Please excuse my rant: on anti-choice protesters

This weekend I went to a pro-choice rally. Well, technically it was a counter-rally – a local church protests abortion outside one of the hospitals on the last Saturday of every month, and the local feminist group holds a “Disco for Choice” alongside them.

Image

A lovely sign made by a prominent local feminist.

I have to admit, I was a little nervous going into it – I didn’t really know what to expect. I’ve been reading a lot about buffer zones and the controversy surrounding them, and the horror stories reported by women trying to enter clinics for their doctor’s appointments, mammograms, and abortions have left me kind of shaken (these occurrences are so common that even Cosmo has reported on them!). I’ve only been to my local Planned Parenthood in NJ a few times, but I’ve thankfully never encountered any kind of protester.

If you haven’t read about it, these “buffer zones” are 35-foot protective zones outside of abortion clinics where protesters are prohibited from standing. Besides ensuring the well-being of patients trying to enter the clinic, the law was enacted in response to the fact that anti-choice terrorists have killed abortion providers, clinic escorts, receptionists, and security guards. They’ve also attacked clinics with arson, bombs, cars, and Anthrax threats (source). However, anti-choice groups are claiming that the buffer zone law infringes on their freedom of speech (which is apparently more important than other people’s right to not be killed, injured, or harassed?), and have taken the case to the US Supreme Court. One of their main claims is that they just want to “quietly counsel” women, in order to persuade them not to get abortions.

This claim, in many ways, epitomizes what angers me about anti-choice protesters. They act as if they’re coming from a place of care and respect, and claim the moral high ground, when in fact they’re hugely hypocritical and often dishonest. (As a side note, some of the most mind-blowing examples of their hypocrisy that I’ve seen actually occurred as part of situations where an anti-choice person chose to get a safe, legal abortion, and managed to hold on to their beliefs that abortion is murder and wrong).

But back to my point – the fact that this “quiet counsel” defense might be seen as legitimate is making me terrified, disgusted, and angry. First of all, it is not some random person’s RIGHT to “counsel” someone who does not want to be counseled about a decision she has already made (and I have to wonder, to what extent does targeting someone to persuade them of something actually fall under “free speech”?).

Image

Actually, no, it doesn’t. You know what kills children? Poverty. Poverty kills children. Guns kill children. But abortion? Doesn’t kill children.

Further, do they REALLY think that their “counseling” will cause her to change her mind? Will it miraculously uncover an extra paycheck every month that will allow her to afford another child? Will it provide affordable childcare so that she has somewhere clean, safe, and caring to send her children while she goes to work? Will it fix her shaky, abusive, or ended relationship, turning it into one that could welcome and nurture a child?

Obviously, it will not. All it will do is distress, patronize, and/or insult the woman so that the harasser can feel self-righteously superior. Let me be very clear about this; people who participate in this kind of sidewalk protesting do NOT care about the women they berate, harass, and “counsel.”

Because if they ACTUALLY wanted to help these women, if they ACTUALLY wanted to reduce abortions, they would be volunteering at centers that provide affordable childcare to working mothers, lobbying to raise the minimum wage, working to fight rape culture, and advocating for accurate, comprehensive sexual and relationship education in all schools (since abstinence-only education has been shown again and again to be ineffective). They would be volunteering at support lines for women in abusive or unhealthy relationships, they would be supportive of the ACA’s copay-free birth control and access to various kinds of contraception, and they would be fighting for the rights of gay couples to marry and adopt. Also, considering that abortion rates are lower in states where it is easier to obtain safe, legal abortions, they would also be fighting for abortion rights.

If they really respected life, their viewpoint wouldn’t engender the claim that pregnant women are nothing but “hosts” to a fetus; they would respect the mother, along with her partner and/or children if they exist, to the same, if not greater extent than the hypothetical child. They wouldn’t want to ban abortion, since doing so is proven to endanger women, and since “highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates”.

The group that we were counter-protesting was, thankfully, not confrontational. They prayed loudly together on the street corner (ironically, even the Bible says that that’s what hypocrites do) and held up signs that said “Two Victims: One dead, one wounded,” “Pro-Life: Because there’s always a better answer than abortion,” “Abortion Kills Children,” and “One Pregnancy, Two Heartbeats”. Some of the signs had ultrasound pictures of fetuses on them.

Image

My sign. Last-minute and off-center. Kind of like me.

You know what? If you’re pro-life, that is fine by me. If you think abortion is wrong and that it is murder, I respect that. Don’t have an abortion. Don’t sleep with anyone who would have an abortion or who would ask you to. Pray for the end of abortion. As someone who is pro-choice, I respect all of those choices (see how that works?). However, the minute you step over the line to try to restrict other people’s access to safe, legal abortion is the minute you lose my respect.

Have you ever had an encounter with anti-choice protesters?

Advertisements

79 responses to “Please excuse my rant: on anti-choice protesters

  1. I know one type of person more hypocritical than the anti-choice protestors, you. People need a/several post conception options to avoid parental obligations. But only the people with the correct genitalia. I find YOUR position to be more hypocritical than the anti-choice position.

    Like

      • I can try. It is very difficult to explain things to ideologues when they don’t conform to presuppositions, and this is why you don’t understand what I mean.

        Feminism claims to be about Gender Equality.

        If a person is to fully participate in our culture socially economically and politically they must have the power to choose when and if they become a parent.

        The choice to have sex IS NOT the choice to become a parent.

        People need choices. Pre-conception choices like the choice to have sex. The Choice to use a Condom. The Choice to use “The Pill”. and post-conception choices like The Morning After pill and Abortions.

        Anything in these statements that you find incorrect or lacking? Are these statements that you can support 100%?

        Like

      • With the convolution of language surrounding feminism, pointing out the hypocrisy isn’t just as simple as “You hate men”. It really isn’t that simple. There are layers of ideology and rehtorich designed to hide the hypocrisy. Though I do strongly suspect that the OP now understands her hypocrisy and this is why she chose to not really respond.

        So back to the question. Is there anything disagreeable about the statements I made. Are these concepts that you support 100%?

        Like

  2. I’m not sure I quite understand. The choice to have unprotected sex surely IS the accepting the potential to become a parent? (The case is different, of course, if the condom breaks etc.)
    Are you arguing that women should have an abortion if a man asks it of her, regardless of her view? You can argue for gender equality, but, unfortunately, in this case, biologically men and women have different roles here and after the man ‘finishes’ there is not much he can do to, to himself, that can affect that. Obviously you would hope that any thought of children would be a discussion, but it becomes more a personal, emotional event for the woman to choose an abortion.

    Like

  3. I felt this article was very informative. I feel that you bring up many interesting and valid points. I love your blog and can’t wait to read more posts.

