Making Abortion Less Accessible
I really need some help sorting this one out folks. I am writing this directly to the pro-lifers who read this blog. I really need to get your angle on something…
So, if you are pro-life you think abortion should be illegal, right? You generally think – although there are differences of opinions within your movement – that the doctor should go to the jail and some of you think that the woman (because she basically created the need for the doctor) should go to jail as well. You don’t want to see any more abortion clinics because they are complicit in the killing of babies or pre-born babies or the unborn or whatever you wish to call it. Am I correct so far?
But now, here comes the ole Commonwealth of Virginia where pro-life forces have successfully persuaded the state Board of Health to issue regulations that will govern how abortion clinics are run. Pro-lifers say they want to make the abortion process safer for the women because there are so many sleaze balls out there performing abortions.
Okay, folks, what am I missing here?
A woman going into an abortion clinic is usually going in for one reason – to abort their fetus, their baby, their child, their – well, you pick title. And the pro-lifers don’t like. Indeed, they will spend hours and hours standing in front of an abortion clinic, screaming and yelling at women in an effort to persuade them to cancel their appointment. Some will go further and threaten the doctors and their staff in the hopes that they will stop performing this pernicious act. Some will burn down the clinic. Oh, yeah, and some will actually get a gun or two and kill the doctor and/or their staff to make the point.
But now – wait a second! Now these same folks want to guarantee that the abortion is performed in a safer environment. Suddenly, the pro-lifers are now very concerned that a woman might be injured while she is “killing her baby.” Now, they seem concerned that if there is an emergency the hallways need to be wide enough to get the gurney out to the waiting ambulance. They now want to make sure that the air conditioning is at a proper setting, so the woman will be comfortable while she terminates her pregnancy. In South Carolina, where they promulgated regulations several years ago, they were so concerned about making abortion such a pleasant experience that they required the clinic to regularly mow their lawn and to rid the property of all kinds of critters. In Kansas, pro-lifers want to make sure that the woman’s personal belongings are safe so they required clinics to have a locker for each patient. Damn the cost, they shouted! Women should feel mentally comfortable when they are aborting. Then, tossing a bone to the Custodial Engineer’s Association of America, they threw in a requirement that a janitor’s closet be at least 50 square feet, enough room to hang out and watch television. Bravo to the pro-life movement! Is there no end to their compassion?
The new temporary regulations in Virginia will be formally voted on Sept. 15 by the state Board of Health and could go into effect by Dec. 31. Clinics that provide five or more abortions per month will then be classified as hospitals. Supporters of the restrictions say with a straight face that their only aim is to protect women. They assure us that they do not seek to make the regulations so onerous that it will force many of them to shut their doors. Oh, sure, they’ll still shout that women are “murdering babies” inside that facility, but they still want to make sure that everything is nice and clean in there.
Can anyone help me out here? I’m just a little confused….
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
September 4, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Voice, if you think my descriptions don’t match reality at the aborticentrism website, then you need to start poking holes in them. An easy target would be the Abortion Store/Baby Store comparison. Just sit down with any run-of-the-mill pediatrics textbook and check out the stats for yourself.
Warning: If the textbook has a picture of Jesus as the frontispiece, it’s not run-of-the-mill…
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Chuck, this is what I meant in my last comment to you; I poke holes in your theory that pro-lifers don’t care about children, and I poke holes in your theory that adoption is the ONLY way to care FOR children, and you just ignore it, and respond by repeating your aborticentrism mantra. Why are we talking? I haven’t had an opportunity to read the baby store/abortion store article, so I can’t comment on that, and I will when I do. But if it’s more of the same, what more can be said and ignored? How many times should we volley?
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 11:49 am
Where’s Rog? Hate to lose him. He’s fun.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Priscilla K. Coleman is a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. She has published articles in peer-reviewed journals suggesting a statistical correlation between abortion and mental health problems, and has claimed in interviews that there is a causal relationship.
Some other researchers have been unable to reproduce Coleman’s results on abortion and mental health despite using the same dataset, and have described her findings as “logically inconsistent” and potentially “substantially inflated” by faulty methodology. The American Psychological Association (APA) and other major medical bodies have concluded that the evidence does not support a link between abortion and mental health problems, and APA panelists charged with reviewing the evidence were similarly critical of the methodology of Coleman’s studies. Coleman has responded that she is “not the only credentialed scientists whose research is indicating that abortion is not without serious mental health risks for many women.”
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 7:39 pm
FYI,
I really want to be sure that I’m carefully considering those scholars who I reference. For example, let me bring to your attention a young scholar named Jesse Cougle who worked with Coleman and Reardon. He’s a psych. grad from the prestigious University of Texas at Austin. He’s now in Florida as an asst professor. So, if you are so inclined, read through his research and do a citation analysis. What you will notice is that there is NO reference to Coleman or Reardon or Rue. You might guess that he used these professors to his own personal gain. You might guess that he believed in their work. You might guess that he changed his mind about their work. Regardless, he is clearly disconnected from his “motherlode” that so many prolifers want to embrace.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 6:49 am
NunYa, you cannot poke holes in the argument about the existence of aborticentrism when you ignore its substance– that self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” like you expend your energies in hating and fearing abortion because it is less resource-consuming than raising children.
Anybody can drop off a bag of diapers to a public housing tenement and call it “caring for children.” By my own actions I have established a workable minimum definition of true caring for children– 8% of one’s gross annual income and 600 unpaid hours per year working one-on-one with a child whose parents can’t or won’t provide for him or her. Acting as the concierge, the cheerleader, the taxi driver or the commisary for Mom does not meet that definition.
