Comments on: Beware Claims of Pregnancy Resource Centers http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:21:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Case http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-24056 Case Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:53:14 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-24056 I am trying desperately to find a support group of adults who were born to mothers who didn't want us but were unable to get abortions so were forced to give birth to us. By the time I was born she was in a relationship with another man other than my father and the two of them abused me my entire childhood. To this day my mother takes every opportunity to torment, embarass and abuse me that she can. In order to have a relationship with my siblings I am sometimes in her presence, but I limit it as much as possible. I cannot believe that there aren't other "children" out here like me who were abused because we couldn't be aborted. I am trying desperately to find a support group of adults who were born to mothers who didn’t want us but were unable to get abortions so were forced to give birth to us. By the time I was born she was in a relationship with another man other than my father and the two of them abused me my entire childhood. To this day my mother takes every opportunity to torment, embarass and abuse me that she can. In order to have a relationship with my siblings I am sometimes in her presence, but I limit it as much as possible. I cannot believe that there aren’t other “children” out here like me who were abused because we couldn’t be aborted.

]]> By: hensandchicks http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-21540 hensandchicks Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:15:03 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-21540 While the original posting was long, it really expresses the opinion of a lot of people. As someone who became pregnant when 18 and unmarried, this is something that hits home. For me there wasn't any choice. Abortion was not yet legal and there was no way for me to provide a healthy home. I had the child and placed him for adoption. Two years later US women finally had the right to legally make other decisions. I do not know what choice I would have made. It took almost 40 years for me to learn if my decision was good or not. Today it seems to have become glamorous for unmarried girls and women to have children and raise them. It seems to me that is a very selfish act. The younger ones usually have no way to even support themselves, much less a child. It takes more than love to turn a child into a productive adult. I believe it is paramont that if a child is brought into this world, the parents have a the responsibility to provide that child everything that is needed to become a productive member of society. If that means finding some else to raise the child, so be it. If you are not willing to make those difficult choices, you should not have a child. I can't imagine how teaching and providing birth control can do anything but reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions. I have said for years that there really isn't any one who is really prolife. They are really probirth. After birth the "prolife" folks disappear into the woodwork. I don't see them protesting the war (the ultimate anti prolife, or helping raise children who don't have good homes, or advocating birth control. What about the girls who are being sexually abused at home? What are you doing to help them? If you think they should have the child resulting from this abuse, are you prepared to take in those thousands of children born in the US each year? Are you willing to take in a pregnant girl who has been kicked out by her family? Are you willing to assist in prosecution when called for? I can't imagine someone making a decision for an abortion lightly. Let's make a deal. You stay out of my personal decisions and I will stay out of yours. While the original posting was long, it really expresses the opinion of a lot of people. As someone who became pregnant when 18 and unmarried, this is something that hits home. For me there wasn’t any choice. Abortion was not yet legal and there was no way for me to provide a healthy home. I had the child and placed him for adoption. Two years later US women finally had the right to legally make other decisions. I do not know what choice I would have made. It took almost 40 years for me to learn if my decision was good or not. Today it seems to have become glamorous for unmarried girls and women to have children and raise them. It seems to me that is a very selfish act. The younger ones usually have no way to even support themselves, much less a child. It takes more than love to turn a child into a productive adult. I believe it is paramont that if a child is brought into this world, the parents have a the responsibility to provide that child everything that is needed to become a productive member of society. If that means finding some else to raise the child, so be it. If you are not willing to make those difficult choices, you should not have a child. I can’t imagine how teaching and providing birth control can do anything but reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions.

I have said for years that there really isn’t any one who is really prolife. They are really probirth. After birth the “prolife” folks disappear into the woodwork. I don’t see them protesting the war (the ultimate anti prolife, or helping raise children who don’t have good homes, or advocating birth control. What about the girls who are being sexually abused at home? What are you doing to help them? If you think they should have the child resulting from this abuse, are you prepared to take in those thousands of children born in the US each year? Are you willing to take in a pregnant girl who has been kicked out by her family? Are you willing to assist in prosecution when called for?

I can’t imagine someone making a decision for an abortion lightly.

Let’s make a deal. You stay out of my personal decisions and I will stay out of yours.

]]> By: xiaogou http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-14007 xiaogou Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:39:00 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-14007 Actually, Bible based policies that dictate how or what is good or bad are wrong. Jesus did not die on the cross so people who believe they are better than everyone else can cite the Bible then write policies to which in many cases they have no right to implement. In fact, Jesus himself fought to his death those that were ruling people's lives by the Bible, especially when those who made the policies did not follow them. This is not Christianity it is a dictatorship. Actually, Bible based policies that dictate how or what is good or bad are wrong. Jesus did not die on the cross so people who believe they are better than everyone else can cite the Bible then write policies to which in many cases they have no right to implement. In fact, Jesus himself fought to his death those that were ruling people’s lives by the Bible, especially when those who made the policies did not follow them. This is not Christianity it is a dictatorship.