    Like

  4. Northern Ireland does not have abortion, just in case anyone didn’t know that. England, Scotland and Wales do, but Northern Ireland didn’t get the 1967 act because of moral conservatism and ahem…patriarchal regressive dinosaur chauvinists. The pieces of legislation governing abortion in Northern Ireland are sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (which are derived from the corresponding provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929).

    Our law is literally from the 19th Century.

    In 2012 a Marie Stopes clinic opened in Belfast, and to the best of my knowledge, people still protest outside it weekly. The law in Northern Ireland allows women to have an abortion up to 9 weeks, only if the pregnancy would cause immediate harm to the woman. Therefore, if you are raped in Northern Ireland, you aren’t allowed an abortion under the law. Same for incest.

    There was a case in 2013 where a foetus had a disorder called anencephaly which is when a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp is missing. The woman had to travel to England and pay for an abortion there, because my country expected her to carry the foetus to term and give birth to it, because it wouldn’t have caused her immediate harm.

    Obviously this causes a big problematic class aspect because not everyone can afford to travel to the UK and pay for flights, accomodation, and an abortion at a private clinic.

    I’m sure you’ve also heard of Savita Halappanavar who died last year in a hospital in the Republic of Ireland because she suffered a miscarriage and was refused an abortion, which led to septicemia and multiple organ failure. She was told “This is a Catholic country”.

    The politicians in my country are pretty much anti-choice protestors, to the extent that during the discussion in Stormont about the Marie Stopes clinic, MLAs were reading from the bible.

    Unbelievable

    Like

  5. You need to get your facts straight. This isn’t a “buffer zone”, nor do the pro-lifers offer counselling. It is a peaceful protest against the most violent and despicable crime perpetrated in the world today: the murder of innocent children.

    The pro-lifers do not approach people, or even stand within the hospital. On the other hand, the so-called “Pro-choice Disco” (before the Police had to intervene) played loud music, blew whistles, and held up sheets in front of the pro-life protesters. They behave in a way that shows their moral standpoint for what it is: childish, ill-informed, and in denial.

    Like

    • Hi Mark. My facts are pretty straight. The only description I gave of the anti-choice group that day is:

      “The group that we were counter-protesting was, thankfully, not confrontational. They prayed loudly together on the street corner (ironically, even the Bible says that that’s what hypocrites do) and held up signs that said “Two Victims: One dead, one wounded,” “Pro-Life: Because there’s always a better answer than abortion,” “Abortion Kills Children,” and “One Pregnancy, Two Heartbeats”. Some of the signs had ultrasound pictures of fetuses on them.”

      That’s all correct, right?

      The day that I attended the pro-choice disco was nothing like the one you described. We weren’t blowing whistles or holding up sheets, and the only time the police were involved was when several of the pro-choice protesters felt harassed and intimidated by the members of the church group who were taking pictures and filming the event. However, I was only able to attend the disco that one time, so I can’t speak for any of the other days.

      Like

      • I was a high school feminist,

        Of course it’s OK to give facts at any kind of demo. Abortion DOES kill, doesn’t it? Women ARE “wounded” by abortion aren’t they? Even the pro-abortion lobby admit that nobody really wants an abortion, women agonise over it etc etc. And you call pro-lifers hypocrites! Gerragrip.

        Of course it’s OK to show images of aborted babies – why not? It would be a strange unemployment rally that had no pictures of dispirited unemployed people, or any other image which helps to drive home the suffering that comes with unemployment. And there isn’t a single news report about the world war 2 concentration camps without harrowing images of the holocaust.

        As for pro-abortionists feeling harassed and threatened – I do not believe it. They are being economical with the truth, to put it as politely as possible. And I note they called the police, their usual nasty tactic. Pro lifers are not threatening types. Gerranothergrip.

        Like

    • Well said, Mark.

      In Glasgow, where I live, there is a group of Catholics who meet outside one of the hospitals every week to pray the rosary for the unborn babies at risk inside. Some are elderly and virtually immobile, with walking sticks etc. They’ve been shouted at by “pro-death-for-unwanted babies” supporters, who were very much “in their faces” (all caught on video, which I’ve seen, but some years ago now) and the police were called by the pro-abortionists. The police took the names of the praying pro-lifers and visited them in their homes. One, an elderly, retired GP, was shocked. He’s never been involved with the police and this was very humiliating and frightening for him, and, of course, for them all. To his credit, he continues to this day to pray outside that hospital every week. He did not allow himself, nor did the others, to be bullied out of doing what is right.

      So, the alleged “pro-choicers” are no such thing. They are a bunch bullies who won’t tolerate anyone questioning their deadly “choice”.

      Like

  6. The first commentator was entirely right – you do not even understand your own arguments!

    How can you claim to be a true feminist when millions of unborn baby GIRLS are murdered by abortion? What about sex selection abortions or do you believe it is acceptable for a baby to be aborted for their gender?

    And your ridiculous suggestion that poverty kills children but abortion doesn’t. What then does abortion do? Are you saying there is no life there? If so, when does life, in your eyes, begin? At 24 weeks? (If you’ve ever seen a baby born at 24 weeks you will see how flawed that argument is!), at birth? Then that would make it acceptable to kill a baby after birth too surely?

    I object to your sign too ‘pro child, pro family, pro choice’…Someone who is for abortion, on ANY grounds, is inherently against children, against family and therefore against choice.

    Life begins at conception, any scientist will tell you that. Please, please consider this before you take your lies to the streets and counter protest at the pro life witness I have been running for 7 peaceful years.

    Amanda Lewin

    You might also like to re-consider the man who held up your sign ‘My body, my choice’ …unless you know something we don’t?

    Like

    • Hi Amanda,

      I do understand my arguments pretty well, thanks.

      Sex-selective abortion is a huge issue in the countries in which it occurs, and is one that many Western feminists are concerned with. However, it’s a very separate issue to the issue of reproductive rights in the US and England.

      Abortion terminates a pregnancy. It does not kill a child. To claim that it does is over-simplifying rhetoric, as is the refrain that “life begins at conception”. The devotion to this rhetoric, along with the single-minded focus on forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, is often used as a way to avoid actually talking about many of the nuanced, complicated issues surrounding reproductive rights.

      I have to disagree with your assertion that anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose is anti-family or anti-child. A surprisingly high percentage of women who have abortions are women who already have a child or children (many of whom, I’d venture to guess, they love very much).

      Also, there’s really no reason to re-consider allowing a man to hold a pro-choice sign. I understand that you think you were being clever, implying that perhaps the sign meant he was able to become pregnant (which, if he is transgender, would be entirely possible – I don’t know him personally so I have no idea), but really, we’re happy to allow men to fight for our rights as well!

