What do they mean by "choice"?

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

On this 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion in America, I would like to share with you something that changed my life forever.

But first, I want to remember.  I want us all to remember these things:

Today marks 40 years of legal child-killing in America; 40 years of the devaluing of preborn human life.

Today marks 40 years of more lives lost to "choice" than in all of America's wars combined...

55 MILLION children who were never rocked, never held, never kissed, never welcomed with pink or blue baby showers... 

Today, and every day, I remember them. Today, and every day, I remember their mothers, their fathers, their siblings, their grandparents, who grieve because of an enormous mistake.


There is forgiveness, and there is hope. 


But the killing must end.


And I also want to remember what brought me here, to the pro-life movement.  I owe my passion for pro-life work to the Lord and (oddly enough for this evangelical) to a Catholic bookstore where I worked.  If they hadn't stocked videos for rental, which I was one day sent to catalog, I might never have seen what abortion really is.  

You see, abortion isn't just a political issue.  While it is ingrained in our culture and intertwined with politics, it is really an issue of human rights, which are being denied to certain humans on the basis of size, level of development, location, etc.  The preborn child is no less human than the rest of us.  We are simply in different stages of growth and development.  

Too many human injustices have been committed because the strong made the choice to devalue and dehumanize other humans for their own purposes, for their own gain.  Abortion is a grave human injustice.

There are a long list of injustices which break my heart, and abortion is number one on that list. It destroys the lives of innocent children and it hurts women.  I have seen the damage it has brought into the lives of so many people who thought it was the best choice for them at the time.  But killing is never the best choice.  It shouldn't be a choice at all.  Think about it... is killing an innocent human considered a good solution to any other difficult situation?

The video I rented from that bookstore one day more than 15 years ago caused me great grief.  It horrified me.  I had always been "against abortion" but I had this very sterile idea of what abortion is.  I thought it was a quick and simple procedure.  I knew little about fetal development.  I had no idea what "choice" really meant. 

This video changed my life forever.  If you choose to watch it, it might change your life forever, too.


This is what they mean by "choice."






Planned Parenthood: Worldwide oppressor of women

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Today’s news: New York City may ban 20-oz. sugared drinks from being sold. Because sugar is bad and it makes you fat.

And... President Obama and Planned Parenthood came out against a House bill, known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), which sought to make sex-selective abortions illegal. The bill failed. Because apparently, targeting (predominantly) female fetuses for extermination is... not bad?

Anything wrong with this picture?

According to HLI Worldwatch, PRENDA sought to:
[while] protect[ing] women from legal prosecution, “Whoever knowingly–(1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child; (2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; or (3) solicits or accepts funds for the purpose of financing a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both,” the 2009 bill stated. Civil remedies may also be sought.”
(Sections on race were removed for today's vote.)

Planned Parenthood is the largest single abortion provider in the U.S. Pro-choice groups have admitted that sex-selection is a problem - that is, they admitted it before the issue came to a vote in the House today. Now, all of a sudden, it’s a “trumped up non-issue.”

But as the above-linked article shows, maybe it's not such a "non-issue" after all. An inordinate number of females are aborted every year worldwide. While PP publicly decries this practice, in reality, they have supported it. They are the UNFPA’s partner in parts of the world where this practice is widespread, such as China, where the problem of forced abortion is also an issue:
The George W. Bush administration ended funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) after a 2002 federal investigation found the UNFPA sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Chinese State Family Planning Commission (SFPC), the agency that implements China’s one-child policy.
  The Obama administration renewed U.S. funding for the global population control agency.
  Earlier this month, as the Republican-controlled House considered a successful measure to eliminate UNFPA’s $39 million budget, Planned Parenthood issued a press release claiming the bill would “harm women around the world.”
UNFPA also donated $1.6 million to International Planned Parenthood Federation in 2010. Planned Parenthood is IPPF’s U.S. “member association.”
Again, while Planned Parenthood may publicly claim to oppose forced abortion and sterilization in China, the truth is that at their heart, they are a population control organization. Former PP exec Norman Fleishman believes population control is "today's real threat" and that China's barbaric one-child policy is "a start" toward curbing growth. Read more here, and pay close attention to Planned Parenthood/American Birth Control League’s “purposes.”

If more females are aborted, sex ratios are skewed, leading to a surge in sex trafficking - a serious problem around the world. The affected society becomes increasingly male-dominated, which further victimizes women. It is a vicious cycle. If the sex ratio in a society is imbalanced, we see more examples of female degradation and injustice. (Frightening thought - more sex trafficking means more contraceptives and more abortions and more STD treatments - and these equate to more business for Planned Parenthood worldwide. Hmm.) So my question is, “Is PP wittingly or unwittingly encouraging female victimization?” 

