This is not at all surprising since pro-choice activists typically instruct women entering an abortion clinic to fold their arms so pro-life protestors can't give them literature. Wouldn't want them reading that and making a decision based on a different point of view, now, would we?

See, women in this position are scared and vulnerable and very emotional. So it's important that not only do they have the right to choose, they also need help in making the right choice. And that includes eliminating all the information that might lead to a decision to keep the baby.

It may seem like this isn't much of a "choice", but you'll just have to trust them--because they know what's really best for a woman and sometimes women need to be guided or shoved in that direction.
see-dubya | 04.26.05 - 5:00 am | #

Once again, PP is showing that the bottom line is the almighty dollar. They claim to care so they can take people's money. Sad.
Kate P | 04.26.05 - 9:29 am | #

"The anti-choice group is spending more than four million dollars this year on ultrasound imaging equipment in an effort to *dissuade* women from having abortions."

Since when is using reasonable persuasion indicative of being against choice? Even if these centers advocate, as I do, the banning of abortion, they are certainly acting in a way that respects the ultimate choice a woman has in the matter. I don't see what the complaint is... unless you know your case can't hold water.
Oz | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 10:09 am | #

Let's all realize what's happening here: Ultrasounds are scaring the living crap out of the abortion lobby.

You noted last week about the legislation in Illinois that forbids getting ultrasounds without a doctor's chit. Same deal there.

And let's not forget the hue and cry that they raised when General Electric had that TV commercial for their ultrasounds -- the one that they ran on the Sunday morning TV political talk shows.

I think we need more ultrasounds.
Patrick McGrath | 04.26.05 - 10:27 am | #

>Well, it's certainly "dangerous" for the baby.

It's also dangerous for the mother. Abortion is one of the most unregulated areas out there. It can also cause death to the mother. See pages 18-19 of this pdf document: http://www.lovematters.com/pdf/ l...lovematters.pdf
Kevin | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:02 am | #

Who will feed, educate and otherwise support the babies of underage uneducated girls who stumble into these centers thinking they will get an honest appraisal of their options, almost always coming away guilt-tripped into continuing their pregnancy however unprepared they are for it? It would be easier to respect the pro-life crowd if they threw a little of their cash and energy towards helping the families they are so anxious to see exist.
Katharine Mellon | 04.26.05 - 11:14 am | #

Thanks for the typical liberal, pro-"choice" straw man, Katharine. You obviously can't argue against the position of protecting unborn children, so you lay into pro-lifers for supposedly not supporting mothers after the unaborted children are born. It's a complete and utter lie, of course, but when has that ever stopped the pro-"choice" crowd?
Jinx | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:34 am | #

Katherine -- I work at one of those crisis pregnancy centers you are talking about. We do put a great deal of cash and energy towards helping families. We provide help during the pregnancy with getting prenatal care, parenting classes, maternity clothes; clothing, food, diapers, cribs, and other baby items after the birth; counseling and help in getting their GED to improve their future; and we work with many local churches and other charity organizations to help them with other support they need. We also help by working with adoption agencies if they do not choose to parent their babies.
Melissa | 04.26.05 - 11:48 am | #

This is a great story. It's so encouraging to see Ms. Curettage and her ilk flail against something which does nothing more ominous than to encourage parents-to-be to take a look at the little one at the center of the matter.

The breakneck pace of technology makes easier access to such information inevitable. Give women opportunity to see what's inside their own wombs, and a substantial proportion will opt to take a look. If there is something Planned Parenthood doesn't like about letting women see what's going on inside their own bodies, they had better brace for tough times ahead. Medical imaging is only going to get less expensive, clearer and more compelling as time goes on. Kudos to Focus on the Family for participating in that trend.
Joel | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 12:24 pm | #

So many errors, so little time....thanks for putting the boot to Ms. Curettage's tuchus, Dawn. In particular, thanks for noticing the sneer at private funding. The feds don't spend on sex education! Misplaced priorities! The government owes us everything! Has she ever suggested spending it out of the PP's $262 million, or would that distract from the public agitation, propaganda, and actual murder of children?

PP preys on the emotionally fragile for profit - they cut them off from their families (no parental notification), their support groups (no clergy), and opposing viewpoints (no unacceptable pamphlets, protestsm or voluntary visits to crisis centers). This behavior accurately describes a cult, not a health service, and I think it's high time that the government de-funds and organization that is clearly aspiring to be a religion.
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 12:40 pm | #

Katherine may have sympathy for "underage" girls, but Planned Parenthood certainly doesn't. It has encouraged them to visit a pedophile Web site and actively works to hide evidence of rape.