      Like

      • “abortion terminates a pregnancy. It does not kill a child”

        That has to be a prizewinning effort in semantics.

        What is a “pregnancy” if not the conception of a child?

        I have more respect for the pro-death lobby who admit that they are killing babies because they (wrongly) think that the woman has a right to do so. To play around with words to pretend there is no baby being killed, is just plain ridiculous.

        And your positive take on “transgenderism” is a reminder of where the pro-death mentality leads. It leads to an “absolutely anything goes” – as long as it’s someone’s “choice”.

        Like

  7. Illogical, deceitful and deluded. As a woman who became pregnant in an abusive, unstable relationship I am so happy I chose life for my unborn child. I would suffer all the temporary trials (horrendous sickness during the pregnancy, the social stigma of being a single mother for years, the grief from my family, the vulnerability, uncertainty and loneliness of bringing up a child alone etc etc) all over again just to enjoy the precious, precious person I have now for 5 minutes. I am so thankful that I’ve not had to go through what the woman in this video has gone through: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOavs1IYva4#t=11

    Like

    • I’m very glad you are happy in the choice that you made. Just like I would never argue that you “should have” had an abortion, I believe it is just as “illogical” and “deluded” for you to argue that nobody should.
      As far as “deceit” is concerned, I am very skeptical of crisis pregnancy centers like the one you mention in your other comment. They have been shown time and time again to attempt to persuade women not to terminate a pregnancy by providing them with inaccurate, deliberately misleading information.

      Like

  8. ‘but really, we’re happy to allow men to fight for our rights as well!’ Of course you are, as long as it suits you! For the rest of the time you claim how much men ‘intimidate’ you (as your leader of the Disco business proclaimed) and spend your time trying to be like men which is NOT, and never has been, true feminism.

    ALL the true feminists of old were properly pro life and pro women! Look back, properly in history, you honestly do not know your facts!

    As for our signs, the one you referred to as a ‘fetus’ (spelt the American way, and seeing as you’re pretty convinced we’re alike to the American pro life movement – which we are not- are you American?) is not an unborn baby but a baby aborted.

    How can you sit there and write ‘abortion terminates a pregnancy. It does not kill a child’ seriously? What then does it end if it is not a child? You usage of ‘terminates a pregnancy’ is age old cover up language which the pro-death lobby have used for years.
    Don’t ever think that covering up the truth with words such as these will change the truth. They never will. You are just lying to yourselves.

    And yes, many pro-death people choose to have babies (as long as it suits their lifestyles of course, because it would be cruel and selfish to bring an ‘unwanted baby into the world – far better to kill it!) yet this would never make them ‘pro-life’ or worthy of holding signs which state ‘pro-family, pro-child’, how can they when they think it is perfectly acceptable for a baby to be torn apart in the womb? Actually, those people who do have children are even worse as through heir own pregnancies they will (hopefully) learn about the development of their baby and I can bet you money never would they, whilst pregnant, refer to their baby as a foetus, or a clumo of cells. How ironic that language again rules the pro-death movement.

    It is coincidental that you didn’t happen to be there for your group’s appalling and illegal behaviour, so I have sent you a video so you can see for yourself their tactics. They quieten down when the police appear, but the head of police operations in Oxford etc all have viewed this video, and this is why, on legal advice too, we have continued to have to film our peaceful and very successful pro life witnesses.

    Like

  9. In relation to your comments to the. very courageous, ‘L’ , I have to say that never do any places lie as much and as often as PP and BPAS. Videos secretly taken have exposed them for what they truly are.
    All pro life pregnancy centres must, legally, scan the lady, even if she wants to abort as they need to find out how far long the pregnancy is.

    Please prove where and how these places, and our group for that matter, ‘by providing them with inaccurate, deliberately misleading information’ ?

    I think you’ll find that any medical and scientific site will show accurately the gestation of the unborn baby, it is just another truth you all want to deny.

    Like

    • Unfortunately, CPCs are well-known for their underhanded tactics used to convince women to continue pregnancies to term. A simple Google search will find many examples of CPCs use of misleading tactics. These are documented in varied news sources (not just specifically pro-choice sites).

      I did not accuse your specific church group of providing misleading information.

      If you go back and re-read my post, you’ll see that it discusses what I was worried about in joining the counter-protest, given everything I’d read recently about anti-choice groups.

      In fact, wasn’t planning to include any information about your group’s side of the protest at all, but then decided to add the paragraph at the end to make sure I didn’t mislead anyone into thinking that your group was a violent one like the groups I’d discussed in the post.

      And yes, I am American.

      Thanks for reading and engaging – it’s always appreciated.

      Like

  10. Thank you for allowing our comments on your site too, I think it is very just of you.

    Do you not think it is incredibly different here to America though? In terms of our group (which has no affiliation to the Church just behind where we stand BTW), we do not go there to counsel women and anyway, no abortions (unless emergencies) are done on a Saturday there so it is a very different thing to standing outside an abortion mill’s door and trying to talk to the women entering.

    What do you truly think of the video too?

    Like

    • I don’t know much about anti-choice protests in England as a whole; obviously your demonstration was not like the ones I discuss in the post. Like I said, attending the counter-protest got me thinking about the issues, and your group just happened to be the one that I was going to counter-protest at the time.

      Obviously I don’t agree with a lot of the language in the captions in the video, but rhetoric is a huge part of this whole debate. I call myself pro-choice, you call me pro-abortion or pro-death. You call yourself pro-life, I call you anti-choice or anti-woman.

      The protest in the video is very different to the one that I attended; we still played pro-woman songs, but there was no attempt to cover any messages. If you had tried to cover our messages, I can imagine we would have been equally upset.

      It’s frustrating that this is such an emotionally laden issue that actual discussion seems almost impossible.

      You sincerely believe that abortion is an atrocity, and that I am perpetuating evil by arguing that it is a woman’s right. I sincerely believe that it is vitally important that abortion be safe, legal, and without stigma, and that fighting for it to be banned is misogynistic and dangerous. Those are some difficult positions from which to begin a conversation.

      Like I said in my post, I just wish that, instead of focusing JUST on convincing women to carry pregnancies to term, groups who oppose abortion would spend more time working to help reduce the need for it.

      Working for comprehensive and accurate sex and relationship education (since abstinence-only education is shown to increase teen pregnancy rates, at least in the US), making sure that contraception is affordable (this is more of an American issue) and widely available, working to address issues of poverty (since many women cite financial constraints as reason for terminating a pregnancy), working to address domestic violence, and working to improve access to affordable childcare are all actions that could potentially reduce abortion rates, while also making communities better for women, men, children, and families.

      From my personal point of view, those would be the actions of someone who was truly “pro-life”.