If you compare the amount of energy you spend hating, fearing and venting about abortion to the amount you spend in being there for a needy child, you’ll see why it’s so much easier to call yourself a “pro-lifer.” A lot less work and a lot more satisfaction for the energy expended.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 9:17 am
Responsible is right again!
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 11:27 am
What about someone who spends 365 days a year caring for that child and expends much more than 8% of their income? Does that count Chuck? Is that enough to make one truly pro-life according to your calculations? I’m just wondering because you changed your minimum qualifications several times.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Raise a child 365 days a year?
Those are called “parents,” voice. Two-thirds of them are raising children they want to raise. The other third of them are raising children they never intended to have, and those latter are the TRUE “pro-lifers.”
I tend to blend the specific minimum qualifications with a somewhat more general description, which I fail to realize probably is confusing to people. But the specific bar– 600 and 8, spent one-on-one with a child (not of one’s kin, social circle, church circle, or social class) whose parents can’t or won’t care sufficiently for it– is far more generous than my occasional and far more demanding challenge that a person raise a child they never wanted to.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Let me make sure that I understand you clearly. If a person raises a child 365 days a year that is not biologically related to them, that they never “intended” to raise, then they are a “true” pro-lifer ? Am I correct about that?
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:36 pm
No, not a child that IS NOT biologically related to them; a child who is THEIR CHILD and whom they never intended to raise.
That is a true “pro-life” sacrifice.
Of course, they might really screw it up by hating to do it and thus not doing it the least bit well, but at least they were sincere about giving it the old college try; I can’t fault them for not being superhuman.
And don’t forget, it’s not just for one year; it’s for the child’s minority.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I don’t know what child’s minority means (redundant?), but forget that. Chuck does go to confession here. He had a kid he never wanted nor liked, but he stuck it out. He raised him all by himself. Chuck, though, fails to see that his case, however heroic, is abnormal. Thus he invents a mental disease to characterize normal people. Am I right, Chuck?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 10:05 am
That makes no sense.
If you raise your own biological child that you supposedly didn’t want then you are pro-life? Crazy talk! People do that all of the time and it doesn’t make them pro-life, it makes them responsible. Your definitions have nothing to do with reality.
LikeLike
May 26, 2012 at 8:16 pm
alsis, I didn’t mean to imply that you were a wingnut. But I still have a cramp from wahinctg a handful of feminists with influence take the bait during the Clinton fiasco and consider whether or not it was right to support an adulterer, especially one who slept with someone with so much less power than he had. It was standard at that time for conservatives to run around baiting feminists with the whole thing luckily, it didn’t stick because the bait was based on the idea that feminists a)hate sex and b)use the movement as payback to get at men, both of which are wrong.Okay, cozying up was the wrong, wrong, wrong term to use. Making allies is correct. And yes, there has been plenty of reluctance from potential allies, reluctance that can be countered by offering cooperation and making demands. And I do tend to think that 3rd parties are a tool that can be used to make demands, but one that should only be used if it’s advantageous to women as a whole. Splitting the vote and giving Republicans all sorts of power is not going to help, but actually hurt women. We’re playing defense now, so we have to hold together alliances until the real enemy, which is those who are actively trying to get rid of rights, is defeated.So, yeah, I know that prominent wealthy Democrats aren’t going to suffer personally if abortion is criminalized. So? We need to judge them on what they *do* about women’s rights, what their votes are. I’m just not going to let our precarious hold on gains in reproductive rights, among others, slip away while we fight for more leverage.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 9:05 am
This may be too buried to be seen, but I keep intending to reply so here goes.
I don’t fear abortion, though I certainly hate it. I also don’t vent about it, but try to do something about it, one of the ways being to have dialog between opposing “sides,” to hopefully gain insight on both “sides” one mind at a time.
Without going into detail, we give 10% of our gross annual income, and I don’t mean a tithe to a church or religious organization. Over my lifetime and job experiences, I can’t calculate how much actual time I spend, but it isn’t enough, for sure. But I do not and never will believe that not spending 600 hours a year with a certain child indicates true caring FOR a child, with anything less indicating not caring FOR a child. Even Angelina and Brad don’t do that, although they have adopted the same number of children Deanna did.
I guess if you are rich enough to spend a fortune it counts? I guess if you can afford to visit the places you send your money to that counts? Or are the dream team not doing enough either? Do they not really care FOR children as well as ABOUT them?
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 9:19 am
I respect your comment, Nunya and appreciate what you do for children that are here on earth. I have to say that I think sometimes Charles is a little harsh, it’s like he wants you to save every friggin child out there that “you” forced to be born. But I cannot make that leap. I respect your opposition to abortion, would hope that you support birth control as a way to stop abortion and also hope that you are not one of those who goes out and stands in front of a clinic on a Saturday screaming and yelling at women, even trying to embarrass them. We all need to be a little more compassionate. Remember, these women do not want to be there. It’s just their personal circumstances….and it’s not an easy decision..
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:19 am
Nunya: Re your comment up above: “The really “believe” a child is going to it’s death. I don’t understand why seemingly reasonable, rational, intelligent people like you, Kate, Pat, and others won’t admit that. Or at least admit that it is the driving force.”
First, I have no doubt that that is what many pro-lifers believe. I get that piece. Second, I have admitted on this blog many times that abortion terminates something (depending on what word you want to use) that is alive and that would ultimately continue to grow.
Is that what you were asking us to “admit?”