The idea that a man can get a woman pregnant and then just “have it taken care of” via abortion is a form of victimization - a way to allow predatory men to use women for their sexual pleasure without caring for the woman or for his resulting offspring. (I hear frequent stories from sidewalk counselors who encounter abusive men who are literally dragging their crying girlfriends or wives into clinics for abortions.) Who is harmed in situations like these? Surely not the predatory male. 

Though Planned Parenthood stands behind their mantra of “reproductive freedom,” in promoting abortion, they are advancing a cultural cycle that actually further devalues and exploits women and the amazing gift of our biology. Many women seem to have bought into this idea that their biology is a hindrance. American feminist foremothers felt otherwise. Elizabeth Cady Stanton even proudly raised a flag at her home for the birth of each of her children. This is a true feminist view - that the ability to bear and/or raise children to shape the future is a privilege. 

Today’s “feminists,” on the other hand, believe sterilization, abortifacients, hormonal contraceptives, and abortions are the collective holy grail of female freedom. But freedom from what? From ourselves? These feminists engage in a hideous kind of self hatred and mutilation at worst, and ignorance at best. Some may also be motivated by anti-human, environmentalist beliefs. Read one jaw-dropping article here. Seriously twisted. 

Planned Parenthood is really selling the falsehood that women need abortion to be equal to men (even at the expense of disproportionately killing off our own daughters). It’s time to wake up and realize that gender equality begins in the womb.

Making your head spin: Abortion proponent claims fetal health important

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Today Jivin J drew attention to a mind-boggling article at RH Reality Check (where they are usually in dire need of reality checks). It deals with the importance of fetal health, and it was written by a former communications director at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

That's right - an abortion supporter concerned with the health of the fetus.

Astoundingly, the author claims that by separating the fetus from the fetal environment (by showing pictures and ultrasounds of human fetuses), pro-lifers are "mak[ing] women into enemies of the fetus."

Excuse me while I read that again.

Pro-LIFERS have made women into enemies of the fetus?

I think author Margie Kelly is quite confused. Pro-lifers aren't the ones who scream "my body, my choice." They aren't the ones who claim fetal life is little more than "a clump of cells." They aren't the ones who portray preborn children as parasitic usurpers in the sacred uteri of the feminine populace. No - pro-lifers have shown the HUMANITY of the fetus. Pro-lifers are fighting for the personhood of the human fetus to be recognized. And I'm thinking Ms. Kelly really, really doesn't like that.

Kelly, and others like her, want to focus solely on the pregnant woman in their quest for greater fetal health. I find this very strange, since without the presence of an embryonic or fetal life, a woman would not be in a state of pregnancy at all. A pregnant woman is housing and nurturing another human being. There are two (or more) parties involved in any given pregnancy.

While glossing over the fact that she supports the idea of mothers killing their fetuses arbitrarily, Kelly blames pro-lifers for not doing enough to make the "fetal environment" healthier through environmental regulations which would lead to better health for mother and child.

Margie Kelly can't see the forest for the trees.

Is death at the hands of one's mother preferable to being gestated in a potentially less-than-ideal environment? Clean water and air are hugely important for all human beings, but I have to ask: Abortion advocates, do you really want to go there? Do you really want to say that pro-lifers aren't doing enough to save fetuses because we aren't focusing all our efforts on eradicating pollution? That we are wrong for instead focusing efforts on trying to save the 4,000 human fetuses who face DEATH every day regardless of the state of their "fetal environment?"

Apparently Ms. Kelly has no problem with such a claim. Ms. Kelly believes women should be able to have their children scraped and suctioned from their wombs in pieces, but she also believes that fetuses should have the very best possible environment.

You have to read this stuff to believe it:

But for all the emphasis on the fetus, pro-life organizations "have kept a pretty narrow focus on banning abortion with little to say about the quality of life after the fetus has been born," said Janet Crepps, Deputy Director in the U.S. Legal Program of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

For example, protecting the developing fetus from harm caused by toxic chemicals is not a part of the campaign to secure personhood rights for a fertilized egg from the moment of conception....


First, Ms. Crepps reveals her biologically ignorant and snarky pro-choice cards by referring to a newly created human zygote as a "fertilized egg." I can't even express how sick I am of reading such idiocy. But besides that, I find her claim pretty darn hilarious. It's like saying, "Hey! Hey you homeless shelters over there! Yeah, you! We know you feed these people, give them shelter, and try to help them find jobs and stuff, but you aren't focusing enough on the quality of their drinking water!"