      Like

  11. All the pro life organisations I have ever worked alongside offer counsel, financial aid, relationship advice and even homes for the expectant mother and then her baby too. I have donated much of my pregnancy and baby goods to these organisations. They even offer to put the woman through college or Uni too.

    I have never heard of abstinence programmes increasing the abortion rate…rather contraception. The U.K has the highest pregnancy rate *and* the highest abortion rate in the whole of Europe.
    the sex education literature is truly shocking- children being taught various sexual positions, explicit sexual chat and many dubious organisations such as Connexions offering ‘family planning advice; under the guise of careers help!
    I don’t know about the USA, but here in England a girl can be given the Morning after pill (which has been known to kill girls) but a teacher is not allowed to give her a paracetamol for a headache!
    Parental rights are daily abused when young girls, as young as 11!, are given the Pill or the MAP. Sleeping around at this tender age is so unhealthy for the body and the spirit; they are just not ready emotionally, or physically, to have a sexual relationship, yet we’re overloaded with it by the media, by schools, by sexual health organisations…If you ask me this is a form of child abuse and the problems it is incurring are countless.

    Like

    • Hi Amanda, I thought it might be helpful to share the ONS statistics on teen pregnancy. The under 18 conception rate in the UK is currently the lowest since records began in 1969 (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/conception-statistics–england-and-wales/2011/sty-conception-estimates-2011.html).

      Given the increase in access to contraception/ sex education since 1969 these stats suggest, if anything, that freely available contraception does act to reduce the number of teen pregnancies/abortions (abortions for under 18s have also fallen according to the ONS). But this is a complex topic – you’ll note from the ONS stats that the most deprived areas have the highest rates of under 18 conception and the wealthiest areas have the opposite – so this is also a class issue. To reduce the discussion to “contraception causes abortion” misses the point quite spectacularly.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sian,

        Don’t celebrate just yet. Let’s wait for a few years to see what the stats are like for breast and cervical cancer and other related diseases and infections among the young women currently being peddled drugs and devices to distort their body’s natural functioning. Let’s hold off partying until we have those stats to hand. There will definitely be a day of reckoning for this scandalous abuse of the human body and in the case of abortion, two bodies.

        Like

  12. Also contraception is not 100% effective so if teenagers have sex (and there is so much pressure for them to do so now) they are taking a risk in getting pregnant even if they take the pill or use a condom, that’s why most methods are more like 99% effective with correct use, also the more times school kids/teenagers have sex, the more likely they are to take risks. So contraception does not prevent abortion, making sex ed compulsory isn’t going to solve the problem. It’s only going to make children more and more sexually active at a younger age, increase the rate of sexually transmitted infections and cause more pregnancies with a large number ending in abortion (which is already happening).

    On a different subject, I don’t know about the pro-lifers who have been hypocrites (we’re all sinners and no-one is perfect) but there are many who are doing what they can do help women such as those who support LIFE charity and help provide accommodation to homeless pregnant women in abusive relationships, check out their website: http://lifecharity.org.uk/about-life/about-us/

    Like

  13. Better sex education will reduce abortions: I did my sex education from 1995-1998. We studied, in detail, the many contraceptives available to the female sex and the one for men. We handled each, looked at it’s pros and cons and practiced putting condoms on carrots. We were told where to get free condoms from and how to arrange an abortion if any of the above failed. We watched a lengthy drama abouta teacher having a sexual relationship with a pupil and discussed love and how to know when you are ready. We watched a video about masturbation and discussed getting to know your body.
    My first question is, what did my sex ed fail to cover and how could it be improved to help reduce pregnancies?

    I became pregnant at uni, aged 19. Funnily enough, my initial reaction was one of amazed joy. The uni nurse said, “it’s nice to see someone smiling. Usually they all cry.”
    My second question is, if abortion is a procedure, easy to procure and likened to having a tooth taken out, why would very young women who have never seen an ultrasound and probably had little contact with babies, cry? (nb I don’t think as many cry when they are told they’ve got to have a tooth removed-even a wisdom one!)

    My main desire in life is to have a large family, preferably 6 or more children, and stay at home to raise them while my husband earns the money.
    My third question is, why do I frequently have to defend this position to people who are “pro child, pro family, pro choice”?

    Like

    • Dear Emma
      Your posting is interesting but when talking about so called contraception it should be noted that most so called contraceptives are Abortifacient as they work After fertilization has taken place The IUD Some Pills ,Norplant {rod in arm ],,,Depo provera [the injection},The Morning After Pill,and RU486 the abortion pill…so effectively it is a very early abortion the environment inside the womb is then so hostile to this new life it cannot survive .Many people do not realise this The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children do brilliant leaflet on Abortifacient so called contraception please see their website Sadly most so called contraception is little more than total Human pesticide and can and does have serious side effects on the female Human body
      Wake up you so called feminists you pay a huge and heavy price in your quest to render yourselves infertile ..and for reproductive wrongs

      Like

      • Hi Wendy,
        I don’t you think you understood the point of the first question I was asking”iwasahighschoolfeminist”. In her main article she mentioned that better (meaning more explicit) sex ed and access roto more artificial birth control would somehow eradicae unwanted pregnancies and remove the need for abortions.
        My point was that 15 odd years ago Iwas subjected to very explicit sex ed and it has become more explicit and marketed to an increasingly younger age group and yet I and many many other women become pregnant in less than ideal circum@stances. I wanted her to tell me HOW better sex ed andbirth control will make abortion obsolete.
        In addition, i am aware that most birth controls are abortoficients. I find it tragic that in these sex ed classes girls are NOT taught how these devices actually work and what devastating impact they can have on a woman’s body. I have had to explain to a sister and a cousin recently, following their marriages and their desire to start a family. My sister went on the pill in her early 20s. It took a couple of months for her cycles to return and when they did, she has told me she can’t believe how different she feels: less irritable, greater libido etc..Y cousin went on the pill in her teens. She came off it in September after being on it for over 10 years. She is still waiting for her cycles to return. Neither knew how a menstrual cycle worked and how the pill worked against this most feminine of things.
        Incidentally, the writer claims allowing gay couples to adopt (which they can) will reduce the abortion rate. There is already a LONG waiting list for parents desiring new born babies. Where are the babies these people long for? Killed in the abortion factories. Why would making the lists longer by adding gay couples reduce abortions?new

        Like

    • Hi Emma, the author of the blog post actually calls for “accurate, comprehensive sexual and relationship education” and not, as you claim, “explicit” sex education. It’s really important that we are all accurate with our language – especially when discussing such an emotive issue.

      Like

      • Tell me what and how accurate, comprehensive sexual and relationship education would cover according to this lady’s views.

