On Abortion, Atheism and Feminism, a reply to Tristan Vick‏

Tristin Vick is touching upon some interesting subject matter over at Advocatus Atheist involving feminism, atheism and abortion. You can read the article in it's entirety here and I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to chime in on some of his assertions, so here we go! First off...

"The thing is, people are often extremely opinionated about things related to gender and identity. The reason I tend not to talk about such subjects here is not that I am disinterested but that people usually like to pull out the ad hominems and attack you when your opinion differs with theirs. Nobody seems able to simply agree to disagree. Instead of taking the time to write out a well reasoned criticism, like a civil person, they would rather call you sexist, racist, and so on. Usually, I find this juvenile behavior aggravating as it ends the conversation before it ever has a chance to begin."

I whole-heartedly agree that when someone actually has the wherewithal to actually poke their head up out of their foxhole to discuss any topics considered taboo ranging from feminism, sexism, racism and religion, one is then exposed to the barbs of others. Current discourse seems to be that an unfounded accusations such as sexism, racism, or bigotry are immediately hurled at one who is not like-minded. It seems quite unimportant to the Free-Speech Bigot whether or not they can actually back up such an accusation. The most important thing in the mind of such a lunatic who unthinkingly hurls such unfounded accusations is to simply to make the accusation. Thats all. By simply making the accusation, the Free-Speech Bigot (who btw, is usually quite convinced that they are on the side of the angels) has then changed the course of the discussion from the topic at hand to the motives of the person who initially stuck their head up and stated their opinion on an emotionally-charged subject. Yes, such juvenile behavior is aggravating and best left to the infantile minds that occupy the play area of the pre-school romper room on any given day. Next up from Vick...

"A good example of this is when I recently wrote about the lack of female atheist authors. I theorized that the long tradition of male ownership of publishing companies along with the masculine biological trait to tend to be domineering, all contributes to part of the reason why men want to dominate the philosophical discourse (maybe even the religious discourse overall)."

I think the reason that there is a "lack of female atheist authors" is quite simple, it's because of the fact that atheists tend to be men.

In support of my hypothesis I would cite atheist PZ Myers himself in his blog entry titled The Woman Problem.

It's an odd way to put it, I know, but it gets your attention. I could have called this the Atheist and Skeptic Problem, which is more accurate, but leads people to start listing all of our problems, starting with how annoying we are, and just for once I'd rather not go down that road. So here's the Woman Problem, and it's not a problem with women: it's a problem with atheist and skeptic groups looking awfully testosteroney. And you all know it's true, every time I post a photo of some sampling of the audience at an atheist meeting, it is guaranteed that someone will count the contribution of each sex and it will be consistently skewed Y-ward."

That, and when The New York Times describes a 2010 atheist convention as being "largely white and male" and much like "a Star Trek convention, but older" then it becomes increasingly clear that it's probably not a case of female atheists staying home, but rather that their numbers are few when compared to the overall number of male atheists.

Lastly, I was most intrigued by this statement from TV...

The fact of the matter is, when it comes to abortion, a medical procedure that directly impacts the woman's body, that's the woman's personal and private business and none of mine, or anyone else's, bees wax. Unless the woman is my partner specifically, or the one I am involved with, only then would I feel I had the right to chime in with my opinion with regard to the pros and cons of abortion."

I have a couple of questions here. Exactly who is the 'woman' being referred to here and whose rights trump the other's? Modern science has now made it possible to determine the sex of a fetus after just 7 weeks. Not long ago, one had to wait until the 10th week to determine if the fetus was a male or female. Given that science is usually advancing, isn't it highly believable that the current 7 week time can be improved upon and that someday we can find out the sex much closer to conception?

Why do the wants of the mother who wishes to abort the growing girl inside her ( or 'host' as I will refer to her) have the rights to kill another female? Doesn't the other female in this equation have a right NOT to want an abortion, which is a medical procedure that directly impacts the (very young) woman's body? Who gets to decide the winners and losers in the scenarios and, most importantly, why?

Being that men have the potential to be fathers in life, even at an advanced age, I do think that men can reasonably have a voice in these debates. I have a few ideas as to potential arguments as to which females get to dominate the other females, but I'll let Tristan respond and take it from there.