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 12:08 pm
You are right Pat, I do remember one instance of you actually saying that it is a baby, I think. I am sure there were others, as I have no reason to think you would lie.
Also, I KNOW you know it’s a human life that is alive, whether conscious or not. I also KNOW that you understand full well about the slippery slope, even if you don’t agree. I KNOW you understand that believing in a higher power isn’t a psychosis. I also BELIEVE you know that what motivates us is the belief that a life is about to be ended, as you have admitted here, and not that we hate women or want to be heroes. So when you continually ascribe thoughts and motives to all pro-lifers that you know aren’t true, it feels as if you are in denial, or lying, or unsure of your own stand on the subject, therefore needing to discredit the character of your opponent. I use “you” collectively, not personally Pat.
No pro-choicer here seems willing to discuss our differences other than you, that I can see, and occasionally Kate, according to her mood. We make valid points, or express our beliefs or thoughts, and it is invalidated, we are vilified, pro-choice rhetoric is regurgitated. I can’t speak for other pro-lifers here, few though they are, but I just start feeling snippy and sarcastic after awhile. Chuck is the worst offender. He says adoption is the only way, then says he helps in other ways, as if that too is valid, among other things. I am against abortion across the board, (yes, I really said that out loud) but I would at least want the industry regulated, abortion made hard to get, (nearly impossible a task, I know) and as I mentioned in another comment, approached holistically, with access to pro-life and well as pro-choice advocates available to the women.
Seeing all variables as understood for the sake of space; if a woman can be talked out of it, she is a bad candidate for abortion, agreed? If she chooses adoption after speaking with both sides, abortion would have been wrong for her, and she would be in that percentage to POSSIBLY develop CMD’s, agreed? If she is a believer and her clergy can convince her to adopt, and she ends up wanting and keeping the child, she would have been in that percentage to PROBABLY develop a CMD, agreed? And there is a percentage. It would be preposterous and folly to believe NO women are adversely affected by aborting their unborn child, agreed? Since abortion is such a polarizing issue, it should be treated as such, taking into consideration that every woman walking into that clinic isn’t necessarily “pro-choice” and should be given every opportunity to change her mind, or make it up without pressure, especially very young or impoverished or uneducated women, agreed?
Wouldn’t that be the actions of a group that really cared for women? I don’t see that behavior on either side, frankly. I completely understand that should that ever happen, we who believe that a child is about to be killed will have to do some major work on our thought processes, but children are being killed regardless. At least this way, working together, we could stop the ones that could have been stopped, had the woman been given a real opportunity, with counselors from both sides giving her all her options, rather than only speaking to those in the business when she arrives at the clinic. This would also build in the safeguard of freeing the clinic staff from all conflict of interest. In fact, it should be required, in my opinion, since this IS a huge decision that will affect the woman’s life, as well as end a child’s, that the woman get counseling from both “sides.” Then the woman could act upon the true definition of “choice.” We require people to wear seat belts for their own safety, so this isn’t much of a stretch to me.
I would love to discuss this with someone who won’t respond by calling me a hero wannabe, a liar, ask me how many children I have adopted, or bring unrelated subjects into it such as feral children or Catholics. Any takers?
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I agree with Pat regarding the abortion termination response. I also know that I have written that I know what an abortion entails. The bigger question is what do you, NunYa, feel is the next step in your prolife rebuttal? We admit the above and then what? What is accomplished by asking a question that’s been asked [and answered] again and again?
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Kate, my initial reason was to point out that, on this blog at least, I’ve heard anything but that. Rather than understanding what truly motivates someone to be against abortion, and trying to work together, possibly in ways I mentioned, everyone just vents and gnashes teeth. Pro-lifers are ascribed motives that are far from the truth, such as needing to be heroes or not caring about women, which you have said yourself. There is so much animosity that no one is hearing anyone. I’ll be honest, I was told about this blog by someone else, and I started lurking just to get the other point of view. I have been completely surprised at the level of hatred that seems to flow between “sides”. No one believes anyone else, and when people of faith are called names and made out to be backwoods bumpkins, or psychotic, no one on your “side” speaks up. Is that really what you all believe? Honestly, this is a world I’m not used to. I come from an educated, involved crowd, but I have never seen anything quite like what goes on around here. I am most surprised at educated people like you who appear, by your comments, to be so totally prejudiced. I understand that I don’t know you all and haven’t been here for long, but you treat all pro-lifers the same, from what I’ve seen so far, as if an entire segment of people is the same, as if we all are like the ones you know personally. I just don’t get it.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 11:21 am
NunYa, gravity is a theory. All you have to do is disprove it. Aborticentrism is a theory. All you have to do is disprove it.
You won’t do that by misrepresenting it as advocacy for adoption only. Among other things, it treats of the immense differences in energy expended by being the average self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” and the average parent.
Why “pro-lifers” make so much of their efforts in a field requiring no training, no sacrifice of time, money energy or skills and no commitment to the great needs of real children is worth positing a theory.
The bottom line is 600 unpaid hours and 8% of your gross annual income spent one-on-one with a child. If you refuse to raise the child you don’t want to, I’ll grant you breathing space if you spend that little every year with a child not of your kinship, church, social class or social circle. So, let’s talk about your 600 and 8.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Chuck, I’ve gotta go, but I will respond to this later, hopefully tonight. Watch for it, it may get buried.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Okay Chuck, I’m going to be as honest and sarcasm free as I can. I am not the one who has misrepresented aborticentrism as advocacy for adoption only, you have. It’s pretty much been your answer to everything said. So if I have that impression, it has come straight from you. Now you are changing it from a demand of “how many have YOU adopted” to the amount we are supposed to spend in dollars and time, regardless of adoption.