        Like

    • Emma,

      As a retired secondary school teacher I apologise on behalf of education authorities everywhere for the filth with which you were indoctrinated during your school days. The fact that you managed to survive it without having the natural desire for a large family killed off (literally, if the pro-death lobby have their way) does not excuse the scandal of the way the anti-baby groups are filling young minds with the information you describe.

      Ask yourself this: do YOU want your children learning from their youngest days, that sex is all about disease and death? Is that really the message to give to young people about God’s beautiful way of allowing (married) human beings to co-operate in the continuance of the human race?

      Like

      • I completely agree with you, editor. The first 6 words of my original post should have been in quotation marks as it is another refrain that is sung over and over by these people. I found my sex ed classes obscene and cringe-worthy and I wasn’t the only one.
        The strange thing is that self-proclaimed feminists want more and more of it and that’s why I wanted the blog author to tell me what se should my syllabus have contained that would magically end the need for abortions.
        I feel sex ed when I was at school disempowered girls and you.g women, and (in my opinion) it is mind-bogglingly worse now!
        The culture in the school meant questions like “are you STILL a virgin” echoed in the corridors and if you were and didn’t seem desperate to end that state, you were obviously “frigid”!
        The reason I ended up pregnant at 19 was peexiselt because I had been taught that it was better to get tkjr first sexual experience iver as soob as possible and I wasn’t taught HOW to extricate myself from a situation i didn’t want to be in!

        Like

  14. The tragedy of Abortion is it is hidden and supported by LIES ….even when the biological facts are so obviously there ..hidden by euphemisms conveniently created by abortion minded people clump of cells ,clot of blood ,products of pregnancy all weave a fantasy situation for people who want to hide the truth …EVERY abortion takes at least one precious Human Life our little unseen ,preborn Brothers and Sisters these beautiful and miraculous little beings slaughtered in ways that if it were Animals there would be a huge outcry [and quite rightly so ]….and at all gestations right up to Birth …
    Their futile and ignorant excuses for killing babies on a massive scale is choice ..choice of what? To suffer an abortion that could leave you sterile ,unable to bear another child or with severe mental and physical problems ..more open to breast cancer and a broken woman !Abortion is racist…it is a well known fact that the ration of Ethnic/Mixed people are open to greater pressure and of course the Disabled really do not stand a chance …thereby making Medical people less sympathetic to a disabled new-born .
    The anti life movement is built on intimidation ,lies and a hatred of Human beings you cannot love someone while planning their demise and encouraging others to do the same .
    Also going to peaceful Pro Life events with spoons ,drums ,hideous music and extremely bad manners covering banners with pieces of cloth ..abhorrent but then anything to hide the truth and to stop others finding it .is the common pro death tactic .
    It is strange to see and witness all these so called feminists with their tired and ugly rhetoric actually do not seem to have much to say regarding the deliberate slaughter of a Baby due to its sex !!!!!!!!!Millions of baby Girls have lost their lives for simply being Female yet the Sistas never rock the abortion boat on this one do they ?
    The next time you decide to do a crude and obscene rag time alongside a Pro Life event why not ponder at just how many women you are condemning to a painful ,tearful life who often and secretly longs for the precious life that she allowed to be taken ?
    There really is nothing to rejoice about in this most abhorrent act on Earth… Sistas

    Like

  15. During WWII, many pregnant women in concentration camps had their babies forcibly aborted. The ‘method’ commonly employed was a Nazi officer’s jackboot, stamped upon the abdomen – with the inevitable grisly consequences…. The fiends who did this were rightly convicted at the Nuremberg Trials of ‘crimes against humanity’, since the unborn babies were just as human as their mothers.

    Some 20 years after Nuremberg, the 1967 Abortion Act was passed here in the UK – and the deliberate killing of unborn human life suddenly became a ‘choice’, a ‘service’ and a ‘women’s right’. This is one of the worst examples of double standards in human history, when abortion is ‘all wrong’ when it suits one agenda, then becomes ‘all right’ when it suits another.

    The method employed is not the issue here. Every abortion has the same result – a dead baby and a traumatised mother.

    Like

      • You probably already know about this website, but for the benefit of others, there’s also hhttp://www.imnotsorry.net/ where women who have had abortions talk about their experience and make it crystal clear that they are fine with their decision and that the abortion was neither traumatic nor regretted.

        Like

      • Thanks for the link – I actually hadn’t heard of it! I’ve only just discovered notalone.us and exhaleprovoice.org, both of which encourage women to talk about their experiences in order to both help them process the experience and to work to de-stigmatize abortion.

        Your name on this comment isn’t clickable – do you have a blog or twitter I could follow?

        Like

  16. “Abortion terminates a pregnancy. It does not kill a child. To claim that it does is over-simplifying rhetoric, as is the refrain that “life begins at conception” ….

    Rhetoric. ‘Terminate a pregnancy’ versus ‘kill a child’ and never the twain shall meet. Perhaps we all need to agree on what abortion actually does.

    ‘Terminate a pregnancy’ is perfectly neutral sounding: like terminating a contract – something is simply being brought to an end.

    But what IS being brought to an end? Here’s a definition from a quick Google search:

    Pregnancy: The state of carrying a developing embryo within the female body
    (source: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11893

    What is an embryo? Again, from google:

    Embryo: Baby in the early developmental stage
    (source: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Embryo)

    So, a reasonable definition might be:
    Termination of a pregnancy: The action of ending a pregnancy, that is to say ending the state of carrying within the female body a developing embryo, i.e. a baby in the early developmental stage.

    Let’s say pro-lifers replaced the phrase ‘abortion kills children’ with ‘abortion kills babies’? Would that still be unacceptable? If so, are pro-choicers saying that the embryo which the woman is carrying is not a baby? And if so, do they have a specific point at which they would accept that what is being carried by a woman during pregnancy is a baby? 24 weeks perhaps? That doesn’t really work, since several babies have been born at 21 weeks and survived into childhood and beyond. 21 weeks, then? How do you decide a cut off point?

    What about when the heart starts to beat at about 21 days after conception? Does having a beating heart make that tiny embryo human? It certainly makes it alive! And if it’s alive, what is it? I could only guess it’s human. And at just 21 days after conception, many women do not even know they are pregnant, never mind being organised enough to start planning for an abortion.

    My point is, don’t we all at some point have to accept that from the earliest stages, that embryo is at least human? And that means that when we ‘terminate a pregnancy’ we terminate a human life. We can talk about blobs, contents of the womb, pregnancy products but isn’t that misleading? Wouldn’t it be more honest if at the very least we could all agree that abortion ends a human life?

    ‘Terminates a pregnancy’ is as misleading in its forced neutrality as ‘Abortion kills children’ can be in conjuring up an image of a cute little toddler being executed. How can we debate fruitfully about the wrongs and rights surrounding abortion if we cannot even honestly agree about exactly what abortion does?