Is rape a legitimate reason for abortion?

"[M}any pro-abortionists are quick to bring up dire and extraordinary circumstances in order to divert our sympathies from the unborn child to the expectant mother. The most common of these circumstances are pregnancies resulting from sexual assault and ones that directly threaten the life of the mother. These situations need to be taken seriously, but are comparatively rare justifications for the procedure, which is performed more than 90,000 times in Canada every year. This argument...has been employed to justify all abortions, most of which are actually performed as a form of birth control. Anyone should be able to see through such casuistry, which tries to establish a rule based on exceptional cases."
Secular Humanist, Jackson Doughart Link

In examining the question of whether rape is justified in an instance of rape, I came across this email in today's Townhall that columnist Mike Adams recently received from one of his readers...

"I know you always get lambasted by the intolerant left. It means you're doing what's right. Anyway I wanted to send you this message, because I appreciate all your efforts. Almost 30 years ago, when I was 19 I was raped. I learned a month later that I was pregnant as a result. Everyone urged me to abort, but what struck me at the time was that that baby was as much a victim of the rape as I was. And it didn't deserve to be punished for it. I decided to carry the pregnancy to term, and place the baby up for adoption. In 1982, that baby was born and he was given to a wonderful Christian family, and I know that he has been a joy to them. I lost nothing by carrying that pregnancy to term. It didn't hurt me, or cause me to miss out on anything. There is nothing that can't be postponed to preserve an innocent life."

So we can see that delivering the child to term apparently did no harm to this lady. Scott Klusendorf sometimes gets the rape exception question when speaking on abortion and he describes how he deals with it...

"The abortion-choice position [that a pro-abortion 'crusader] defends is not that abortion should be legal only when a woman is raped, but that abortion is a fundamental right she can exercise for any reason she wants during all nine months of pregnancy.

Instead of defending this position with facts and arguments, he disguises it with an emotional appeal to rape. But this will not make his case. The argument from rape, if successful at all, would only justify abortion in cases of sexual assault, not for any reason the woman deems fit. In fact, arguing for abortion-on-demand from the hard case of rape is like trying to argue for the elimination of all traffic laws because a person might have to break one rushing a loved one to the hospital. Proving an exception does not prove a rule.

To expose his smokescreen, I ask a question: “Okay, I'm going to grant for the sake of discussion that we keep abortion legal in cases of rape. Will you join me in supporting legal restrictions on abortions done for socioeconomic reasons which, as studies on your side of the issue show, make up the overwhelming percentage of abortions?”2

The answer is almost always no, to which I reply, “Then why did you bring rape up except to mislead us into thinking you support abortion only in the hard cases?”

Again, if abortion-choice crusader thinks that abortion should be a legal choice for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, including sex-selection and convenience, he should defend that view directly with facts and arguments. Exploiting the tragedy of rape victims is intellectually dishonest."

I hope I've provided you with a little food for thought today. Unfortunately, I've tried Klusendorf's method of argumentation in public discussion forums several times recently and I have always met similar results. If, for the sake of argument, I am willing to set aside the so-called 'hard cases' and I try to get the person I am communicating with to look seperately at the issue that the overwhelming amount of abortions are committed NOT out of an instance of rape, they don't want to talk about it. They just insist that I'm trying to take away a woman's 'choice' on the matter an thust the vast chasm between the pro-abortion/pro-life camps remains and little if any productive talks can take place.

What are your thoughts on the matter? Feel free to leave your comment on this topic below in the combox.

The 98 Percent of Catholic Women Used Contraception Myth

"According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception" Source: whitehouse.gov, Link

While the White House and their unthinking synchophants are uncritically parroting the line that "98 percent" of Catholic women have used contraception, there is a rising chorus of questions being raised about the methodology utilized in the cited study that the regime is using to buttress their propaganda...

"During the recent debate over the Obama administration's birth control mandate, White House officials and many reporters have repeatedly said that 98 percent of all Catholic women have used birth control at some time in their life. This claim is being disputed.