I have been around pro-lifers my whole life. I live in the south, and most people I know from all walks of life are pro-life. I have never even heard of nor seen anyone speak or behave in a way that indicates a need to be a hero, or who “make so much of their efforts,” who don’t care about the women too, or who don’t care about and for all children. ALL children. I can disprove your theory in about the time it takes me to introduce you to everyone I know. And that’s just my crowd. You all seem to think the opposite, and I honestly believe that it’s because to admit our real reasoning would be a slippery slope for you, as I’ve explained before. It’s as if you can’t put yourself in our shoes, so to speak, and just believe us when we tell you we are in it to save lives, period.
As far as your last paragraph, I do see the point you are trying to make, but it fails to fly in the face of the true motivation behind the pro-life crowd. We are just humans, your friends, neighbors, grocery clerks, babysitters. Just normal people. Some of us work with Greenpeace. Some of us advocate for the elderly. Some of us tithe to local churches and let them dispense our funds. Some of us give to cancer research. Some of us are Big Brothers or Big Sisters. Some of us send money overseas to build hospitals and schools. Some of us are foster parents, some of us adopt. Our “causes” are as different as we are, and each one is near and dear to us for our own reasons. But where we are the same, as pro-lifers, is our belief that killing an unborn child is wrong, and that it leads us away from the sanctity of all life, as we’ve seen in the thinking here on this blog. So to demand that we don’t care or aren’t “truly” pro-life just because we don’t do it your way, give your amount, etc, isn’t truth, it’s something you try to make us be in order to fit your own prejudices, based on nothing, since you obviously haven’t interviewed any pro-lifers, and if you did, you would get answers as diverse as we are, as all humans are.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 1:04 pm
From the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
RCOG statement on BJPsych paper on mental health risks and abortion
A meta-analysis of 22 studies published today in BJPsych shows that women who have had an abortion are at an increased risk of mental health problems.
Three previously published systematic reviews and the RCOG guideline development group (who reviewed all available literature up to February 2011) have concluded that women who have an abortion are not at increased risk of mental health problems when compared with women who continue an unintended pregnancy and have a baby.
One of this paper’s findings points to increased substance misuse and suicidal behaviours among the groups of women. What this research does not fully examine is if these women had pre-existing mental health complications such as dependency issues and mood disorders before the abortion.
1 September 2011
Reference
Coleman PK. Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995 – 2009, Brit J Psychiatry 2011; 199, 180–186. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077230
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Well, of course they would say that since they are the ones doing the abortions. They aren’t going to cut off their money source by telling the women they may have mental health issues.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Dunkle, you have a great talent for appearing obtuse when I try to point out that I have ALWAYS emphasized caring for children, and you use an appearance of stupidity to sidestep the need to care for them. I didn’t know that they had Catholic schools in Bed-Stuy…..
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 2:30 pm
“Dunkle, you have a great talent for appearing obtuse when I try to point out that I have ALWAYS emphasized caring for children, and you use an appearance of stupidity to sidestep the need to care for them. I didn’t know that they had Catholic schools in Bed-Stuy…..”
Chuck, where did this come from? I can’t find anything above it refers to! Please, guys, make clear who you’re talking to and what you’re responding to. Anyway, there are Catholic schools in Bed-Sty. I taught in one.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 6:53 am
NunYa, thanks for trying to explain that so-called “pro-lifers” are not motivated by their need to reassure themselves they can transcend Death. I can appreciate that you are all ordinary people and generous and caring in many ways, too. However, the underlying problem you all share is the insistence that somebody else bear and raise a child.
This is a massive problem. It is like me telling you that now that your husband’s lost his job and the bank has seized your home, all you and he have to do is metamorphose into cockroaches and you’ll be able to sruvicve quite happily. In my mind, you can do it, but you and he know differently.
Why you cannot dedicate yourself (in the case of all of you) to caring for that child is indicative of a really big problem. And you cannot wrap your mind around it; it really is too scasry for you to deal with (neither could Nancy, nor Sue, nor voice nor Dunkle). I’m sorry.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 11:19 am
Chuck, you miss my point…we don’t insist someone bear and raise a child. I don’t know a single person, other than someone who actually is mentally unstable, who would have as their foundational belief a need for someone to bear and raise a child, (other than a potential grandparent 🙂 ) much less a child they don’t want. What we want is for the world to go back to being responsible for their own behavior and not get pregnant if they don’t want a child. We also want them not to kill that child if they do get pregnant, and not to break the law and risk their own lives getting back alley abortions. We want them to give that baby up for adoption, something you advocate for yourself, to loving couples who are willing to raise it.
I do believe that many of those women would decide to keep those children once they were born, and love them and raise them well, or a family member would. That happens all the time, I don’t know why you deny it. Do you actually believe that 100%, or even a majority of those women pregnant with unwanted children would hate them enough to turn them into serial killers? I also believe that the numbers of unwanted pregnancies would drop drastically if abortion were ever made illegal again.
As for your cockroach illustration, it makes no sense. In it “you” believe someone could morph into a cockroach, it would indicate mental instability. Believing in the sanctity of human life isn’t mentally unstable. A truer analogy would be this: It would be like me telling the wife she doesn’t have to kill her husband so that she can survive on the meager food stamp allowance, and presenting her with many other options where both she and her husband survive.