4,000 preborn children are put to death every day in America, and it's not because of substandard air and water.

I also feel the need to point out that many of Ms. Crepps' and Ms. Kelly's contemporaries show little concern for human fetal health, because they believe human life is a blight on this planet. I have personally spoken to devoted environmentalists who want to preserve the earth (for future generations, I assume), yet they believe wholeheartedly that Planned Parenthood is necessary because there are "too many humans as it is." They see abortion as a moral good, for the sake and beauty of the earth.

Excuse me a moment - I gagged a little as I wrote that.

After at last pointing out that many religious groups and churches ARE concerned about the environment, Ms. Kelly sums up:
Yet both sides agree there is a moral urgency to ending the contamination of human beings from toxic chemicals, beginning in the womb. Government interest in fetal life shouldn't be limited to blocking women's right to choose. Instead, governments should choose to protect the interest in a healthy fetus by protecting women's health, specifically women's right to bear children and their right to a healthy pregnancy.


The "right to choose" what, exactly, Ms. Kelly? Let's not disguise the truth, here. The right to choose DEATH for the fetuses she's apparently so concerned about... unless, of course, their mothers decide they'd rather have them dismembered for a fee. But I suppose it's all fine as long as they can gasp out their dying, accidentally-born-alive breaths in "clean air" before they're incinerated.

Pro-lifers believe in healthy pregnancies, not only for mothers, but for their children. Children who, even though they aren't yet born, deserve the right to live.

It's just sex

Saturday, January 7, 2012

I remember the day a friend of mine joked about her favorite celebrity. She - a married woman - said, “If I ever met him and had the chance to sleep with him, I’d do it!” I must have looked shocked because she laughed and said, “It’s not a big deal, it’s just sex!”

All things considered, my friend could have been joking. But it got me to thinking: some people do seem to have the idea - or at least live as if they believe - that sex is no big deal; it’s just a physical act between two consenting individuals.

But can we be honest, here?

STDs, unplanned pregnancy, abortion, and pornography are big problems. There are so many more societal ills related to the misuse of sex that I only have room to mention a handful. I especially hope that if you're a young (or even not so young) person reading this, and you're considering having sex, this short listing will make you consider the topic in a different way.

On one hand, humanity claims sex is “not a big deal,” and on the other hand, humanity - for all practical purposes - worships it. But maybe that’s the problem... we’ve gorged ourselves on sex to the point where it’s lost its savor.

Sexually transmitted infections are rampant. Why? Simple, really. Indiscriminate, non-monogamous sex. Chlamydia is currently the number one STD in the US. Syphilis is on the rise, especially among homosexual men. (And I’m not even touching the homosexuality topic here because the research on its health effects is just plain scary.) The human papilloma virus is responsible for the majority of cervical cancer cases. This site has some pretty dastardly statistics as well, including the fact that one in four college students has a sexually transmitted infection. When you catch an STD from some “no big deal” sex, I would think at that point, it has become more than “just sex.” One moment of carelessness can lead to a lifetime of... well, you get the idea.

Unplanned pregnancy is nothing new. But there were times in our not-so-distant past when an unexpected pregnancy (within marriage, at least) was viewed as more of a happy surprise, a joyful blessing from God. Today, it’s a different story. When an unplanned pregnancy occurs between two individuals who are not in a committed relationship, and/or the individuals have no intention of remaining together or of considering raising a child, we have problems.

Come close, and let me whisper in your ear, friend: Heterosexual sex creates children. It’s not only a pleasurable experience, it’s one that comes with the utmost responsibility because of the possibility that, for about 5 days out of every month in a woman’s cycle, she has the ability to conceive a child. Forget this fact and you end up with something that’s not “just sex.” It’s a new human life you’ve created.

Which brings me to my next point: abortion. Some view this as a way for women to “be like men” and have so-called consequence-free sex. Hey, if men can get away with just walking away from a one-night stand free as a bird, why can’t women do the same? It may seem unfair, but the bottom line is, we women were given highly specialized organ, the uterus, for the purpose of human reproduction. This isn’t a pain; it’s a privilege. Once fertilization occurs, a new human life has been created. Period. There is nothing that can “undo” this. An abortion does not give a woman “reproductive freedom.” It simply kills the growing human who is the result of sexual activity. And to date, more than 50 million of these growing humans have been extinguished legally in the US. This isn't "just sex" and it's a very big deal when innocent humans have to pay for our irresponsible sexual practices.