The statistics come from an April 2011 study on women and contraceptive use published by the Guttmacher Institute. Reporter Mollie Hemingway stated bluntly on GetReligion.org, "Guttmacher erred in what it claimed were the results of its own study."

The study used a survey of 7,356 females aged 15 to 44 conducted between June 2006 and December 2008 by the National Center for Health Statistics. The sample did not include Catholic women older than 44...

..the sample itself is narrower than even Catholic females aged 15 to 44. A footnote under the chart states, "restricted to sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant." (The study defines "sexually active" as those who reported having sex in the previous three months.)"

In sum, the study finds that 87 percent of Catholic females between the ages of 15 and 44 who are having sex, not pregnant, not recently pregnant and trying to not get pregnant have used some form of birth control – a statistic far removed from saying that 98 percent of all Catholic women have used birth control."

Are there any other groups being left out of the (now we're down to) 87 percent? I guess we'll never know being that the last thing that the White House is interested in is finding out the truth in these numbers. This regime, through hook or crook, will manipulate it's way utilizing any method possible into pushing the pro-abort agenda.

Obama muzzles Catholic chaplains

As Obama's poll numbers plummet, it seems that in the waning days of his soon to be one-term presidency that there is a greater urgency to implement his ideals for a leftist utopia. Why worry about violating Freedom of Religion and Free Speech rights when you have a shot at remaking society?

"The Obama administration has been accused of telling Catholic military chaplains what they can and cannot say from their pulpits after the Army ordered Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop.

The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

The letter called on Catholics to resist the policy the Obama Administration’s policy that would force institutions affiliated with religious groups to provide coverage for birth control, sterilization and “abortifacients.” The Catholic Church believes the mandate represents an unconstitutional violation of freedom of religion.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told Fox News Sunday the Army violated its chaplains’ constitutional rights by barring them from reading the letter – calling for resistance to the contraceptive coverage mandate.

“The Army and the Obama administration said they couldn’t even issue the letter to complain about the Obama administration’s plan on this policy,” Santorum said, calling it a violation of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

“This is the problem when government tells you they can give you things,” said Santorum, a Catholic. “They can take it away but even worse they can tell you how they are going to exercise this new right consistent with their values instead of the values guaranteed in the Constitution.”

For a better idea of what of Archbishop Broglio's letter contained, just click here. The increasingly authoritarian stance of this administration imposing it's will on Americans is troubling and its no wonder that Americans fear the reelection of Obama by a 2 to 1 margin.

Komen Foundation beginning to smell the coffee

Great news today from our friends over at CBN. It seems that radical femi-nazi doctrine is beginning to lose hold over at least one institution...

"The Susan G. Komen Foundation, the nation's leading breast cancer charity, is severing financial partnerships with some Planned Parenthood affiliates.

The move from the foundation comes as Congress investigates whether Planned Parenthood improperly used public money for abortions.

"While it is regrettable when changes in priorities and policies affect any of our grantees, such as a long-standing partner like Planned Parenthood, we must continue to evolve to best meet the needs of the women we serve and most fully advance our mission," the foundation said in a statement issued Tuesday.

Founded in 1982, Komen has invested more than $1.9 billion in breast cancer research, health services and advocacy. Its Race for the Cure fundraising events have become a global phenomenon."

I realize that they said only 'some' Planned Parenthood affiliates would be affected, but we'll take what we can get at this point. I could never understand why an organization that is so committed to helping women would contribute to another organization that, at the same time, is actively and selectively destroying women.

The Catch-22 of Radical Feminist Pro-Aborts

To witness the contortions in which pro-aborts would have to stretch the imagination and twist truth on this topic would be laughable if the subject matter were not so serious....

"U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican from Arizona, has filed a bill that would accomplish those ends. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act would criminalize sex-selection abortion in the United States, subjecting physicians who perform such abortions to fines and imprisonment for up to five years. Organizations that perform sex-selection abortions would forfeit federal funding under the proposal. Women who seek the abortions would be exempt from prosecution.

The sad irony is that the same technological advances that have bolstered the pro-life cause -- ultrasound images -- have promulgated sex-selection abortion. Parents may now more easily determine the gender of their unborn child, and opt for an abortion accordingly...