    Like

  17. Hello – I wanted to comment because you are obviously open to having the conversation about this, and that is all too rare in this debate! I agree with a lot of what you say: pro-lifers should never use violence, nor should they spread false information. (Though a great deal of this stuff is heavily disputed – the Rolling Stone word ‘lies’ is too strong, surely.) And of course it is not enough to end abortion: economic justice matters hugely. So does support for parents – and to be fair, many pro-life groups do heroic work on that front.

    Many of the most ardently pro-choice people I know are also the most committed to women’s rights and to social justice, and in their minds, the two are closely linked. But I still find it very difficult to take the pro-choice position as an intellectually credible one, and here’s why. There is nearly always a question going unanswered. When does life begin? Everything hinges on that. If you could persuade me that life begins at, say, the moment of birth, I would immediately start campaigning for better abortion rights, including late-term abortions. But if I could persuade you that life begins at the moment of conception, I have no doubt that you would straightaway fill out a membership form to join Feminists For Life!

    You raise some very important questions which every pro-lifer needs to consider. But I can’t help thinking there’s a major question that every pro-choicer needs to answer, too.

    Like

  18. Sian, I think you’ll find that contraception and abortion are inextricably linked and so ‘To reduce the discussion to “contraception causes abortion” misses the point quite spectacularly.’ I refute this sentence as I did not reduce the discussion to this, however, wherever there is contraception there is *always* abortion.

    It is a know fact that dishing out contraceptives have made for a far more promiscuous society and as for saying to Emma (or did you mean myself?) we need to use accurate language you are right, so why do the pro-abortion lobby continually hide behind words such as ‘termination, ”clump of cells’, ‘pregnancy parts’ etc? At least admit it is a human life! In fact many pro-abortion activists admit quite freely it IS a baby (Ann Furedi being one of them) yet it is still acceptable to kill him/her. She said this in Oxford University at a debate with the Pro life society there and was overheard by at least 90 people.

    I am not sure what sex education you have been using/looking at but I can assure you any rational person, especially a loving parent, will tell you it is overly explicit and outrageous to think children as young as 5 are being exposed to this in school. As children are now having sex, they sex ed lobby have changed tactics and are bringing in more sexually explicit material so that these children are armed in contraceptive advice and knowledge. But you can never teach a child what it is like to have sex. It is devoid of real love because sexual education should never be taught publicly.

    To be honest, falling pregnant should be the least of a child’s worries in this sick society- you forget to mention HIV which can actually kill you. Condoms are LESS than 80% successful and are usually not even put on properly and the Pill falls under 90% so with constant usage of contraceptives (many of which are abortifacients) the abortion rate creeps up and up.

    Like

  19. Hi, just want to ask another question:
    “iwasahighschoolfeminist” thinks it is unacceptable for pro-life (or anti-choice) people to stand outside clinics either praying, trying to convince women to change their minds or hold banners/placards etc. somewhere she has stated something to the effectof not imposing your views onto women who have already made a difficult decision.

    I would like to ask, what would she do if she saw a murder about to be committed on the other side of the street? Let us say it is a woman who has a difficult young toddler – she hasn’t had much sleep and the child is prone to tantrums. Would you walk by thinking it is none of your business, the 1-2 year old doesn’t really have a concept of life so it is the woman’s choice, this child is probably taking attention away from other, older children, this child is preventing the woman from having a career as the child won’t settle in a nursery.
    What would you do if you saw this woman about to murder this child?

    If you would run across and try and talk her out of this decision you believe she will regret, I hope you understand WHY pro-life people hold protests outside abortion clinics and why they can’t stay quietly at home letting women exercise “their right to choose”.

    Like

  20. To believe that the teenage conception rate has fallen is another myth and untruth peddled by the anti life brigade to lull people into thinking that giving children barely out of Junior School Human pesticides known as so called contraception is the panacea for all ills .The conception rate for under 18 s has probably skyrocketed but you see these little unseen conceptions are melted away and aborted at a very early age by Human Pesticides !!!!!!..in the guise of reproductive rights ..sorry wrongs ….so these statistics are only bandages covering the infected wound of this Society
    Nature will never be beaten and there is a heavy price to pay for abandoning Motherhood .both physically and mentally .
    Abortion is the total elephant in the room it has mocked and distorted Medicine ,Gynaecology ,The Hippocratic Oath ,and medics themselves ..how can you be keeping a little Soul of 26 weeks alive in one room while Aborting a much older gestation Baby in another ,and operating en utero on a sick baby then piercing another baby’s heart with a needle or sticking scissors in its neck to kill it ..the difference one is wanted the other is not!!!!!…How can you have healing hands and killing ones ?…Sadly Gynaecology has become a dirty word .
    You can almost hear the conversation at the end of a working day oh well its been a good days work Nurse x obliterated 30 products of pregnancy today
    Oh brave and vile New World

    Like

  21. I was a high school feminist: I thought you should read the truth about the Savita case here (since someone mentioned it earlier) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiDSBHPwbeQ

    If Savita had an abortion, it would NOT have saved her life, it would have brought on her death quicker, abortion is no cure to scepticaemia. Savita died because of negligence and bad practice of medical staff, NOT because she was supposedly denied an abortion. The media have twisted the story and have not stated the real facts.

    Like

  22. My post is not really to do with this specific topic, but more the manner in which it is put across. So far from the ‘pro-life’ group, I have seen wild aspersions, unsubstantiated claims and little evidence (I mean, come on, a youtube video as “evidence”?!)

    A lot of the arguments seem to be based from an emotional stand-point, but just saying things strongly doesn’t make them true. For example:

    Wendy Walker: “The tragedy of Abortion is it is hidden and supported by LIES ….even when the biological facts are so obviously there” – an unsubstantiated assertion, what are these self-evident biological facts? Can you please show me the, peer-reviewed, journal articles supporting whatever is the biological fact you are claiming?

    Instead, show some evidence for your claim. For example, you mention abortions cause long term mental health problems in women. Here is a peer-reviewed article (Stotland NL (2003). “Abortion and psychiatric practice”. J Psychiatr Pract 9 (2): 139–49.) investigating the link between abortions and mental health in the women having them. It concludes: “”Currently, there are active attempts to convince the public and women considering abortion that abortion frequently has negative psychiatric consequences. This assertion is not borne out by the literature: the vast majority of women tolerate abortion without psychiatric sequelae.”

