“Did you know that the abortionist gives the 30 week baby a saline solution that makes its body burn up and then the abortionist throws the baby into the incinerator with the other babies and burns them every night like the Nazis exterminated the Jews?”
“Did you know that the abortion mills sell the parts of the baby and make a lot of money?”
“Did you know that the notorious late term abortionist, George Tiller, performed thousands of third trimester abortions each year?”
Over the years, in my capacity as a consultant for hundreds of abortion providers, I have listened to these charges by the pro-life movement. While my pro-choice colleagues would always express outrage, my reaction has been one of sadness.
It makes me sad that most members of any organization, whether it is a pro-life group, the American Association of Retired People, the National Rifle Association or, yes, the National Abortion Rights Action League, all seem to take things at face value. They go to their organization’s website, they attend a rally on the Mall, or they read a direct mail piece and they just figure that their organization is telling the truth.
What they don’t seem to get is that these national organizations need to raise money and one way of doing that is to scare the crap out of their members. And to do that, they sometimes stretch the truth.
“President Obama is plotting to take away all of your guns!” screams the NRA.
“Pro-choice Groups Want Abortion on Demand through Nine Months of Pregnancy!” shouts the National Right to Life Committee.
The letters, which are replete with exclamation points and red lettering, talk about the incessant attacks on their organization. And, yes, at the very end comes the inevitable line: “You can help us defend your rights by immediately sending us $10, $15, $100 or more…” There will be an envelope for your convenience and they usually accept credit cards.
In the early 1980’s, the pro-choice groups raised millions and millions of dollars to help defeat a constitutional amendment banning abortion that was pending in the Senate. The day after the amendment was defeated, the direct mail people had a meeting (I was there) and they were downright depressed because they knew that, now that they had won the victory, they could not raise the kind of money they had been raising.
Practically the day after Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, pro-choice groups had a fundraising letter warning people that he would “stack the court” against abortion rights and asking people to send money so they could stop these pernicious attacks on the right to choose.
We all have a lot to do. We don’t have time to sort out all of the issues and verify what the national organizations are saying.
All I am suggesting is that folks take a little bit of time to think things through and, God forbid, to even listen to the other side, no matter what the issue. You’ll often find that the truth is always somewhere in the middle.

April 16, 2010 at 11:27 am
Let it be known that I am now somewhere in the middle — and you know what that means.
LikeLike
April 16, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Well they got worried of not getting paid anymore….
LOL
LikeLike
April 16, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Abortion i my right and i won’t let it go…
LikeLike
April 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm
There are people who have learned that to be afraid is to be rewarded. They learn it in childhood. Often, it is not what their parents want them to learn, but parents don’t as a rule teach, even when they intend to. They offer. The child decides what he (or she) will use in developing himself. And some children learn that it is rewarding to be afraid.
One of the biggest rewards is that nobody else can take away one’s fear. For children who find that they have no power over their own boundaries, that others will threaten or victimize them, having a fear means owning at least one thing that nobody can steal or destroy.
When these people grow into adulthood, they make a very fruitful market for the fearmongers among the so-called “pro-life” crowd.
If at some point later in life they become more secure about their ability to set boundaries others will respect and to effect their desired level of control over their environment, they can let go of their fear as an unnecessary bit of supercargo. ( these people sometimes are lapsed from the so-called “pro-life” movement.)
Sometimes a person can’t let go of it without therapy.
Just thought I’d let you know.
LikeLike
April 17, 2010 at 9:34 am
Thanks for chiming in, Chante!
LikeLike
April 20, 2010 at 9:07 am
I find CG’s posts very insulting. Are you a man or a woman? Are you a psycologist? Have you ever had a baby inside you?
LikeLike
April 20, 2010 at 11:23 am
Meg Harrison, I am a man who has had to deal with abusive husbands and parents, and with abused women and children for nigh onto 30 years. I know ’em when I see ’em. I even developed a tool for identifying the type of abuse present in a household.
Everyone seeks potency in his or her life. It is a way of validating that one’s life is meaningful. However, some people seek to establish that sense of power either by using means they learned in childhood were “normal” (such as beating one’s child) or that they arrived at erroneously through drawing incorrect conclusions from life’s lessons (e.g., “I am so ignored by everybody, the only way to get what is right is to go over the top.”)
The so-called “pro-life” movement is an example on the grand scale of just that phenomenon– it just happens to be a host of people seeking potency in the wrong way. They focus on the one segment of life they cannot possible nurture, label it with all the prettiest adjectives they can summon, and walk away at the delivery room door. The movement is a dysfunctional self-help program injurious to women, their families and society at large. You ought to read up on aborticentrism to get the whole picture.
I was also a single parent from the time my son turned 4 years old, and I could still become pregnant if I wanted to– and could find an unethical OB/GYN to implant the– dang! forgot the term! Cystoblast?
What do you find insulting about my posts?
LikeLike
April 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Up front you say you are a “man” who has….