Yet leftist groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have blitzed Franks' bill, calling it an attempt to circumvent access to abortion. "This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

That argument carries weight with the far-left spectrum of the pro-choice cause, but it won't fly with the general American public that decidedly supports restrictions on abortion. The logic isn't even coherent: How is ensuring that more females are born discriminate against women? On the flipside, how does aiding the termination of unborn females help women's liberation?"

I really don't see how they can squirm their way out of this one. We already know that such practices are carried out in highly secular Scandinavia and also in Vietnam. I wonder what made femi-nazis think for one moment that the cause that they so screechily and ardently support would not eventually amount to political hari-kari for thier own membership?

(Above: Baby development at 9 weeks)

12 Nurses stand up to Obama

Cathy Ruse reports that one hospital in New Jersey is getting more flak than they bargained for when they decided to compel healthcare workers to participate in abortion procedures, "their personal religious or moral objections" be damned...

"Under a new hospital policy, nurses in the “same-day surgery unit” at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey must participate in elective abortion cases even against their personal religious or moral objections. If ever there was a violation of conscience rights, this is it.

Myriad federal laws exist to protect the conscience rights of health care professionals, denoting their right not to have to “assist in the performance” of abortions or, indeed, to perform any religiously or morally objectionable procedure. The laws prevent the federal government, and state and local governments receiving federal funds, and even federally funded health entities, from discriminating against nurses or other providers who object to performing or assisting in the performance of abortion.

Yet the hospital is fighting back, asserting that as long as it does not compel their “direct” involvement in an abortion, the policy is beyond legal reproach.

It is easy to imagine a spirited debate over where the line should be drawn: If the nurses do not wield the instruments that actually kill the child, are they really participating? What if they hand them to someone else? What about sterilizing them? What if they are required to do prep work, such as assisting with anesthesia, or post-op and cleanup?"

The article mentions that the nursing field is considered more of a calling or vocation than a job. I cannot understand why the hospital is so inclined to trample on people's personal beliefs. That Obama is an extremist supporter of abortion, even to the point of infanticide, is beyond a doubt, and for what? A few measly votes from the farthest Left fringe? To say that this administration supports personal freedom is a joke.

Nancy Pelosi is lying

Bob Beauprez informs us....

"Because of ambiguities in the language of the ObamaCare legislation, House Republicans brought forward H.R. 358, The Protect Life Act, in October 2011 to preserve Conscience Clause protections for health care providers and to restate the ban on federal taxpayer funding for abortion. The legislation was consistent “with the original Stupak Amendment” according to Joe Pitts (R-PA), a sponsor of the bill, as well as the co-author of the original Stupak Amendment offered in the House during the ObamaCare and supposedly affirmed by Executive Order signed by Barack Obama to pacify pro-life Democrats prior to the passage of ObamaCare.

The pro-abortion crowd renamed the bill the “Let Women Die Act.” Pelosi characterized the legislation as “savage” and said, “When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health-care providers do not have to intervene, if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.” Pelosi made the outrageous claim even though H.R. 358 contained exceptions as found in the landmark Hyde Amendment for “abortions performed due to the child’s conception in rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.”

The Protect Life Act passed the House on Oct. 13, 2011 by a 251-172 margin, with just 15 Democrats voting with the Republicans. There are about 90 Democrats in the House that list “Catholic” as their faith, so Pelosi wasn’t the only Catholic Democrat that voted contrary to Church teaching. Thus far, Harry Reid has blocked the Act from a vote in the Senate."

So just remember this when the Left goes on about how the pro-life crowd wants 'women to die'. The most obvious reason that Pelosi seems to object that Catholics have this 'conscience thing' is because apparently she entirely lacks one. One of the hardest, prevailing myths to debunk among the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is the one concerning women dying en masse of back-alley, coathanger abortions but it appears that that one is going the way of the dodo as well. It finally appears that the pro-life movement is starting to turn the corner and this holiday season I am quite thankful that this appears to be the case.

Yet another sign that the apocalypse is upon us..

Nothing says that you are a complete pagan/heathen like sacrificing your child on the Lord's day...

