form of attempted self-therapy. They cannot care for human life because they truly need to take care of themselves first– and they’re doing a bad job of it.
LikeLike
March 4, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Okay cgregor you are basically saying all unwanted pregnancies result in a serial killer later in life….
Just because a baby is unplanned doesn’t mean he is unwanted, I had an unplanned baby a few years ago and I luv him, just because a mother doesn’t want her child there are thousands of women out there who want that opportunity to become a mother and would pay lots of money.
To answer ur question about killing being wrong…well it is if that life is an innocent life, u sign up for the war, u do Terrible things to be put on death row but what did that fetus do except simply exist because of something u did
LikeLike
March 4, 2010 at 10:36 pm
No, Mdb69, I am not “basically saying all unwanted pregnancies result in a serial killer in later life.” It is very likely you want to believe I’m saying that, because it will serve your needs.
I agree with you that “just because a baby is unplanned doesn’t mean he is unwanted.” However, there are innumerable instances of a wanted baby becoming an unwanted child. I recommend you read the book, “Whoever Fights Monsters,” by FBI agent Robert Ressler, who developed the profile questionnaire to identify serial killers. You would want to rescue those babies from the environment they grew up in, like the toddler who lived in a cardboard box and whose mother tossed food to him when she got home from work, on her way to the TV and the sofa.
There are not “thousands of women out there” who will pay lots of money to become a mother to an HIV-positive child, or one of mixed race, or one with Trisomy-13, or one with Down’s Syndrome or one with– but you get the idea. That notion is just a comforting one for your belief system.
What really counts is how much you care for human life, rather than merely caring about something you want others to call human life. Will you pledge, as I have, to raise to adulthood every “unborn child” you want “rescued”? Will you, as I have, commit 8% of your annual income and 600 hours annually of your unpaid time to work one-on-one with children in public schools, as a Big Brother or Sister, as an instructor in a Parent Nurturing Program, in a Court Diversion program, as a guardian ad litem? With children not of your faith, not of your kin, not of your social class?
To put it succinctly, you don’t. More importantly, you can’t.
For one thing, you have a child to take care of. For another, you can’t spare the energy or take the risk. You, like all of us, have to take care of yourself first in order to function– and that means you’re not going to be one of those “thousands of women.” Sorry about that. Check out this link and see if you’re on tape:
http://web.mac.com/charlesgregory/ABORTICENTRISM/THE_CLOSEST_IT_GETS%3A.htm
LikeLike
March 5, 2010 at 10:08 am
I dont think that cgregor was saying that ALL unwanted pregnancies resulted in a Ted Bundy. He was responding to someone who suggested that abortion might prevent the birth of a Mozart, which is true. But cgregor is right about it could possible prevent a Ted Bundy. And you are right, an unplanned pregnancy does not mean it is unwanted. The sad thing is when it is unwanted. Yes, there is adoption but unless you have been through that process, it’s hard to see how difficult that can be. None of the options are perfect, I encourage every woman and her family to think through all the options, then try to make the right decision. Sometimes, however, we do not make the right decision, no matter what the issue. For example, I made the wrong decision when it came to my selection of a college, I made the “wrong” decision with my first spouse. We try our best…..
LikeLike
March 5, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Pat, you are skirting around the core issue of the so-called “pro-life” movement. I regret that you saw fit to withhold my comment, but yours is the power. I would only caution you that such pussyfooting will not resolve the threat that dysfunctional movement poses to society, families and children.
LikeLike
March 5, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Not sure of your name above, but I do not know what you mean that I “withheld your comment.” I have no such power. Not sure what you said, did you use profanity? So, I have no idea what you are responding to but would love to hear your thoughts…
LikeLike
March 6, 2010 at 7:35 am
cgregor here, Pat; Instead of using my original pen name, I am now using a link to the video of the “pro-lifers” at a demonstration revealing how little they actually care for children they want born. I hope that it will help viewers to understand “pro-life syndrome,” the fundamental disconnect between what they say and what they do. So, I’ll try again.
Mdb69 claims I said, “all unwanted pregnancies result in a serial killer later in life….” Which I did not even imply. While the average person would say she lied, the below average person would say she was not intelligent enough to understand and her lawyer would say she misrepresented, it is most likely that her aborticentrism compelled her to filter what she heard in order to pursue an illusory therapy. Therapy about what?
As is discussed at the aborticentrism blog, “pro-lifers” deal with a crippling fear of their own disappearance into the overwhelming oblivion of death (who of us knows anything about our great-great aunt on our father’s side? So also shall most of us be forgotten by future generations). To deal with it, they seek the status of heroes, to be remembered long after death.
Their heroic struggle centers not on helping pimply, foul-mouthed teenagers or swarthy, ill-humored Third-Worlders (which would cost them too much emotional energy and public support), but on the fetus, which is a tabula rasa on which they can imprint without contradiction all the virtue they would like to see in themselves, virtues which would certainly gain them entrance to the Heaven they are unsure of attaining by their present merit.
The whole thing is an allegorical struggle: When they save the fetus, they are metaphorically saving themselves.
Which explains why Mdb69 begins her post with an untruth: For her therapy to work, she has to win. She cannot win if she has to grant validity to contradictory information. In this particular case, she has to misrepresent to herself as well as to the reader what it was I wrote.
If she sincerely believes what she wrote, it is not a lie.
If she is not conscious of her own illogical processes, it is still a misrepresentation, but in some ways forgivable.
And since she is not acting under the direction of another in writing, she’s not stupid.
In sum, Mdb69, like most “pro-lifers,” is that relative we all have who needs more than we can give, but we do our best to make them feel accepted.
I don’t do well with such relatives, especially when they don’t and can’t care what happens to others’ children for eighteen years.
LikeLike