Then, later, you say you could still become pregnant.
What the hell are you?
LikeLike
April 20, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Megan, Larry Flint’s wife ran a magazine of her own, a Playboy without the pictures and the libertine slant, called Omni. It was geared for people who wanted to think, and I was trying at the time. It’s now defunct, of course, losing out to the likes of People and Us…
Anyway, back about 1983, it featured an article about male pregnancy. An Australian researcher doing a study on immunosuppression experimented to see how alien entities could fool the body into accepting them. So he stuck some fertilized frog eggs into a male frog.
The less important result– and the answer you seek– was that the male frog carried them to term, the scientist was able to prove that human males would experience the same immunosuppression were the same done to them, and right away some really, really idealistic gay men started pressuring their doctors to make them pregnant. The doctors then (and as far as I know, still) refused, saying that the male body was not equipped to handle a pregnancy. Sexists! Having had to raise one child, I’m sure not going to go that route myself. But I COULD become pregnant. It’s all part of God’s inscrutable plan for some unborn angel.
The more important answer for the purpose of this blog is that THE FETUS IS A PARASITE. Not that that’s a bad thing, mind you. I think in general some pets cross over the line from being symbiotes to being parasites, but then, they’re not MY pets.
The parasitical nature of the fetus, however, is NEVER addressed by the so-called “pro-life” crowd. After all, who’d want to be identified with defending the right to life of a parasite?
Fetuses can also be killers. As I believe I’ve pointed out on another thread, a colleague’s friend, a nurse, was killed in fifteen minutes by eclampsia. I don’t know whether she knew she was pre-eclamptic, but all it took was fifteen minutes without anybody near her to render aid, and she died.
So-called “pro-lifers” will of course say that’s all part of God’s inscrutable plan, but that’s just their way of dodging anything that remotely resembles a responsibility they don’t want to take on. Do yourself a favor and Google “aborticentrism” or use my name to link to the site. Look around…
LikeLike
April 20, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Now I know where Charles went wrong; he tried to figure out people through the pygmies — the psychologists, the sociologists, the anthropologists, et al. To do that you have to go to the giants — Goethe, Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, et al. Somewhere back in time Charles took a course from one of the pygmies. It really screwed him up.
LikeLike
April 21, 2010 at 10:12 am
And I’m still trying to figure out if “Charles” is a man or a woman!!!
LikeLike
April 21, 2010 at 10:44 am
Something happened to my reply to John saying that he had overlooked Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Stewart Chamberlain.
And yes, I used to be a real man, but I gave up drinking beer and watching TV and became a single parent….
LikeLike
April 21, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I dont know about anyone else, but I find CG insulting, not to mention unintelligible at times. So, I get you are educated and can quote Satre and others, but I really would like you to get to the nub of the issue.
A woman becomes pregnant. I assume you will agree that at that point, or soon thereafter, that something will start to develop. Around the 22nd week, if you look at all of the pictures, it looks pretty developed, no? Are you thsn saying that it is okay at that point to go to a doctor and have that doctor kill that baby/fetus/zygote whatever the hell you personally want to call it?
Please don’t give me gobblygook. Is that okay with you?
LikeLike
April 21, 2010 at 4:59 pm
To quote the man, Meg: “Listen, and listen tight.”
If I insist that some woman bear a child, I cannot walk away from it once I have won or forced her consent. I would burn in Hell if he grew up to become another Ted Bundy or spent his life on welfare in a wheelchair because nobody else cared. I think you will burn in Hell, too, if you force some woman to bear a child and then walk away. That is my personal belief.
Now, the reason I post here is to make people aware of aborticentrism– a focus on fetal life so compulsive as to ignore the needs of real humans. It seems a lot of your feelings have to do with unresolved issues about your own experience, and I think you ought to find a forum appropriate for sorting them out. If you are here in an attempt to make yourself feel better by persuading others not to have an abortion, it is my opinion that it is not therapeutic for you, but I am not going to either try to stop you or to argue with you.
Best of luck to you.
LikeLike
April 22, 2010 at 10:03 am
Whatever…..but, CG, you have yet to answer my original question. Don’t worry if I belong here or not. I’ve seen in the past where you criticize “so-called pro-lifers” who do not answer your questions.
Now, focus a little, dont give me abortioncentralistic or whatever you are peddling crap and answser my simple question.
LikeLike
April 22, 2010 at 11:21 am
Okay, Meg, IF I were a woman in my 22nd week of pregnancy and I determined that it was not suitable for me to continue this pregnancy, I would have absolutely NO compunction in seeking an abortion.
I am not in any position to either encourage or discourage any woman from seeking an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, but now at least you recognize me for the heartless Medea you wish to ascertain. And your response is? . . .
LikeLike
April 23, 2010 at 7:26 am
Ah, but CG, you have once again avoided my question: At that point, is it not a baby and is it not killing?
You are quick to pounce on us, don’t be a hypocrite – answer these questions…
LikeLike