"Regardless of one’s personal or political views on abortion, most people on both sides of the aisle would probably take issue with a clinic marketing coupon deals on the procedure as nonchalantly as if it were a manicure or spa-facial. On Monday, LifeNews reported that a coupon promising discount Sunday abortions for a “limited” time only, was issued by the Orlando Women’s Center – as if they were advertising a “fire sale.”

Do we really need such prompting? This is beyond sad and makes you wonder where our sick society is heading with such complete callousness as this.

Largest Study Ever: Abortion increases Mental Health Disorders by 81%

A special thanks to Fr. Longenecker for sharing this article via his blog.

"A new study published today in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that women who underwent an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. The study also found that almost 10% of all women’s mental health problems are directly linked to abortion.

Conducted by Priscilla K. Coleman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, USA, the study was based on an analysis of 22 separate studies and 36 measures of effect, that involved a total of 877,181 participants of whom 163,831 had experienced an abortion. The study took into account pre-existing mental health problems prior to the abortion.

“In order to avoid any allegations of bias,” Dr. Coleman explained, “very stringent inclusion criteria were employed. This means every strong study was included and weaker studies were excluded.

The research revealed that abortion was associated with a 34% increased risk for anxiety disorders; 37% greater risk of depression; 110% greater risk of alcohol abuse and 220% greater risk of marijuana use/abuse.

Abortion was also linked with a 155% greater risk of attempting to commit suicide."

Exactly where are all of the Femi-Nazis to decry such effects on women? Where was the expected Lead Story on any of the MSM outlets? You'll never find any because one should realize by now theat the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is fueled by a yearning for tacit approval by society for a self-indulgent, sloppy lifestyle and has nothing to do with 'women's rights' as the foolhardy are lead to believe.

Above photo from priestsforlife.org, Baby Samuel at 21 weeks grasping the finger of the surgeon operating on his mom's uterus

CINO Nonsense in Kentucky‏

It has been reported that the proposed merger of the University of Louisville Hospital with Catholic Health Initiatives has some people feeling uneasy. Chiefly among those who have misgivings about the merger are two Catholic In Name Only state representatives (who are both democrats) named Thomas Burch and Mary Lou Marzian who apparently suffer from self-identity issues. Some excerpts of what passes for persuasive argumentation in the op-ed piece that they jointly submitted to Kentucky.com are as follows...

"Representatives from Jewish Hospital, University Hospital and the University of Louisville have been reassuring patients that reproductive health services will not change after the merger with a Catholic medical institution, St. Mary's Healthcare. Their reassurances have not worked. Several hundred people have signed a statement opposing the move."

Isn't it interesting to see how effortlessly they replace the decidedly violent option of the killings of innocents with such sterile and Orwellian terminology like "reproductive health services"? Who could be against that? If I described the local meth dealer here as an "undocumented pharmacist", that makes him not sound so bad either and I seem like a heavy if I criticize him.

"..an advertisement released by the heads of the three hospitals assured readers "the merger partners are committed to expanding, not limiting, services," including tubal ligations performed at the time of Caesarean sections. We applaud their intentions, but we fear they may be somewhat naive."

If anyone in this discussion is "naive", it is you two. You seem quite content in criticizing the party that places emphasis on how precious human life is without ever examining the Culture of Death that is slowly, yet steadily creeping forward in western society. For instance, I would bet my bottom dollar that neither one of you could tell me what percent of babies that are euthanized in the Netherlands are done so without parental consent. From the cited article..

"It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. Moreover, since when did parents attain the moral right to have their children killed?



Euthanasia consciousness is catching. The Netherlands' neighbor Belgium decided to jump off the same cliff as the Dutch only two years ago. But already, they have caught up with the Dutch in their freefall into the moral abyss. The very first Belgian euthanasia of a person with multiple sclerosis violated the law; and just as occurs routinely in the Netherlands, the doctor involved faced no consequences. Now Belgium is set to legalize neo-pediatric euthanasia. Two Belgian legislators justify their plan to permit children to ask for their own mercy killing on the basis that young people "have as much right to choose" euthanasia as anyone else. Yet, these same children who are supposedly mature enough to decide to die would be ineligible to obtain a driver's license."