As for your last statement, I can wrap my mind around it all day long, I just don’t agree with it. Lack of agreement is in no way indicative of lack of understanding. You state that I don’t “really” care FOR someone if I don’t do it your way, by your numbers, which is equivalent to parenting it, which brings us basically back to your adoption theory. I don’t agree. Besides that, your theory cannot be proven because women aren’t beating the doors of adoption agencies down, they are aborting. You believe that we won’t raise a child, without any research of your own, even statistics already out there, to back it up. You try to push that belief on the world, even coining a word to describe this “syndrome”. I state unequivocally that we will and do, and I can prove it.
Chuck, not all people want more children, therefore haven’t adopted. This is the big secret, not because they don’t really care for/about children. Isn’t that your mantra for choice, that the women shouldn’t be “forced” to raise children they don’t want? Stop getting pregnant if you don’t want children, have the one you did get pregnant with rather than kill it, give it up if you still don’t want it for whatever reason. There are PLENTY of people out there who do want it. End of psychosis. (Sorry, sarcasm slipped in)
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 1:24 pm
NunYa, you wrote: “I don’t know a single person, other than someone who actually is mentally unstable, who would have as their foundational belief a need for someone to bear a child.” I suggest you stop by the Allentown Women’s Clinic and observe Mr. Dunkle. He clearly sees a need for someone to bear a child and no need beyond that. On the other hand, I don’t consider sociopathy a form of mental instability, so you’re not defaming him.
“I do believe that many of those women would decide to keep those children once they were born, and love them and raise them well, or a family member would.” That is a belief, but it is not a reality often enough. Every woman, no matter how disadvantaged, wants to raise her child well. But life gets in the way; ask Louise Cowell or Andrea Yates. Why can’t self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” take the next step and stick with the child they wanted born?
“I also believe that the numbers of unwanted pregnancies would drop drastically if abortion were ever made illegal again.” Again, a belief. It motivates you, but it’s only a belief. And if there are studies out there that contradict it, would you change your belief? Aborticentrism states that one won’t because one can’t. But you can prove it wrong if you change your mind in the face of evidence to the contrary.
“Believing in the sanctity of human life isn’t mentally unstable.” I quite agree, but then to ignore the needs of a life which one claims to hold sacred is a weird divergence from one’s beliefs. Why do they do this???
As for my last statement, my minimum standards– 600 hours and 8% per year– are a lot lower than Mother Nature’s which are 8,760 hours and 100% per year. I offer self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” an easy way to prove their commitment, and they don’t take it. Aborticentrism states that they don’t because they simply can’t. Even Deanna has shown this to be the case. She has drawn the line at adopting only six.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 2:48 pm
“NunYa, you wrote: ‘I don’t know a single person, other than someone who actually is mentally unstable, who would have as their foundational belief a need for someone to bear a child.’ I suggest you stop by the Allentown Women’s Clinic and observe Mr. Dunkle. He clearly sees a need for someone to bear a child . . .”
How can Chuck write that after reading what NY said in her next sentence:
“What we want is for the world to go back to being responsible for their own behavior and not get pregnant if they don’t want a child. We also want them not to kill that child if they do get pregnant, and not to break the law and risk their own lives getting back alley abortions. We want them to give that baby up for adoption, something you advocate for yourself, to loving couples who are willing to raise it.”
It’s getting to the point where if one of us says, “I like Woody Allen’s movies,” Chuck will respond, “Why do you hate Woody Allen’s movies?”
It’s getting to the point where conversation with Chuck, difficult from the git-go, is becoming impossible. Pat, maybe it’s time to send Chuckles on vacation?
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 3:07 pm
And it gets foolisher and foolisher: “. . . if there are studies out there that contradict it [the belief that making abortion illegal again would result in a drastic drop in the number of babies murdered], would you change your belief?
Why would that make us change our belief? People will say anything! Some guy even claims to have discovered a new mental disorder! However, suppose it were PROVEN that the number of babies murdered actually increased after abortion became illegal. In that case we prolifers would work to get the law changed. So let’s do this. You killers’ helpers work with us to get baby killing made illegal, and then, if it becomes obvious that even more women were carrying babies into their neighborhood auschwitzes, we’d work with you to get that law changed. Fair enough?
Chuck, (don’t chase Chuck yet, Pat) Chuck, fair enough?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 6:09 am
Thanks for proving my point.
I’m still waiting for your 500-word essay on feral children.
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Christian crisis pcernangy centers are a joke. They are rude and condescending to the young women who are not informed enough to go to Planned Parenthood. There are usually no trained medical personnel, they just give over the counter pcernangy tests and try to make the young lady feel as though she is some sort of a whore. How do I know this? My (now 20 something) daughter went in there one time and that is what happened to her. She wasn’t pregnant, she just wanted to see what happened.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 7:42 am
How can I do that! Other than you I’ve never known a feral child.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 1:29 pm
ME EITHER!
I have known a lot of children. I have known abused ones, unwanted ones and abandoned ones. I have yet to meet a feral one. As a matter of fact I have been amazed at how these children grew up to be normal people. Your theory sucks Chuck!
LikeLike
February 7, 2014 at 9:33 pm
Hello!I want to get involved in the PRO-LIFE mmvoeent. I am a part-time legal secretary (I type 80 wpm) and I am also a Texas Certified Process Server until Sept. 30, 2015.I am under-employed at the moment and am unable to contribute money but I want to contribute my time. Please contact me!Also, I would like to see if you have any FREE bumper stickers I can put on my car.Thank you so much. Keep up the good work!(Just finished reading unPLANNED last night.)I am so motivated now to help! God bless you all.Sincerely,Natalie WickmanP. O. Box 180173Arlington, TX 76096
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 8:49 pm
“Believing in the sanctity of human life isn’t mentally unstable.” I quite agree, but then to ignore the needs of a life which one claims to hold sacred is a weird divergence from one’s beliefs. Why do they do this???”