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-13992 Dan Klarmann Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:42:42 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-13992 c.a: So you think that the government should require a 13 year old victim of sexual abuse to bear her father's child? I dare say that the child-mother should have greater rights than her not-yet-sentient "child", giving her a chance at having a healthy baby later. I dare say that the political government should not prohibit <b>any</b> medical procedure that a competent medical board considers safe and responsible. I'd cheer to have constitutional amendment to that effect. I dare say that we need a serious sex education program in the U.S. to reduce the number of abortions in our country to a level near that of less God fearing and more secular countries like Sweden or England. I dare say that this wouldn't be an issue had not the medical advances in the last century that make abortions safe for mothers also kept so many natural-born babies alive that people have forgotten that less than half of the babies used to survive their first year. Before scientific intervention, God "aborted" more than half of all babies after birth. God still terminates the majority of fertilized ova, most before the mother is even aware of her condition. (Occasional long periods and heavy flow are usually signs of these). c.a: So you think that the government should require a 13 year old victim of sexual abuse to bear her father’s child?

I dare say that the child-mother should have greater rights than her not-yet-sentient “child”, giving her a chance at having a healthy baby later.

I dare say that the political government should not prohibit any medical procedure that a competent medical board considers safe and responsible. I’d cheer to have constitutional amendment to that effect.

I dare say that we need a serious sex education program in the U.S. to reduce the number of abortions in our country to a level near that of less God fearing and more secular countries like Sweden or England.

I dare say that this wouldn’t be an issue had not the medical advances in the last century that make abortions safe for mothers also kept so many natural-born babies alive that people have forgotten that less than half of the babies used to survive their first year.
Before scientific intervention, God “aborted” more than half of all babies after birth. God still terminates the majority of fertilized ova, most before the mother is even aware of her condition. (Occasional long periods and heavy flow are usually signs of these).

]]> By: Jason Rayl http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-13982 Jason Rayl Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:40:54 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-13982 C.A. Humankind has always claimed a right to kill in order to preserve a desired condition. Always. That's why we have a concept called Justifiable Homicide. That's why wars are usually not labelled criminal acts. We assume the right in this country to kill criminals convicted of particularly heinous crimes. No, we are not "just a clump of cells." We are that and much more. An impregnated egg is not. It may be some day. But not yet. It has no more "right" to exist than a clump of cancer cells. Arbitrary? Perhaps. But claiming status for something that clearly has none is likewise arbitrary. Something else humans do all the time, but that doesn't mean we all have to abide by the sentimentallity and foibles of others. If the Pro-life movement, as a body, stood up tomorrow and began strong, forceful advocacy of BIRTH CONTROL programs, I and others like me would lessen our reservations about abortion somewhat. But it doesn't. It is not opposed to abortion, it is opposed to sex outside of a narrowly prescribed set of circumstances. By its actions limiting sex education and the availability of birth control, the Pro Life Movement demonstrates an direct moral line to the old standard that makes pregnancy a kind of punishment of women who oughtn't to be doing something some people find offesnive. I say women, because the burden falls on them. I forget off hand the source of the quote, but it's a good one: "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement." C.A.

Humankind has always claimed a right to kill in order to preserve a desired condition. Always. That’s why we have a concept called Justifiable Homicide. That’s why wars are usually not labelled criminal acts. We assume the right in this country to kill criminals convicted of particularly heinous crimes.

No, we are not “just a clump of cells.” We are that and much more. An impregnated egg is not. It may be some day. But not yet. It has no more “right” to exist than a clump of cancer cells.

Arbitrary? Perhaps. But claiming status for something that clearly has none is likewise arbitrary. Something else humans do all the time, but that doesn’t mean we all have to abide by the sentimentallity and foibles of others.

If the Pro-life movement, as a body, stood up tomorrow and began strong, forceful advocacy of BIRTH CONTROL programs, I and others like me would lessen our reservations about abortion somewhat. But it doesn’t. It is not opposed to abortion, it is opposed to sex outside of a narrowly prescribed set of circumstances. By its actions limiting sex education and the availability of birth control, the Pro Life Movement demonstrates an direct moral line to the old standard that makes pregnancy a kind of punishment of women who oughtn’t to be doing something some people find offesnive. I say women, because the burden falls on them.

I forget off hand the source of the quote, but it’s a good one: “If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement.”

]]> By: c.a. snider http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-13979 c.a. snider Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:09:56 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-13979 At the root: You bet your ass. First of all, "clump of cells"? Isn't that really what we all are? And secondly, the mother should have been "thinking" at the time she was being "socially involved" and "willing". How dare you say this little person inside its mother doesn't have rights! She should be all the more protected since she is unable to protect herself or cry for help. The mother gave up her right to decide the moment she conceived. Now there is a person living and growing inside her. Sorry pal, she has NO RIGHT TO KILL HER BABY! At the root: You bet your ass. First of all, “clump of cells”? Isn’t that really what we all are? And secondly, the mother should have been “thinking” at the time she was being “socially involved” and “willing”. How dare you say this little person inside its mother doesn’t have rights! She should be all the more protected since she is unable to protect herself or cry for help. The mother gave up her right to decide the moment she conceived. Now there is a person living and growing inside her. Sorry pal, she has NO RIGHT TO KILL HER BABY!