Please explain to me how this can't possibly happen here. Also, would an agency that has Catholic oversight be more or less likely to see such horrific, moral failure?

"At St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, Sister Margaret McBride lost her job for approving abortion care that saved a woman's life. Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted had her removed. Do we want local hospital workers to obey an authority that puts anything above the life of the patient?"

Given the nature of doctor/patient confidentiality rules, I doubt that either of you had any greater access to the patient's medical records than the rest of us and you are simply reporting second hand information. Carefully left out of your assertion are the facts that the Catholic Physicians Guild in Phoenix fully supported the bishop in this case and that at least one neonatalogy expert has questioned whether the abortion was really necessary.

Although I'm just some schmuck sitting in his undershirt in Florida, allow me to make a suggestion. Instead of advocating, in your own words, "a full range of reproductive health care", why not side with that the majority of pro-aborts who now agree that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are just plain wrong and support life for a change?

Why not try and be a representative of your denomination by following the example of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and pledge to help any pregnant woman in need? Carpe diem!

Obama - Fund abortion or we cut off low-income healthcare

In the tradition of open-mindedness, civility and caring for their citizens that characterizes other leftist leaders like Mao and Lenin, Obama is letting Indiana know what he thinks about initiatives to reduce the number of abortions in that state.

"A looming showdown over Indiana's new law that cuts funding for the Planned Parenthood organization may test how far Republican-led states are willing to go in pressing their tough new anti-abortion agendas. The stakes are high. The future of health care for more than 1 million poor and elderly Indiana residents hangs in the balance.

Indiana became the first state this year to cut off all government funds to Planned Parenthood, fulfilling conservatives' goal of financially weakening organizations that provide abortions. Other conservative states have considered such action in recent years but backed away under the threat of loss of all federal money for their Medicaid programs.

The willingness of Indiana, led by a Republican governor and GOP-controlled Legislature, to challenge the federal government and risk a huge financial penalty could take the issue into uncharted legal and political territory. Conservative leaders in other states will be watching the confrontation as they plan their own action on abortion and other social issues.

"I think this is an instance in which a state is really trying to overturn national policy and in so doing is likely to forego federal funding," said Christopher Arterton, professor of political management at George Washington University and an expert on federal-state issues."

Of course, we can't encourage responsible behavior. It's completely out of the question and the public is incapable of it. As always with the left, the violent option is first and foremost. The option that punishes the only completely innocent party in an unplanned pregnancy is the one who has to pay with their life. Way to go Chairman Zero. What else could we expect from someone who as a state senator condoned infanticide?

Yet another reason to dislike Eliot Spitzer

While doing some online studying recently, I came across something that caused me reexamine my dislike of Eliot Spitzer and view him in a whole new way. This goes back to his days as Attorney General of the state of New York and the personal war he waged against crisis pregnancy intervention centers...

"Anne Downey, who represents the Crisis Pregnancy Center of Western New York, says, "There certainly seems to be a political motivation" behind the attorney general's investigation: "We have never been given any specifics about this alleged violation at our center. We don't know if there's even a factual basis for this significant intrusion into our activities." Downey also complains that the investigators "keep coming back and narrowing what we are allowed to say"; for example, the attorney general wants CPCs to put up signs on their doors explicitly saying the centers are not abortion clinics.

In terms of political power, the struggle between abortion providers and CPCs is a mismatch. "In the city, there are about ten abortion providers for every crisis pregnancy center," says Peggy Hartshorne of Heartbeat International, a national pro-life organization. "There really is a gigantic need in New York City for more pregnancy centers. This whole campaign by the attorney general is designed to stop that.

What do CPCs do that so offends abortion-rights proponents? "The charade is that they provide alternatives, when they don't provide alternatives, they frighten women with horror films about abortion, they lie about the psychological impact of abortion; they have even been known to lie about whether a woman is pregnant," Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt told the Washington Post. Even worse, from the abortion-rights point of view, CPCs are getting savvier about employing ultrasound technology to "trick" pregnant women into having their babies instead of aborting them. An increasing number of CPCs offer sonograms for pregnant women who visit them-and they report that women, once they see their babies moving in their wombs, overwhelmingly choose to carry the pregnancy to term. Fumed one Long Island abortion provider in the New York Times: "The bottom line is no woman is going to want an abortion after she sees a sonogram."