Again, Chuck, this is what you think happens, it’s not reality. Pro-lifers aren’t given the chance to prove whether we would or wouldn’t, because the women won’t talk to us, much less offer us their unwanted children for adoption. Of course it does happen occasionally, but it’s rare. I only know of one woman in our group, years ago, who adopted a child that a women headed into a clinic did give up.
Pro-lifers, as I’ve already explained, do help others. I don’t know where you get your notion that we don’t. The children in the system that you and Kate feel no responsibility for aren’t there because their mother was talked out of an abortion. That rarely, if ever, happens. They are there for the reasons they have always been there, throughout history, and we are all responsible for them.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 9:17 pm
I wanted to respond to this also:
/charles/aborticentrism Says:
September 5, 2011 at 9:15 am
“NunYa, I HAVE been responsible for every one I wanted “rescued.” You haven’t.”
This statement is exactly what I have been talking about. What do you use to back up this claim about me, or about pro-lifers in general, since we aren’t given the chance to prove or disprove it?
Chuck, MOST people don’t want to adopt, or devote large percentages of their time to a cause. Many do though. But do you really believe, should women start to agree not to abort, that most pro-lifers would just tell her to abort, because they don’t want to adopt the child? Just because we don’t want them killed doesn’t mean we want to raise them. This is not abnormal at all. You again referenced Andrea Yates. I’ll again tell you, that had I known what she was doing, you bet your boots I would have ran inside and physically fought her to save those babies. I would not, however, take them in to raise. But lets say that no one else would, and there was no system to take them in. Of course I would take them in, and I wouldn’t be so “put upon” that I neglected them, abused them or raised them to be serial killers. Again I say, you guys are the ones who don’t give women credit.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 6:06 am
NunYa, you are opposed to abortion. IN other words, you want to rescue ALL fetuses from being aborted. In other words, you want those fetuses to be born as children. In other words, you are rescuing children. The fact you admitted that you have not adopted any children is prima facie evidence that you have not raised to adulthood any “unborn child” you wanted “rescued.”
So, why do self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” NOT care at all well for their objects of “rescue?” They care ABOUT, but by and large not FOR. For instance, you talk about rushing in to rescue Andrea Yates’ kids, but you don’t act on the dfact that there are plenty more Andrea Yateses you don’t bother to learn about and intervene right now. Instead, you focus on abortiion. Just sayin’. . .
And while mothers sometimes raise their children in revenge, they don’t deliberately raise them to be serial killers, so drop the concept.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Chuck, I have never once said or even inferred that the mothers would do it deliberately, nor have I thought you were ever saying that it was deliberate. I have just been countering your point that a woman will automatically ruin an unwanted child, or that even a majority will.
Also, you said…
“So, why do self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” NOT care at all well for their objects of “rescue?” They care ABOUT, but by and large not FOR. For instance, you talk about rushing in to rescue Andrea Yates’ kids, but you don’t act on the dfact that there are plenty more Andrea Yateses you don’t bother to learn about and intervene right now. Instead, you focus on abortiion. Just sayin’. . .”
What part of me working in CPC’s, women’s crisis centers, and child protective services, and personally helping with the adoption expenses of several children did you miss? What part of me trying to adopt and the woman changing her mind did you miss? Again, you project your personal prejudices onto all pro-lifers.
Also…
“NunYa, you are opposed to abortion. IN other words, you want to rescue ALL fetuses from being aborted. In other words, you want those fetuses to be born as children. In other words, you are rescuing children. The fact you admitted that you have not adopted any children is prima facie evidence that you have not raised to adulthood any “unborn child” you wanted “rescued.””
What part of, “THE WOMEN AREN’T OFFERING THEIR BABIES FOR US TO ADOPT did you miss? Your statement cannot be proved or disproved. We are not given the opportunity to rise to the occasion or fall sadly short. It is conjecture, not evidence.
Let’s see if you can answer TWO questions Chuck, honestly, sticking to the questions and not going off on rabbit trails…
If a bus load of orphaned one hour old, unconscious infants overturns into a swollen creek, do you have to be willing to care FOR all of them through adulthood in order to be considered sincere in your desire to rescue them from certain death?
If a woman carrying a perfectly viable baby dies on the operating room table, leaving no heirs, should the doctor be willing to raise to adulthood that unborn child before he acts to save it?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 11:16 am
I tell voice that a true pro-lifer is a person who raises his biological child whom he (or she, or they) never intended to have. voice replies, “That makes no sense. If you raise your own biological child that you supposedly didn’t want then you are pro-life? Crazy talk! People do that all of the time and it doesn’t make them pro-life, it makes them responsible…”
Well, voice, 1) my organization is RESPONSIBLE Right to Life. 2) You clearly don’t understand the nature of the sacrifices people make (if it’s willing, it’s a lesser sacrifice; if it’s unwilling, it’s deserving of a one-way ticket to Heaven) in the name of unwanted human life. 3) Because aborticentrics dwell on heroism, of course something as “ordinary” as raising a child is going to seem undeserving of your praise. You are into the clinic-door conversion, the silent tears, the huddled return to the car. Thanks for another anecdote which supports the thesis.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 3:00 pm
“You clearly don’t understand the nature of the sacrifices people make”
I understand a lot more than you would think. What I understand is that you are projecting your own life’s motives and experiences onto others. Because you “sacrificed” to care for your own biological child when you didn’t want to you have crowned yourself supreme judge of all sacrifice. You are not special for caring for your own child. It just makes you normal and not scum. You have no idea of the level of sacrifice some people make. How about those who leave family, comfort and their country to care for children in other countries? Or those who mortgage their home and pay every dime they have and ever will have to raise children that are not biologically related. Or those who stay up all night comforting the last foster child assigned to them because they had just watched their parent be hauled to jail. Or the one who leaves home and family to work at an emergency child shelter. Or the ones who give up careers to start adoption agencies for special needs children? What about the ones who spend 70 hours or more per week setting up food banks, homeless shelters, etc? Does any of that count Chuck or is it just the ones like you who raise their own kids and then decide they need to be patted on the back for it because- you know -they didn’t really want to do it? You raised your kid. So what!