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-13972 Dan Klarmann Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:12:36 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-13972 At the root: Shall the rights of a clump of cells of any genotype supersede the rights of its thinking, socially involved, and unwilling host? At the root: Shall the rights of a clump of cells of any genotype supersede the rights of its thinking, socially involved, and unwilling host?

]]> By: c.a. snider http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-13968 c.a. snider Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:40:53 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-13968 Devi says, "The problem comes from trying to draw a line “somewhere in the middle.” Where is that middle?" Thank you! You are so right! It can't be done! So life either begins at conception or birth, and since birth is clearly not the "beginning", then what does that leave?t . . .and "Recently we learned of a baby that survived despite being delivered at about 4 1/2 months gestation. What if science could keep it alive after only 2 1/2 months gestation? Does that mean it is a human being at 2 1/2 months, and therefore cannot be aborted?" I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, but allow me to share . . .My daughters were born at 25 weeks gestation. Are they human beings? Are they alive? Well, they certainly, were BORN and one never got to take her "first breath". Not a baby???!!! I beg to differ. And her TWIN sister was on ventilators and oxygen for nearly a year. Oh, she was breathing, all right. Would you say that one was a REAL baby and one was not. I should hope not. Baby no. 2 is alive and well at five years old. And if they could save a premature baby at four, three, or two months, and who's to say that's not in the future, then would you think of them as a person? Why should it matter if they survive or not? And Erich, "Putting the “interests” of a living thing lacking any sentience above the interests of a full-grown sentient human woman constitutes heartless meddling." PLEASE! Do you really stand by that?! You even say, "living thing"! Living in a stagnant state? No, living and, of course, developing, growing . . .into what? And Ben, a fertilized egg is a child in its earliest stage. It's all right there. It's you and I in our earliest stage. None of us, not one, got to be here without first being that fertilized egg. Why should the mother get to choose to kill her baby just because it's not out of the womb yet? And it's not an unwanted egg. It's an unwanted fertilized egg. Big difference! Devi says, “The problem comes from trying to draw a line “somewhere in the middle.” Where is that middle?”
Thank you! You are so right! It can’t be done! So life either begins at conception or birth, and since birth is clearly not the “beginning”, then what does that leave?t
. . .and “Recently we learned of a baby that survived despite being delivered at about 4 1/2 months gestation. What if science could keep it alive after only 2 1/2 months gestation? Does that mean it is a human being at 2 1/2 months, and therefore cannot be aborted?” I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here, but allow me to share . . .My daughters were born at 25 weeks gestation. Are they human beings? Are they alive? Well, they certainly, were BORN and one never got to take her “first breath”. Not a baby???!!! I beg to differ. And her TWIN sister was on ventilators and oxygen for nearly a year. Oh, she was breathing, all right. Would you say that one was a REAL baby and one was not. I should hope not. Baby no. 2 is alive and well at five years old. And if they could save a premature baby at four, three, or two months, and who’s to say that’s not in the future, then would you think of them as a person? Why should it matter if they survive or not?

And Erich, “Putting the “interests” of a living thing lacking any sentience above the interests of a full-grown sentient human woman constitutes heartless meddling.” PLEASE! Do you really stand by that?! You even say, “living thing”! Living in a stagnant state? No, living and, of course, developing, growing . . .into what?
And Ben, a fertilized egg is a child in its earliest stage. It’s all right there. It’s you and I in our earliest stage. None of us, not one, got to be here without first being that fertilized egg. Why should the mother get to choose to kill her baby just because it’s not out of the womb yet? And it’s not an unwanted egg. It’s an unwanted fertilized egg. Big difference!

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-11912 Erich Vieth Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:08:26 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-11912 A Harvard study released 4/23/07 "supports earlier findings by a panel of experts that having an abortion doesn’t increase a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer." As Newsweek wisely adds, "However, this latest analysis isn’t likely to convince all those opposed to abortion." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18274424 A Harvard study released 4/23/07 “supports earlier findings by a panel of experts that having an abortion doesn’t increase a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer.” As Newsweek wisely adds, “However, this latest analysis isn’t likely to convince all those opposed to abortion.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18274424

]]> By: Ben http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/03/17/beware-the-claims-of-pregnancy-resource-centers/#comment-10492 Ben Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:31:50 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=32#comment-10492 c.a. writes: "and the fact that you think a child conceived as a result of rape is any less human than one that wasn’t is mind-boggling" I think you have leapt to a false conclusion. The fertilized egg is not yet a "child" in my interpretation of the definition. In my opinion, it is preferable to allow the mother to choose to abort an unwanted egg. c.a. writes: “and the fact that you think a child conceived as a result of rape is any less human than one that wasn’t is mind-boggling”

I think you have leapt to a false conclusion. The fertilized egg is not yet a “child” in my interpretation of the definition. In my opinion, it is preferable to allow the mother to choose to abort an unwanted egg.

]]>