And last on my very short list: pornography. You can’t even watch commercials today without some sort of soft-core porn hitting you in the face. Heck, we even have restaurants named after coarse terms for female anatomy. But the real problem is that pornographic images and sex are viewed as impersonal, harmless entertainment and titillation, when in reality, porn is a destroyer of relationships, families, and healthy sexual attitudes. It doesn’t enhance true intimacy or trust; it erodes it. Porn addiction has a strong link to separation, divorce, and extramarital affairs - which, in turn, affect not only the couple involved (or future partners) but also any children who might be in the picture. I could go on about rape and other sex crimes and their links to pornography, but if you're reading this, I know you can Google. So much for the “no big deal” nonsense.

Those who don’t make the connection between the “it’s just sex” attitude and some major societal ills are either being dishonest or short-sighted. What happens between consenting adults in the bedroom most certainly can affect the rest of society.

And what happens in Vegas really never stays in Vegas.

This one's for the skeptics

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

After many conversations over the years with various pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, I've come to realize that many are either willfully ignorant or just naive about what's going on in the world regarding abortion.

"Nobody's really pro-abortion," they say. "They're just for a woman's right to decide what happens to her body."

Let this be your wake up call.

Americans seem to have a myopic view of abortion because in this country, abortion is legal and is promoted under the guise of "reproductive choice," "freedom," and "women's rights." But I have news for you - it's only like this in the Western world (and even that could change in the very near future).

A few honest friends of mine have admitted why they truly support groups like Planned Parenthood, however. It's not really about "choice" for them. It's about saving the planet from ourselves. These individuals, while feminist at heart, don't seem to bat an eye at the oppressive governments elsewhere which wield abortion as a weapon against their own people. It is, after all, a means to an end.

Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, a group committed to opposing and raising awareness about forced abortion and sexual slavery in China, hit the mark in a press release this week when she said:

Make no mistake. China's One Child Policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide. Women are dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables, and forced to abort babies they want, up to the 9th month of pregnancy.

Women sometimes die during these violent procedures. The One Child Policy is China's war on women. Adopting it world wide would hurl women's rights back to the dark ages
.
So while American pro-choice advocates bicker about how everyone else should pay for their contraceptives, women in China and other parts of the world are actually living in the dark ages of oppressive regimes - regimes that do things like this:



[Photo via Women's Rights Without Frontiers]

This photo shows a young woman who has just been forcibly aborted at 7 months pregnant but is unable to pay the government officials to dispose of her child's body, so they have left the child in a plastic bag next to her on the bed. If the look on her face doesn't move you, you need a heart check. If her testimonial doesn't make you angry, I don't know what will.

The population alarmists seem to be out in record numbers, writing articles and letters to newspaper editors praising the new HHS mandates requiring every woman's (and child's) contraception - including the abortifacient "morning after pill" - to be paid for by American taxpayers. Eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger would be so proud. No doubt her sentiments are echoed today by a former PP director (and "family planning" population control advocate) Norman Fleishman, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Napa Valley Register this week:
Ah, how I remember “Every child a wanted child,” our motto at Planned Parenthood. And I do welcome this [HHS contraception] legislation.

Half the pregnancies in America are “accidental.” Increasingly younger, unmarried women (or, as we might say, “girls”) find themselves mothers for life — long before they have an inkling of parenthood’s titanic, endless consequences....

Global population numbers having just passed the 7 billion mark (twice what it was when I opened a vasectomy clinic in Texas), it is overwhelming to contemplate the world struggling with this flood and its inevitable threats (including starvation, drought, pollution — and what leading scientists predicted long ago would be the main danger to civilization: war).

Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.
This is a PP director lending his approval to things like what you see pictured above.

Fleishman also pulls back the curtain on the "every child a wanted child" mantra, revealing that population control advocates don't believe it's necessarily the woman's view of a "wanted child" that matters - but that of the society in which she lives.

Convinced yet that some people really are pro-abortion? UK-based Optimum Population Trust's chief exec, Simon Ross, also recently condemned soccer star David Beckham and his wife Victoria for having a 4th child:
There is a big issue there, family planning is cheap, yet many people don't use it properly and accidental pregnancy rates are very high. We need to change the incentives to make the environmental case that one or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish.

"The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There's no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child.
Ah, yes, those sacred carbon emissions. Soon they'll dictate the lives of every single one of us, regardless of the junk "science" and fudging of research behind the global warming and rabid environmentalist movements.