“You are into the clinic-door conversion, the silent tears, the huddled return to the car”
Am I? How would you know? What makes you think I have ever been to a clinic? Hmmm? You are the king of assumption I can tell you that.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 6:45 am
voice: all those people you describe– do they insist other people have babies? There is a difference between those who do and those who don’t.
Those who don’t realize that we’re all in this together, that any little bit done for another family or another child might be just a tiny thing, but it’s necessary
Those who do insist that other people have children are meeting their own needs rather than the needs of others.
I didn’t say you’ve been at a clinic; I implied that you are pleased at the thought of a woman tearfully abandoning her intention to have an abortion and who creeps guilt-laden back to her car. For self-proclaimed “pro-lifers,” the guilt is the frosting on the cake….
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 10:24 am
I don’t know where this notion came from that we do things to lay guilt on a woman. We just want her not to kill the baby in that moment. If she then goes to any one of a myriad of churches, organizations or individuals available to her, she will get all the help she needs.
Also, you are now starting to add little tidbits about it being important to do even the tiny things, whereas up until now, at least during my time here, you have disallowed anything but adoption, then did start to allow for a MINIMUM of 600 hours and 8%. Now tiny amounts of help are allowed?
My question is this; have you always allowed for any help at all counting as caring FOR a child, or is this a change for you? I ask because your comments, all of them until this one above, give the impression that you haven’t.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 10:50 am
“Those who do insist that other people have children are meeting their own needs rather than the needs of others.”
No, what we insist is that someone doesn’t get brutally killed, specifically and unborn baby.
“I implied that you are pleased at the thought of a woman tearfully abandoning her intention to have an abortion and who creeps guilt-laden back to her car. For self-proclaimed “pro-lifers,” the guilt is the frosting on the cake….”
No it isn’t. We take no pleasure in someone else’s pain emotionally or otherwise. We are not a bunch of sub human unfeeling maniacs. There is no joy in their guilt. Instead we are happy that she chose life for her child over death as she ALWAYS is and that she will not have to go through the pain of knowing that she ended it’s life. Her freedom from that guilt is the icing on the cake.
Take this quote from Jewels Green for example “I had an abortion. It nearly killed me. No, not the surgical procedure, the psychological aftermath. I attempted suicide three times after my abortion and finally ended up in an adolescent psychiatric ward of a community hospital for a month to recover.”
For her to NOT have gone through that would have brought great joy to our hearts, not counting the baby being spared.
You know Chuck, as I think about this it would do you great good to lay down your preconceived mindset and actually sit down and talk to some (many) pro-lifers heart to heart and see what they really think as opposed to what you think they think. You will be surprised.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Chuck, you completely leave out love. Most parents, even if they do a bad job due to hard life circumstances, really do love their child, and that is why they raise it, not because they are “truly” pro-life. It IS life. People have kids at the wrong time or for the wrong reason, and they deal with it. If you loved your child at all, then by default you disprove your own theory. If you managed to raise your child without love, then you have a severe problem, and YOUR child may be the next Ted Bundy.
I am assuming from your statement that you wanted your child aborted, the mother wouldn’t do it, and so you got stuck with it and now consider yourself a hero. If that is true, then kudos for stepping up to the plate. But in all sincerity, if it is true, and so now you are an advocate for choice because you wish your child had been killed rather than you HAVING to “raise a child you didn’t want”, I REALLY feel sorry for your child, and if that child has given you hell all it’s life, there is a reason, and it isn’t that the child should have died, it’s that the father should have let the experience make a better, less selfish person of him. If you are now advocating so heartily for abortion to somehow vindicate yourself, you are lost and wandering in the woods Chuck.
Reconciliation and forgiveness are the answer, not vindication.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 4:45 am
Chuckles, If I were able, I’d have written the above.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 6:52 am
As I said, NunYa, all parents intend to raise their children well. That’s love.
However, the self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” can’t get beyond the imagery of even the best parent gushing love for the child, yet getting slammed by reality and having that love overpowered by stressors such as poverty, ignorance and an abusive society. For the self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” to win, it is necessary that the stereotype of the heroic parent be maintained. To admit the reality– that too many children need his individual commitment– would destroy his image as a “rescuer” of “unborn children.”
That this is so is demonstrated anecdotally by the refusal of one prominent writer at this blog to even look into what makes a child feral.