As for Katherine's concern for the "uneducated," I hope it is not the same as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's concern.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 12:48 pm | #

Our parish by itself supports several mothers at any one time through transition to a new life with their baby, as well as covering nearly all expenses for a nearby battered womens' shelter.

In our local group of parishes we give hundreds, no, thousands of dollars and pounds of baby clothes, food, diapers. We give rides for medical checkups, and babysit other children. We counsel on jobs, and help write resumes, and help with homework, and help, and help, and help.

We're one relatively unfancy parish, and we care for those in our community.

Katherine, all you have to do is ask if you need help.
Therese Z | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 1:05 pm | #

So help is there, but only if you are a Christian or can bite your tongue and pretend to agree with Christians. {shudder} Now you know why boys hit their girlfriends in the belly with baseball bats. Better than a sermon.
Katharine Mellon | 04.26.05 - 2:14 pm | #

Thanks to Katharine for expressing her point of view in the most brutal way possible. It truly echoes Planned Parenthood's way of thinking in such a simple phrase: beating a girl in the belly with a baseball bat is better than a sermon.

I wonder though, if the girl being beaten agrees with that statement... me thinks not.
Veronica | 04.26.05 - 2:23 pm | #

Thanks to Katharine for expressing Planned Parenthood's beliefs in such a simple phrase: better to hit girls with baseball bats than to hear a sermon.

I wonder if the girls that are hit actually agree with this...
Veronica | 04.26.05 - 2:47 pm | #

"Four million dollars could double the income of 160 families making $25,000—giving them something closer to a family-sustaining income."

I'm sorry, $50,000 is *closer* to a family-sustaining income?

My family of five lived for 2 years on a gross yearly income of $24,000. We paid our mortgage, and had one car. We had cable TV and cable internet. We ate regularly. We were not on welfare. We were not supported by the church, but we did give to the Church, which helped others who needed it - without regard to their religious affiliation.

I am glad that my husband is now making more money, but given our choice to be a one-income family, we still don't seem to meet PP's income cut-off to sustain a family. How on earth do we do it - and should we be allowed to? One suspects, given that we don't make enough to "sustain" our family, PP thinks, not.
Victoria | 04.26.05 - 3:11 pm | #

So glad you asked. Yes, she wanted to be hit:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/maco.../C05- 133229.htm

Like the song says, he hit me and it felt like a kiss. See also: Pennyroyal Tea.
Katharine Mellon | 04.26.05 - 3:19 pm | #

Ultrasounds DO make a difference. A few years ago a friend of mine became pregnant and not at all on purpose. She was single with a truck and house payment. When she found out she was pregnant she had an ultrasound, which she also had on video. She asked if she could come watch it with me at my house. I said sure not a problem. She was scheduled to be in Houston the following week and planned on having an abortion. After watching the video she couldn't go through with the abortion. She kept her baby and gave birth to a little girl who is now 11 years old. She is still a single mom. With hard work she has done fine for both her and her child and is thankful she did so.
DW | 04.26.05 - 4:29 pm | #

Katherine,
You're grossly mistaken. Not all pregnancy resource centers are Christian or require you to follow a particular faith. Take Birthright International for example. According to their philosphy statement:
"BIRTHRIGHT HELPS ...any girl or woman regardless of age, race, creed, marital or economic status, who feels distressed by an unplanned pregnancy." In addition, Birthright acts independently and does not affiliated themselves with any particular faith group. For more, go to http://birthright.org
Another organization is the Nurturing Network, which takes a pro-life feminists approach: "The objective of the Nurturing Network is not a political one, but a most practical one: to ensure that every woman knows that the resources she needs in order to continue her pregnancy are available by calling the Network's toll free number: 1-800-TNN-4MOM. Volunteer Members form an extensive employment, medical, educational, counseling and residential network which enables a mother to continue the life of her unborn child without sacrificing her own hopes and dreams." http://nurturingnetwork.org/

Many in the pro-life movement are indeed willing to assist women continuing an unplanned for pregnancy. Unfortuantly support for women has become so clouded by the politics of the abortion debate, that the women facing the unplanned pregnancy are often neglected by both sides.