I struggle to understand why someone on the Left, with their characteristic catch-phrase that they would like abortions to be "Safe, Legal and Rare" would try to regulate crisis pregnancy centers out of business.

Am I alone in thinking that actually extending a helping hand to unexpectantly pregnant mothers-to be is actually a good thing and something that should be encouraged by society?

The Famously Free-Thinking Left

For a political position that prides itself on "open mindedness" and "inclusion", it's interesting to note that this only applies if you are a like-minded comrade whose thinking is deemed acceptable by the current regime...

"Members of Congress questioned the proposed plan by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to repeal regulations that allow health care workers to opt out of medical procedures for moral conscience reasons.


In a recent letter signed by 46 members of Congress, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was asked to explain why her department is seeking to repeal conscience protections for health care workers. House members cited two cases where medical workers were put in situations where they were being forced to go against their moral and religious conscience.

“Both of these situations are precisely the type of discrimination against health care providers that federal and conscience statutes were meant to redress,” the letter chided.

The lawmakers expressed strong support for moral conscience regulations and state strong opposition for “any action that would undermine or eliminate the responsibility of HHS to enforce conscience laws that have been enacted by Congress for nearly four decades.”


One of the two cases cited in the letter was that of registered New York nurse Catherina DeCarlo. DeCarlo alleged that she was forced by Mt. Sinai Hospital to participate in the abortion of an unborn baby against her moral and religious conscience.

The other case was that of two nursing students who were being required to sign a letter committing to assisting in abortions in order to be considered for Vanderbilt University’s obstetrical and gynecological care program."

Although it now appears the the Obama administration is beginning to see the light and back off from such a ghoulish, Orwellian position, one still is left to question why they sought to repeal the ability to opt out of certain procedures through such objections in the first place.

Corbett Cracking Down

Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett (R) has announced new inspection mandates in the wake of last month's arrest of a Philadelphia area "doctor" who is charged with 8 counts of murder...

"Seven employees of the state's Departments of Health and State have been fired or have resigned since a grand jury issued in January a devastating report regarding those agencies' shortcomings in overseeing the Women's Medical Society in west Philadelphia, Corbett told reporters. The Republican governor announced a series of changes in each department, including the requirement that each abortion clinic will be inspected annually and will be subject to random inspections.

Abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, the owner of the clinic, was charged with eight counts of murder -- one in the death of a 41-year-old woman and seven in the deaths of viable, fully delivered children who were killed outside the womb. The grand jury reported that a February 2010 raid of the clinic found deplorable conditions, which resulted in its closing and Gosnell's medical license being suspended.

The grand jury report found there had been no state inspection of the clinic since 1993 in spite of complaints.

"This doesn't even rise to the level of government run amok," Corbett said in a statement. "It was government not running at all. To call this unacceptable doesn't say enough. It's despicable."

Kudos to Gov. Corbett for announcing such change. Perhaps certain members of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement might wish to leap to the defense of Gosnell and explain how it isn't murder to take the life of a viable, late-term infant.

Injecting Reason Into the Abortion Issue

Columnist David Harsanyi raises some good points in today's article on the abortion debate...

"There were about 18,000 late-term abortions performed in this country last year, despite the increasingly rare medical need for such a procedure, despite the fetus's advanced neural development (including the ability to feel pain) and despite the baby's viability. Yet because this topic is encrusted with layers of cultural and political baggage, it goes on. The entire debate suffers from the same problem.

Though you probably didn't hear much about it, this week thousands of people marched for the pro-life cause in Washington and elsewhere. There were folks I generally don't hang with: Catholics for Life, Baptists for Life, Lutherans for Life -- no denomination left behind.

It had me wonder how many Americans avoid an honest look at the abortion issue because of the cultural dimensions of the debate. How many Americans instinctively turn to the pro-choice camp because pro-life proponents aggravate their secular sensibilities?