By the way, David (A Boy Named It) was not a feral child; even though terribly abused, he grew up in a human environment and had plenty of opportunity to learn human behaviors, even if much of the time they were unacceptable human behaviors. He was far more exposed to society than Jeannie, The Wild Child, was. She was isolated.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 10:58 am
Chuck, honestly, your comment was rambling and almost unintelligible. I don’t mean that as a slur, it really was. It literally makes no sense. You say Dunkle refusing to look into feral children somehow demonstrates that pro-lifers have imagery of love yet get slammed by stress, so their love is “overpowered?” I guess meaning they turn into abusers? The pro-lifer needs to “win” and be a hero? Both Pat and Kate admitted that they know these aren’t the real reasons pro-lifers do it. They seem to know that we do it because we want to save the life of the unborn. And btw…in today’s society that doesn’t make you a hero and get you kudos, it opens you up to every kind of attack on your character, religion and sanity out there, as evidenced on this blog, so I’d drop that one for sure. A hero wannabe is wasting their time outside an abortion clinic!
And you need to read my comment again about A Boy Named It. I was making the same point you make here. You misunderstood. Plus, I have addressed the feral child issue several times, which you’ve pretty much ignored. Will any old pro-lifer do, or does it have to be Dunkle to be valid?
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 7:14 am
Stated more clearly: 1) So-called “pro-lifers” NEED to assume that almost all families are hunky-dory (they’re not; reality intervenes).
2) By believing this, they can avoid the pain they ought to feel when they see what happens in the lives of a million children born every year.
3) Dunkle’s refusal to look at, much less try to understand, what makes children feral is the perfect example of what so-called “pro-lifers” do. Anybody who truly cared about human life would care more consistently along its entire spectrum.
Now, it is my understanding this doesn’t make any sense to you. Am I right?
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 10:52 am
Shannon, you accuse Dems of hanivg a messiah and yet you admit to listening to Rush every day. Sounds like you’ve found your messiah. Listening to a pundit every day?? Ug!Also your post is full of the divisiveness that is making the GOP shrink. Most of the country is Christian, including Dems, and myself. Yet you feel persecuted for it. What a massive distortion.Also, you totally don’t understand how Dems perceive Palin. If we fear her, it’s only b/c we fear she’ll be an even bigger embarrassment that GW Bush. She’s a moron. I totally don’t agree with them, but I’d take a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney in flash over her b/c at least they are not dopes.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 12:12 am
Thanks for the shout out! Graffiti on trails is a real porelbm and it means that trail restoration groups like ours spend more time cleaning up the work of man, and less time clearing trails from brush and removing invasive plants. Yesterday’s National Trails Day event went great! It was very well attended and we were able to remove the graffiti and conduct other trail maintenance. Here is the after shot of the tin mine entrance you shared.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 11:36 am
NunYa, self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” don’t want to understand what goes into developing a fetus into a real human being because it would implicitly broaden their responsibilities toward it. THAT is why Dunkle refuses to expose his mind to information about them.
voice, by insisting that the fetus is a “someone” without seeking to help it arrive at the level of functioning personhood is to be a dilettante. As for wishing to avoid inflicting pain on a woman, those are nice words, but obviously you aren’t paying attention to the “Praise Jesus! We’ve saved another unborn innocent!” gloating that comes from your crowd. In short, you are engaging in the PR effort that has always been the main work of the dysfunctional self-help movement.
NunYa, I’m flattered that you would “REALLY feel sorry” for my child, but I wish you’d REALLY feel sorry for the next one, the one you don’t want to raise.
Both of you: If you cannot understand that without the necessary human inputs children are feral; if you cannot understand that without the proper nurturing children will die or lead less than optimal lives; if you cannot understand that the only way you can protect one of your “unborn innocents” is to love it, then you are indeed good self-proclaimed “pro-lifers.” Now, try this one on for size: What does it mean to love a fetus?
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 11:45 am
NunYa, I only ask of self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” what they demand of pregnant women: to care for that life for the next 18 years, no matter how unwanted it is. The 600 and 8% is the bare minimum. “Little bits” of help less than that I find despicable.
The fact is, self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” largely abandon the child at the delivery room door. If you people were serious, you’d at least give the family the $16,000 needed for well-child checkups and shots to age six, or the $4,000 for disposable diapers until potty-trained, or the $12,000 for a year’s worth of day care. Why settle for the occasional drop-off of baby food?
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 1:24 pm
You see Nunya, this is what happens. You give him logical intelligent conversation and if he can’t beat your points he defaults back to his chant of you have to take care of the one you don’t want killed even though you have clearly shredded that argument several times already.
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 7:25 am
There’s only two problems: odds are the Republican cnatidade running will be Mitt Romney, who was pro-choice until someone told him Start telling everyone you’re pro-life, you’ll get more votes that way. So he may turn out to be underwhelming to pro-lifers.The second problem is more essential: mere voting does not reduce the number of abortions, except indirectly. If saving babies is your aim, you’re better off volunteering at White Rose or a similar group, rather than waiting patiently until November to post an anti-Obama vote. Dominick
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Chuck, honestly, your comments are rambling and almost unintelligible. I don’t mean that as a slur, they really are. They literally makes no sense.
Notice I changed NY’s perceptive comment slightly. And the thing is, if he were not obsessed with interpreting everything through his crazy theory, with his endless attempt to fit every square peg snugly into his round hole, he’d be a great adversary, right up there with Pat. It’s so sad.
LikeLike
December 31, 2016 at 9:43 pm
No bother Laura. Happy to distribute somewhat love around. Trust the songs are coming along perfectly.
LikeLike
December 31, 2016 at 9:43 pm
Quite! This has been a truly wonderful article. For offering this information thanks.
LikeLike