    Also: the claim by Amanda Lewin: “…you forget to mention HIV which can actually kill you. Condoms are LESS than 80% successful…” is also unsubstantiated. Instead see this journal article (Rietmeijer et al., JAMA., (1988); 259(12):1851-1853) entitled “Condoms as Physical and Chemical Barriers Against Human Immunodeficiency Virus” which concludes “These results indicate that intact latex condoms are impermeable to HIV and that condoms containing nonoxynol 9 may inactivate HIV in case of condom slippage or breakage under conditions permitting an nonoxynol 9 concentration greater than 0.25%. ”

    I am not saying that everything to do with abortion is clear cut, but it deserves to be spoken about in clear terms, alongside evidence, not with hearsay and vitriol.

    Like

  23. It is well known that condoms are not safe why do you think so many baby’s are conceived by condom failure? Bursts ,slips ,and as condoms are made from Latex there are millions of microscopic natural occurring holes so sperm and germ can slip through .
    Even when a Pro Life person presents facts the pro death brigade will do everything in its power to refute it ……if you can refute that a baby is not a Human being within the womb ,
    or that life begins at conception ..or that abortion does NOT kill a Baby then there’s not much point .
    And come to think of it talking about vitriol then just look at the pro death camps behaviour when they go to peaceful ,prayerful Pro Life baby saving events ..enough said

    Like

  24. The Youtube video I posted was to show the blog author what really happens at our Pro Life witness and how the pro-death camp truly behave. I’m sorry that you haven’t bothered to read the posts before commenting properly yourself yet the reason I sent it was to prove how vile their tactics are.

    As for condom failure – a quick search on the web as I see you have done, and it comes up with a teen health site; http://kidshealth.org/teen/expert/birth_control/effective_condoms.html explaining with EIGHT different points how to use condoms effectively. Are you telling me a teen boy will follow all these ‘rules’ religiously to make his condom effective? Doubtful. Are you telling me that condoms never split or sperm leaks through?
    The same inefficiency applies to the Pill…thousands of girls who fall pregnant exclaim ‘I forgot to take my Pill’ and then choose abortion as their next means of contraception.

    About the serious psychiatric damage abortion does- have you ever listened to a woman who has experienced and regretted her abortion? I have countless times and it would break your heart. Apart from the (very real) physical problems which can and do occur, the ongoing mental and emotional ones are so significant woman have committed suicide or been unable to ever conceive again.

    Dr Philip Ney you will find has done intensive research into the aftermath of abortion so much so there is an illness named Post abortion syndrome.
    You should look him up and find out the true affects of what abortion does to harm women, babies and society on the whole.

    Like

  25. Thank you for your replies, but you have, I’m afraid, just proven my point.

    Wendy Walker: “It is well known that condoms are not safe why do you think so many baby’s are conceived by condom failure?” This is unsubstantiated. If it is well known you should easily be able to show me the evidence: where are the sources, the data?

    The youtube video I was referring to was from the post above mine, about the Savita case.

    Amanda Lewin: And again, you don’t show any data, you just cite “I talked to these people and look what they thought, therefore everything is like that”. Post-abortion syndrome, from a quick search of the literature, is not accepted as an actual syndrome by medical professionals (and by bodies such as the American Psychological Association). (Apart from the citation already given above, see: Grimes DA, Creinin MD (2004). “Induced abortion: an overview for internists”. Annals of Internal Medicine 140 (8): 620–6. On p. 624, the authors state: “The alleged ‘postabortion trauma syndrome’ does not exist.”) Now this is not to say that there are not complicated emotional issues around abortion, but the idea that you can blanket everyone with ‘suffering’ the same thing is simply not true, as shown by the literature.

    The idea of science is to question everything and strive forward. If an idea is wrong an alternative will be put forward and, if correct, will become the new norm. In this case it seems the majority of medical opinion (i.e. the people truly qualified to talk about medical conditions) does not believe that abortions cause long term psychological effects in women who have abortions. (See this review of studies into exactly this effect: Charles VE, Polis CB, Sridhara SK, Blum RW (2008). “Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence”. Contraception 78 (6): 436–50. They also mention a review of abortion and mental health issues by Dr Philip Ney which finds the result ‘inconclusive’ i.e. he could not find sufficient data to support the claim that it causes psychological harm.)

    Like

  26. Are you using Wiki and this for your evidence;

    Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence.
    Charles VE1, Polis CB, Sridhara SK, Blum RW.
    Author information
    Abstract
    Claims that women who have elective abortions will experience psychological distress have fueled much of the recent debate on abortion. It has been argued that the emotional sequelae of abortion may not occur until months or years after the event. Despite unclear evidence on such a phenomenon, adverse mental health outcomes of abortion have been used as a rationale for policy-making. We systematically searched for articles focused on the potential association between abortion and long-term mental health outcomes published between January 1, 1989 and August 1, 2008 and reviewed 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. We rated the study quality based on methodological factors necessary to appropriately explore the research question. Studies were rated as Excellent (no studies), Very Good (4 studies), Fair (8 studies), Poor (8 studies), or Very Poor (1 study). A clear trend emerges from this systematic review: the highest quality studies had findings that were mostly neutral, suggesting few, if any, differences between women who had abortions and their respective comparison groups in terms of mental health sequelae. Conversely, studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion.

    Surely having heard many first hand experiences with abortion plus reading hundreds of cases of post-abortive women’s experiences count for something more concrete than the study above?
    Abortion is known to affect a woman sometimes years later so how can this be accounted for? Sometimes 20, 30 years later.

    Like

  27. That was indeed the review I meant.

    And no, sole personal experience doesn’t count for more than the study above I’m afraid, because that’s not how science works. The study above is actually a review of, as it says, 21 medical studies into exactly this issue. A systematic medical review, in a peer reviewed journal, has found that there is no link.

    Again “Abortion is known to affect a woman sometimes years later”. Who knows this? Where is the proof? (I don’t know if you actually have access to the article itself, but in it goes into much more detail about the type of analysis and also how many people and over what time period these studies were done: “Sample sizes ranged from 120 to 133,950; and maximum follow-up time was 25 years.”)

    Like

  28. If anyone wants to access scientific research into the harm abortion does to women, I would recommend this link http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf

    This research paper, titled ‘The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors’ was published in a 2007 edition of the American Journal of Physicians and Surgeons.

    One of its findings was that having a very first pregnancy aborted is ‘especially carcinogenic’. Why are women never told about this?

    Like

  29. Hello, thanks for posting a link to a publication! However; in science the importance of peer review, and of credibility, is important and it seems this journal fails on that account.

    While it claims that papers are subject to peer review, it is not indexed by any of the major scientific databases, and is not supported by mainstream medical professions. (It also, apparently has papers that suggest that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/bauer.pdf, which is against majority, supported medical opinion.)

    The reason I looked to research further was, after reading the paper, I noticed that, while there is a correlation between breast cancer incidence and abortions against time, there was no attempt made to explain this link. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation (http://www.tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=7) and there is more likely an underlying cause for both.

