My last few blogs have generated a lot of interesting discussions. I love a good, hearty debate so I want to thank everyone for chiming in and for keeping it (relatively) civil. Abortion is obviously an emotional and controversial issue that, as far as I am concerned, will never really be “resolved” because it is just not as black and white as some of our national organizations would have us think.
The last post discussed the efforts of some anti-abortion groups to declare the fetus as a “person” from a legal sense and it generated a rather lengthy thread. We got reams of information about the humanity of the fetus-baby, when it starts breathing, how it can feel pain, how it can hear music, when it starts to fart, etc. It was all very fascinating. No, that’s not true. I gotta admit that it was totally boring to me. After a few posts, I stopped reading most of the scientific information that was shared with us, especially the footnotes and citations by supposedly objective authors. At some point, I just started to tune it all out because to me it was just becoming an academic exercise that had no relation to the real world.
Maybe I’m just too simple. Every time I would see the paragraphs going on and on and on, I would just think of that 21 year old girl living in subsidized housing in the South Bronx who made a mistake. She had unprotected sex with that boy who
Abortion "Stressfull Decision"
has been destined for Riker’s Island since he was in elementary school. And she got pregnant. And, instead of playing the poverty card, I would also think of the 45 year old woman in Beverly Hills who thought she was incapable of getting pregnant anymore and whose marriage is a shambles. I just wondered how both of these women would have reacted if they were reading these regurgitations of the scientific literature? C’mon, folks, let’s get real. They wouldn’t have read any of it. Do you really think these women care that the fetus at 8 weeks has fingers, or a lung or whatever they have at 8 weeks?
Well, maybe they do care a little or are at least interested but do pro-lifers really think that all of the scientific “evidence” of “life” is going to make a difference that much of a difference? No way. Indeed, I can prove it. In a number of states the abortion clinics are required to show women pictures of how the fetus will develop, what it has at what stage. And, if you talk to clinics you will learn that it is extremely rare – I mean extremely – when a woman sees the pictures and is so shocked that she cancels the abortion. One clinic owner told me how they had to get extra trash cans because all of the (taxpayer paid) brochures wound up being thrown out.
Sure, it will be sad experience in some way. The woman may think about how, had she not had the abortion, she would have had a child. But, to her, it was the decision that she had to make at that time. It’s the same process that so many pro-lifers went through when they had their abortion. The only difference is now those pro-lifers are admitting that they now “regret” their abortion or that they were snookered, they didn’t know it had fingers or they didn’t know they could have put it up for adoption. And now they are saying that others can’t have the abortion because they know better.
Bolderdash!!
I appreciate how some want to pass on their “wisdom” and share their experiences to help those coming after them. But it is the height of obnoxiousness and somewhat hypocritical to say that, while you had the chance to have your abortion, you now know better so no one else should have one.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I trust women. I trust that they will talk to whoever they want to talk to, they will process the decision as well as they can, they will try to find a reputable clinic with good counseling and they will do what they think is best for THEM at that moment.
For the most part, none of them will be persuaded by the scientific facts. Women already know that the fetus is alive with, at some point, human characteristics. And they don’t want that fetus to grow into a baby that they will have to raise. That’s why they have the abortion.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
June 16, 2011 at 6:54 pm
A social worker friend of mine once brought along a Child Protective Services worker into a home where she’d been having a lot of trouble getting the mom to connect with services desperately needed by one of the daughters: she was acting out at school, appeared to be borderline IQ, needed appraisal and evaluation by the child development clinic, was way overdue for shots and physical exam, had terrible dental problems– and the mother wouldn’t do anything but agree to make appointments and never follow through.
When they left the home, the protective services worker said, “The father is molesting all four of the daughters.” When asked how she could tell, the worker said, “How do you know how much gas you have in your car? You look at the gauge.” She’d been into so many homes she could spot gross dysfunctions in a minute.
If so-called “pro-lifers” really cared about children, they’d be especially attuned to the dangers facing kids. In a word, yes, they’d be “psychic.” But they choose not to be. It’s apparently too hard for them. It’s not hard for me.