..Does life really begin on the say-so of a single person -- even the mother? Does her position or mental state change what a fetus is or is not? That kind of elastic calculation grinds against reason. Even our intuitive reaction to motherhood agrees. As Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is an ob-gyn, once explained, "people ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite."

Most people, not very ideological to begin with, are probably too squeamish to reach decisive conclusions on abortion. They balance their views somewhere in the middle as they weigh societal costs and realities. Most, though, oppose late-term abortion."

Besides religious people who oppose the barbarity of abortion, a number of atheists and secular humanists oppose killing the unborn as well so it's not entirely a religious argument. Unfortunately, the state of discourse on the topic usually degenerates to criticizing caricatures of pro-life people/reasons rather than examining the issues involved as a whole.



For example, one of the worst arguments raised by pro-abortionists are of the "B-b-b-but, do you want wimmin dying en masse in back alley coat hanger abortions instead? kind which are as remarkably stupid as they are historically ignorant and serve no purpose other than to obfuscate the discussion with irrational emotionalism rather than facts.

"I think there is nothing beyond this life—but life in and of itself is unique and special,"..In abortion, a human being ends up getting killed for no other reason than he or she wasn't planned or wanted. One should always err on the side of innocent human life." atheist Matt Wallace Link

EDIT: Don't miss Mark Tooley's interesting article either if this topic is of interest to you. Quote "Liberal Mainline Protestant support for abortion rights, and rejection of the historic ecumenical Christian stance against abortion, partly resulted from the sexual revolution of the 1960s, partly from prejudice against Roman Catholicism, partly from exaggerated ecological scenarios about over-population, and partly from an elitist preoccupation with suppressing ostensibly unmanageable growth in lower income and racial minority communities. Ironically, although Mainline Protestant elites were often in the forefront of backing the Civil Rights Movement, they were often simultaneously dehumanizing the unborn in ways that would especially afflict racial minorities."

An Argument from the Emerald Isle on Abortion

Mary Kenny writes in the Irish newspaper, the Independent, that which she claims are some real-life examples that aren't often considered when the topic of abortion comes up...

"Picture a couple of former lovers meeting up again after 20 years, and finding, in their 50s that they have exactly the same loving feelings they had for one another in their 30s. And then the woman says to the man, ruefully: "Our child would have been 17 now. Wasn't it the stupidest thing we ever did?" She has never had subsequent children: he has.

Picture a woman in her late 60s -- a doughty campaigner for abortion rights -- enjoying a family meal with her son and daughter-in-law. A discussion about abortion arises, because it is in the news. The older feminist launches into a polemic about a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Her daughter-in-law suddenly turns on her: "How can you say that? You know our children are adopted. If two heroic birth mothers hadn't gone through unwanted pregnancies, we would never have been able to have our family"

Imagine a homosexual man who, unexpectedly, on a Mediterranean holiday, has a crazy, but fun-filled affair with a bright, amusing woman. The woman then finds she is pregnant. She tells him she has no intention of continuing an unwanted pregnancy. He ardently begs her to continue the pregnancy: it will be his only chance, ever, of fathering a child -- he'll pay any amount of financial support and help out in any way she needs. She turns him down and terminates.

A student, in her early 20s, falls pregnant at the worst possible time for her exams. She terminates the pregnancy with relief. She does brilliantly in her exams, and splits up with the boyfriend in question. Later, she meets the love of her life. They get married, and in their early 30s, securely in possession of house and jobs, they decide to have a family. But no pregnancy occurs. They go for fertility treatment, with no success. They try IVF three times, also without success. Does she tell her husband that she once was pregnant?

All these cases have happened, and many more too...

Respect for new life is, moreover, a value upheld by Christians for many centuries, and, underlined by this very season which is almost upon us -- not coincidentally called the Nativity, in which a baby born in a manger, in dismal circumstances, to a homeless, unmarried mother becomes the shining centre of Redemption and the Prince of Peace."

I believe Ms. Kenny's intention was to provide some balance to the abortion debate and she states that it is an issue that should be guided, above all, by "conscience". Her article provides some insight as to how such weighty decisions as to have an abortion can play out in the years and decades to come. This further underlines the fact that when it comes to a decision being made to actually abort a child, there are no winners. Anywhere