    Like

    • For your info, the abortion-breast cancer link has actually been known about since 1957 (study carried out in Japan, by Segi et al). A number of independent studies have confirmed the link since then.

      It’s always the way, however, that researchers’ work gets decried and belittled by those whose perspective remains unchangeable. The researchers themselves are often demonised as ‘religious bigots’ or people with a misogynist axe to grind’ and their methods dismissed as ‘junk science’.

      Well, here’s a challenge to all naysayers and geniuses – instead of rubbishing other people’s research, why not spend your ‘nickel and time’ carrying out some of your own? I look forward to seeing full details of your methodology and results published in due course.

      Like

      • If you include the link above as one of the articles that confirm the link then, as I stated before, it isn’t valid. Of the brief look through I have found that many papers that claim a link between breast cancer and abortion have a religious connection; i.e. a bias is introduced.

        I can’t find the paper you are referring to, can you give more details?

        Plus, in the scientific community, research is graded by its merit and validity. The fact that the research supporting this link is not agreed with is not as a result of political or personal views. It’s because it isn’t valid science.

        See Melbye et al. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:81-85 “Induced Abortion and the Risk of Breast Cancer”, which concludes: “Induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.” http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701093360201 (Just of note, the New England Journal of Medicine that that article comes from has the highest impact factor in the field of clinical medicine. Whilst not a perfect measure, the impact factor suggests that medical research published in this journal is considered the highest quality and of most scientific interest.)

        Also a high-impact factor journal, the Lancet titled: “Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83 000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries ” which concludes: “Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions.” Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer , The Lancet. Volume 363, Issue 9414, 27 March 2004, Pages 1007–1016. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673604158352)

        “It’s always the way, however, that researchers’ work gets decried and belittled by those whose perspective remains unchangeable. ”

        Indeed, I find this too!

        Like

      • Hi Wendy – I’m going to have to ask you to refrain from personal attacks against other readers in my comments. I know that I don’t have a posted commenting policy, so I understand if you did not understand that personal attacks and name-calling are not appropriate. I’m working on a comment policy at the moment as a result of some of these discussions.

        Joe pointed out that the studies that P. McKay provided are not scientifically valid; he did not “discount” them.

        Providing links to faulty and flawed studies does not count as providing evidence; it is actually spreading lies and misinformation, something that I know, from all of the comments accusing pro-choicers of lying, you and many of the other people commenting on this post are against.

        Like

  30. It would seem no matter whatever proof ,facts ,figures ,etc. you place before abortion minded people THEY NEVER are satisfied they will nit pick ..its their way of justifying their beliefs .
    As Pro Life people who live with abortion and its horrific consequences around the clock we know people so damaged by abortion they can poor Souls hardly function and also with people who through disability have been side-lined and feel useless because Society thinks these people are NOT equal and should have been aborted .
    Hundreds of Pro Life Conferences later and all the informative things you hear at them thousands of statistics milling around and do the abortionists listen NO ..they have their own evil agenda of Slaughter and death .However lethal and bad for health these findings are they will deny them Post abortion trauma[ well hang on do not Abortion mills even have the gall to offer post abortion counselling ?.]….breast cancer …oh got to refute that one ..sex selection …the Sistas prefer to really ignore that one too despite its mainly Girls aborted ……..
    Many years ago a Great SAGE of out times Mrs Victoria Gillick was heckled and insulted by anti lifers for declaring the dangers of The [Kill] Pill she predicted Fishes would be affected ,and through imbibing drinking water that has been contaminated by the |Hormones in The [kill]Pill via Females urinating Human Males would suffer a myriad of Hormonal imbalances …today she has been proved right ..so you see Statistics sometimes take a long while to be proven .
    The killing machine of Abortion ploughs on and its adherents dream up slogans and chants and disgraceful arguments to support it ..but when it all boils down it is so basic so black and white ABORTION KILLS A LIVING HUMAN BABY ……..if there is no baby to kill then why have an abortion either chemical or surgical ?……Leave things as they are and hey presto some Months later you have a beautiful baby ..not a baby then ?
    Abortionists should also remember that they also were once a tiny ,precious pre born baby snuggled in its Mums womb .

    Like

    • The benefit, and problem, with the internet is it gives everyone a platform to air their views. This does not mean that all views are equally credible.

      The ‘nitpicking’ is not that, it is trying to find clear, substantiated, rigorously tested evidence. So far I have shown articles in journals that have been through this process. You have not.

      Like

  31. People talk about “saving children” but don’t do shit about the masses of infanticide of female newborns in Eastern countries.

    Like

    • This is totally untrue lots of Pro Life people in the UK contribute to Pro Life Groups abroad who fight to save Babies of both sexes .
      Sadly with such a massive number of Abortions in the Uk naturally our own Infanticides are paramount to us .
      All preborn infants are very precious to us as well as their Mothers

      Like

    • Excuse me but I don’t hear much from the so called feminists …during all the recent revelations regarding Gender Abortions being done here ..on Baby Girls…. the silence from the pro death came was deafening Did you picket the UK largest killing machine charnel house ?..or have demo /disco outside their premises …or mass e -mail them …I doubt it .Mustn’t rock the boat of choice must we even when its females dying

      Like

  32. It is also a FACT that a common and well known ploy of the pro death brigade is to put distraction input on to take peoples mind off of the main subject ..thereby lessening the argument …..Good try Joe

    Like

  33. Pingback: Friday morning links round-up! | I was a high-school feminist·

  34. Clearly anyone that dares to give any humanity to the least among us, lest it be inflated above the comforts and lifestyle of a woman and the rights of a man to remain a boy and not be father—need to be marginalised and their voice needs muzzling. Sure they can pray quietly in their church but if they dare interrupt the billion pound abortion industry in this country in their warfare against the pesty unborn, they will be dealt to by neurotic, ill tempered femonazis.

    Like

  35. i’m prolife. I do what i can to help the less fortunate among us. First i look after a wife who suffered depression since she was in her teens. Secondly I earn a small wage but always look how i may help someone practically. At church I help as a giver. The catholic church is the biggest relief and donor agency in the world (except the UN) . I also support a dozen families in Cebu following Yolanda and the earthquake. I know among those concerned about abortion, they also give. I welcome anyone who is in support of abortion to discover the truth for themselves.

    Like

  36. Pingback: Abortion myths vs realities. Part 1. | I was a high-school feminist·

  37. Another thing to add that so-called ‘counseling’ won’t do – it won’t magically make a fetus healthy if it’s doomed to an early, painful death due to physical/genetic defects. Nobody who goes in for one of the *extremely rare* third-trimester abortions is going willingly.

    Like

  38. Pingback: Abortion myths vs. realities: Part 2 | I was a high-school feminist·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s