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Seriously? Are you going to blame every problem in society on pro-lifers? You really are reaching far to pull this stuff out as if it is up to pro-lifer’s who probably don’t even know this family exists to ‘fix” them. Really?
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 4:59 am
I was merely pointing out that self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” could learn to read family dynamics like an expert. With that knowledge skillfully employed, they would then know what is needed to protect and nurture that child safely to adulthood. But they don’t.
I’m sure you know of a certain type– the blowzy slattern who just LOVES being pregnant, but whose kids are unsupervised, terrorize smaller children when they are young, entire neighborhoods when they are older and their families when they are grown.
Like her, self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” LOVE pregnancy– only they like it even more in others. Instead of taking the trouble to learn about what children need to make it successfully to adulthood, to become thinking and loving adults and citizens, they walk away from the child and scan vigilantly for the next pregnant woman.
Here’s a challenge for you about problems you don’t even know about but could fix: Go to your state’s adoption agency and tell them you want to place their difficult-to-adopt children. Look through their pictures and then find them a family. Let me know how it turns out. If you won’t do it, I already know why. If you can’t do it, you’ll know why.
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 7:33 am
WOW, there sure are a lot of accusations there.You probably need t o check your “judgment files”. They are probably bulging about now. As a foster parent I am a mandated reporter and have dealt with more crap than you would ever imagine. Including crap that I told authorities about because I “read” family dynamics.
Here’s the deal: You can’t put pro-lifers into a category and proclaim that we all do or don’t do anything. We are individuals,not a collective group, that just happens to care about people, born and unborn. You can’t say that all of us do or don’t do anything anymore than you can say that all auto mechanics have brown hair.
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 7:43 am
Hey folks, I’ve been out of commission for the last few days and will be through the weekend. But I see that you all can easily keep this conversation going!
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 8:46 am
IO’m sorry, but just because some cows are spotted and some are one color, you can’t call some of them cows and some of them eagles.
So-called “pro-lifers” share common traits, although there are some variations: they hate and fear abortion, they do not adopt, foster or otherwise care for children not their own to a significantly greater degree than the rest of the population. Their membership in their group requires no special training, no sacrifice, no skills and no dedication (unlike first responders, the military, the law, teachers, the medical profession, etc.) other than opposition to abortion with exceptions, (for example presidential so-called “pro-life” candidate Rick Santorum’s exception for his wife). Their opposition to abortion generally overrides their concern for children (e.g. Dunkle is the type; you are the exception, and there are a lot, lot more of him than there are of you).
Why you bother defending them rather than bringing them up to your level of function is not a reflection on you, but on the fact that you can’t get them up to your level. But you can do a lot of good for those unadoptable children, so let me know how you fare with the state agency.
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 9:29 am
The reason that I bother defending them is because I know many that are doing as much as I am and more. To be silent and let you defame them would be inappropriate. I could give you a list. Seriously. Perhaps you have run into the wrong ones.
If you look at most of the orphan rescue organizations, adoption agencies, homeless shelters, private foster agencies, etc. You will discover that almost without fail they are run by pro-lifers. Not to mention social workers who went into that field specifically to help children. Also nurses, doctors, counselors, adoption attorney’s, etc (I know of some in each of these categories that specifically do it to help children. Then you have foster parents, adoptive parents, big-brothers big sisters, etc who do what they do specifically for the kids and are pro-life you cannot say that pro-lifers don;t do anything. Some have not ,I agree and more could be done, I agree but to say that all or even most have not is not true.
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 10:29 am
Deanna, you are selecting a subgroup of the larger population and calling it representative of the whole. There are far more who do nothing. In my town alone, 160 demonstrators proved to be the adopters of exactly six children– and five of them were adopted by a household whose male made a quarter million a year (his wife was also employed). I went to all their churches and asked them to recruit 160 people who would commit what I was committing at the time– 600 hours a year– and got zip. That’s your general so-called “pro-life” population.