Since its inception as Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League, Planned Parenthood has been up to its elbows in eugenics - the "weeding out" of "undesirables" in society (remind me again where most of their clinics are located...). This organization works worldwide in support of China and other regimes that forcibly sterilize women, often without full disclosure to the women. This should be no surprise, as PP performs abortions in America without full disclosure to their patients, and fights against every informed consent law they can find, keeping women from knowing the truth about what abortion is and does.

As for me, I'm angry today. I'm angry that women like the one pictured above are being brutalized and their children stolen from them by these predatory governments. I'm going to go hug my children now - my "parenthood's endless, titanic consequences," (according to Fleishman) who bring me so much joy and purpose in life. My children are not titanic consequences and neither are anyone else's.

Skeptics, do your homework, and leave the dark side. Come into the light of the pro-life movement, where women and their children are more than just numbers or carbon emissions. They are loved and valued as they should be.


The sham of Planned Parenthood

Friday, March 4, 2011

Kirsten Powers has a great article in the liberally slanted Daily Beast today, picking apart Planned Parenthood's "charitable nonprofit, here only to protect women's health" facade.

First myth on her list: Without access to birth control, women will have more abortions.

In fact, says Powers, the Guttmacher Institute (research arm founded by PP) tells a very different story - that the majority of women who abort actually have access to and are users of contraception:

54% of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method, if incorrectly, in the month they got pregnant. For the 46% who had not used contraception, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy; 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods; 26% had had unexpected sex, and 1% had been forced to have sex.

Not one fraction of 1% said they got pregnant because they lacked access to contraception [emphasis mine]. Some described having unexpected sex, but all that can be said about them is that they are irresponsible, not that they felt they lacked access to contraception.
And the real kicker?
Guttmacher reported that only 8% of women who undergo abortions have never used a method of birth control.
Eight percent? So much for the old "abstinence education makes people pregnant" tripe. Most women know about birth control, know how and when to use it, and have access to it. So, why is Planned Parenthood perpetuating this lie?

Second: By existing as a women's health provider and dispenser of contraception, we reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

Powers points out these statistics are unchanged from 3 years ago - and yet, the amount given to this organization which claims to help reduce unplanned pregnancies has skyrocketed. When Powers questioned the fact that PP had actually done nothing to decrease the unplanned pregnancy rate, she says:
I was pointed to a Planned Parenthood study that showed that one in three women voters reported having struggled with the cost of prescription birth control at some point.
Here's what I noticed: the key word here is prescription. Granted, some women in difficult financial straits might have some difficulty scraping together $25 bucks for the Pill every month, but did anyone ever hear of condoms? Spermicides? These things are cheap, over the counter options. (They also wreak less havoc on the female body, but that's another topic for another time.)

My OBGYN's office has bowls of condoms just sitting out for anyone who wants them. Even Planned Parenthood gives out condoms - for FREE! (Oh, but wait - remember that 2005 Consumer Reports research, showing PP's condoms as the least quality and least reliable? Hmm....) Perhaps one should just plunk down the $8 for a box of something else. I don't think I'd be trusting America's #1 abortion store to give me reliable contraception. Repeat business is one of their staples.

And another thing: PP charges. For everything. They've admitted going to a health department is cheaper. At least one PP stated on video that a pre-birth control appointment costs about $80. If a woman can't afford the Pill, how are they to afford the appointment? I thought PP got all this taxpayer money to provide low cost "women's healthcare." PP uses a sliding scale for its patients, but if your local health department does the STD testing for FREE, why not go there?

Please tell me again - why is PP necessary for birth control dispension, STD testing, Pap smears, and breast exams?

Third - an eye opener: We're just a charitable nonprofit, concerned with women's health.

Oh, really? Powers notes:
According to its most recent tax filing, the purpose of Planned Parenthood Federation of America is to provide leadership in “[a]chieving, through informed individual choice, a U.S. population of stable size in an optimum environment; in stimulating and sponsoring relevant biomedical, socio-economic, and demographic research.”

So it is, in reality, a population-control organization. Funny, this was never mentioned in the gauzy $200k advertising campaign launched last week. It also doesn’t make it into the “About Us” section of the group’s website, which repeatedly claims its mission is to protect women’s health, when in fact the real mission is to keep the birth rate at whatever level the leaders believe it should be.
Powers arrives at the conclusion that PP isn't the "charitable nonprofit" they purport to be, and that taxpayers shouldn't be funding it - and I'm inclined to agree. Funnel that money to actual community health centers which provide low to no-cost medical care for the uninsured and underinsured, and that do not provide child-killing "services." We'll all be better for it.

 
SoapboxFive - by Templates para novo blogger