The essence of being “pro-life” is to insist that babies be born rather than considering the woman’s and couple’s obligation to themselves and their present circumstances; it would not be ethical to override a woman’s need to take care of herself before she starts having children. The professionals you know may be very solicitous of children’s well-being, but that does not mean that they are entitled to act unethically, like Carol Everett. If for any reason they accede to a woman’s intent to have an abortion, they would lose the favor and support of your crowd; they would also gain your contempt. That’s how it has to be for so-called “pro-lifers.”
Let me know how it goes with the state adoption agency.
LikeLike
June 19, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Thank you for putting everything i was thinking reading her responses together, but i would thank these people, for doing those things making something of their lives and getting out there, its a good way to go i want to help children too, but i do not see parading about the streets calling people “baby killer,” the last thing we need is a PETA for this cause or do we already have one, Personhood anyone? because Deanna there is a distinguishable presence, on one side you have individuals and then groups like this. but working for this cause your disbarring the women that need these services. so think about how good bad becomes.
LikeLike
June 18, 2011 at 4:39 pm
The rest is silence. . .
LikeLike
June 19, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Aboricentrism– the rest is never silenced when we are always thinking even when were not.
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 8:47 am
Welcome back, Pat, and I hope the operation was successful!
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Just have to share this in light of all the religiosity, tea party crimpets, BBQ right wings and other BS
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/16/985393/-Rick-Santorum-is-against-abortion-for-any-reason,-with-one-exception
LikeLike
June 18, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Here’s another link for those who consider abortion or the worthiness of a profoundly deaf woman with Down Syndrome. Just some more points to ponder about science and facts.
http://hidden-worlds.com/judithscott/
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 9:21 am
“Dunkle is the type; you are the exception, and there are a lot, lot more of him than there are of you.”
Got that back-asswards, Chuck, as usual.
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Sorry guys, been out of town and couldn’t respond. Visiting my sweet little grandbaby. As I have been watching him play, learn to walk, giggle, climb up in my lap , cuddle and give me a kiss, and smile at me with his crinkled up little nose I can’t help but think about you guys. It’s sad i know, but as I watch him I think about all of the ones that are never allowed to get to this stage. He is so adorable and fascinating. A creature that God created to be loved, protected and adored. But yet, so many are killed before they ever get a chance to be like him. It’s just sad to me and no reasoning of yours will ever make it ok. You will never convince me that it would have been ok to kill him for any reason. No reasons are good enough. I don’t understand how you can look at a baby in all of their sweetness and say that just a few short months ago it was ok to kill it. I will never understand.
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 6:19 pm
A creature that God created? Really, now, Deanna, don’t know about the birds and the bees?
And you don’t understand how someone can look at a baby and kill it? Well, no one would look at your grandbaby and want to kill it. But we’re not talking about grandbabies, are we? We dealing with embryos and fetuses who are nowhere near cute. In fact, they’re rather prehistoric-looking, like some salamander.
You’ve admonished others for being emotional while you just deliver the facts. Well, I’m arguing that your gushing over your grandchild, however, sweet, adorable and precious, is emotional rhetoric and not fact.
Furthermore, I admonish you and others to consider women in this abortion equation. I watched five women make complete fools of themselves in Allentown PA with their crudely crafted truth tour. Dressed like mental patients on a weekend pass for Memorial Day, they waved huge American flags, held patriotic balloons, festooned themselves with obscene holiday corsages like a Hallmark card and waved little signs about abortion, being prolife and other inane messages. In the memorial to all the “babies” killed at the clinic, they forgot to mention the women who were now free from the stress of an unwanted pregnancy, the young girls who could continue their education or career unencumbered by a pregnancy and resultant child, or the mother of three who couldn’t or didn’t want to afford another kid. How utterly insane to forget the women. But how utterly expected in a patriarchal, misogynist world who views women as sacred vessels of divinity and nothing more.
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 6:15 am
Kate, you forgot to ask them how many children they had adopted, were fostering, were working with in public school classrooms, were Big Sisters to, were guardians ad litem for, and were financially supporting with 8% of their gross annual income. . .
But I think I know the answers: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, and 0.
It’s much more important to care about abortion than to care for human life.
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 7:08 am
it’s a big fat ZERO because they’re too busy with their Save-The-Baby performances
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 4:21 pm
You know, Ted Bundy used to look like your grandbaby, and the people who insisted he be born never went much further than that with him. Perhaps you should not be thinking so much about physical appearances and infantile characteristics as much as you should be thinking about how to make sure your latest grandchild– or anybody else’s– won’t grow up to be like him.
It’s so much easier to hate the thought of a beautiful child being destroyed than to ponder the thought of providing the necessary help for a needy child. Consider your fantasy about your grandchild to be part of your vacation.
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 4:32 pm
“you should be thinking about how to make sure your latest grandchild– or anybody else’s– won’t grow up to be like him” —
Chuckles, many more people will grow up to be like Ted Bundy in the society you prefer than in the one deanna prefers, and that explains why you’re so hung up on him. It’s out and out guilt!.
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I didn’t invent the statistics about what happens to babies who come out of the Baby Store. I happen to love my country to expect better of it than do people like you who don’t and won’t care for real children.
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Dang, Chuck, you’re back to “unreal children.” And you were doing so well.
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Abortecentrism@ The Ted Bundy line is getting old. You can only make it so many times. How about we make a deal…. i will take care of the Ted Bundy’s and you guys quit killing the 1.5 million that ARE not Ted Bundy’s hmm? Because for every Ted Bundy there are millions more that are innocent and normal and there is no excuse for killing them.
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm
P.S……………How is it that YOU are the one that advocates for killing babies and you want me to defend myself to you?
LikeLike
June 20, 2011 at 6:28 pm
I would have said “ooooooh” again but they won’t let me make duplicate comments.
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 6:07 am
Deanna, I don’t “advocate for killing babies.” Ther is nobody anywhere in the entire history of my life who can point to somewhere or some time at which I wrote or said that anybody should have chosen abortion, not even Louise Cowell (Bundy’s mother). You and your ilk are compelled to think that of me because of the issues underlying your fear and hatred of abortion. You cannot step back far enough from your focus on abortion to think about what I have always said: “If you insist on the birth of a child, you have a moral obligation to care for it.” You can’t let go of the idea that I “promote” abortion, when what I actually promote is RESPONSIBLE pro-life behavior.
If you think “the Bundy line is getting old,” then you obviously value the existence of a fetus more than you do the lives of the three to five dozen women that he killed.If you’d rather, I cann start using the much more current Green River killer.
Your deal can’t work, because in order to prevent the next Ted Bundy– oops, I mean Green River Killer– you’d have to take care of ALL the babies you insisted be born. I only ask that you be self-aware enough to realize the difference between caring for human life and enjoying your fantasies about butchered little baby bits.
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“Deanna, I don’t “advocate for killing babies” — course you wouldn’t admit that, Chuck, and neither would Pat, or Kate, or any of the adolescent illiterates; so stop playing with words. You want to keep it legal to kill babies. You want to keep it legal, and we don’t. You waste time when you start playing around with words.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Kate, regarding the NYT article about using reason as a weapon: IN her book “Women’s Ways of Knowing,” the author shows that using reason as a weapon is a characteristic of the fourth level of cognition, where the woman starts using the tools of society as implements to get what she thinks is right. Very few in the so-called “pro-life” movement are there– Randall Terry isn’t, for example, but Phyllis Schlafly is. Women like Elena who oppose abortion but judge it in relation to the suffering inflicted upon real children who are not valued beyond the womb, have attained the fifth level, integration.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I always get excited when I see these posts come alive again, but then I read what Chuck says here, and pffffft.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 10:27 am
[…] No One Cares About the Science (abortion.ws) […]
LikeLike
August 16, 2011 at 2:22 pm
[…] No One Cares About the Science (abortion.ws) […]
LikeLike