Also, I've written an article, "A Consumers Guide to "Anti-Abortion Counseling Centers"
http://rsnider.blog-city.com/rea...ead/ 1036676.htm
Rachael | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 4:30 pm | #

Katherine is retreating significantly. First she says she doesn't respect pro-life because pro-lifers don't help pregnant women. Then, when informed of places that are willing to help, dismisses them by presuming that they are contingent on a forced conversion. Now the obvious falsity of that charge has been revealed. What more is need for crisis pregnacy centers to at least gain enough "respect" to be allowed to exist?
David Ross | 04.26.05 - 4:43 pm | #

Katherine,
I could ask you the same thing, what is being done on your side to support women who choose to continue her pregnancy? While PP pretends to support choice, they attack pregnancy resource centers which support women in their "choice" to continue their pregnancy. And although PP claims to offer complete reproductive services, according to their 2003 Services Fact Sheet:
They provided:

244,628 Abortion Procedures
compared to only
16,427 Prenatal Clients
1,774 Adoption Clients(Referred Out)
http://www.plannedparenthood.org...rvices- 2003.xml

They do not provide much in the way of services for those who desire to plan a pregnancy or continue an unplanned pregnancy. Nor do they offer support services, for continuing a pregnancy, as comprehensive as do pregnancy resource centers. They are primarily in the business of preventing and ending pregnancy.
Rachael | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 4:47 pm | #

David wrote:
"First she says she doesn't respect pro-life because pro-lifers don't help pregnant women. Then, when informed of places that are willing to help, dismisses them by presuming that they are contingent on a forced conversion."

I believe you're right. She's grasping at straws to discredit pregnancy resource centers and pro-lifers in general.
Rachael | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 4:49 pm | #

My church helps people in all sorts of situations and we have never, ONCE, required that the recipient listen to a sermon. Of course, the sermons usually promote helping others - so I'm not sure what is so objectionable about that, anyway. Katharine, I'm wondering what has happened to make you so bitter about Christians. Let me assure you there are many Christians who will do all they can to help others, even non-Christians. Of course, there are many Christians who are judgmental, too, but they are not following the example of Jesus, who condemned no person.

I'd like to add that a person who cannot support a child CAN give the child to a family who can, but if she wants to keep her child the pregnancy is not unwanted anyway. Certainly a life or death situation should never be made for lack of financial resources. This is why crisis pregnancy centers exist, so that no woman will abort for purely financial reasons.
Jan | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 4:56 pm | #

Why should the faithful apologize for their faith to the people they help? Why must they be embarassed?

If religious folk are the only ones willing to speak up for unborn life, and are among those who care for mother and child both during and after pregnancy, then maybe they're not the ones with the problem. Maybe the people who prefer to solve their "problem" with a baseball bat are the ones who should be embarassed.
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 5:15 pm | #

The crisis of pregnancy is not a one-time one. As generous as you are, it's not enough to provide prenatal care, GED help, and baby items.

Children are an 18 year commitment. If a woman doesn't make enough per hour to pay for a sitter and doesn't have a spouse or family, she's in trouble for the next 10-12 years. With health insurance alone at $1000/month (I'm not making that number up--that's what my SIL was quoted) the things you can provide around the birth of the child--however generous they may be--are only a drop in the bucket.

(Btw, I think pregnancy crisis centers should be able to have ultrasound machines.)
Kris | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 7:07 pm | #

Ah, Kris, now we're onto the familiar "Abortion is necessary because we have yet to complete America's transition into a utopian welfare state" argument: X is not evil because Y exists. You could use the same argument to say, "Until America's taxpayers feed every hungry person, we have a moral imperative to eat the rich."
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 7:28 pm | #

Kris, you have just described the perfect example of "the mother knew that she could not what was best for the child, so she gave the baby up for adoption."

How many prospective adoptive couples do you know who have finally children from other lands, or who have waited years, whose hearts are breaking for desire to have a family?

Since the child is not the mother's "property," but instead an individual whose dignity and value and very life is at stake, when she acts in the child's best interests and gives him/her to a family who can best raise it, there is great honor and love in that action.
Therese Z | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 7:28 pm | #

Kris,
We can't possibly see where or what we'll be doing in the future, nor can we assume we'll be at the same level of our career/school life as we are now. Living situations, careers, and income constantly change throughout adulthood, hopefully for the better. And we hope the assistance and support would be enough to help her get back onto her feet and to be a productive member of society.

In addition, I'd like to point out that abortion is not a cure to poverty. This is a myth that's been dispelled time and time again.
Rachael | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 8:08 pm | #

Hi Kris,
As you said, "Children are an 18 year commitment." Yes, a commitment, which should give one pause before starting an act that will lead to the conception of a child.
Our society promotes abortion because it shirks responsibility.
Sr. Lorraine | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 9:09 pm | #

Thanks for the snapshot of the bottom of the sewer. It never ceases to amaze me at how much work it must be to stare at the truth and try to define it out of existence. I guess it is even harder, maybe even downright nausiating to have it staring back at you (as you are putting it in your crosshairs). Three and four deminsion ultrasounds have a way of cutting through the pro-choice rhetoric like silent accusations that cry "guilty." Come to think of it, didn't a dude named Judas make a similar case for the poor as he was selling out innocent blood as well? Maybe Ms. Curettage should take a look at that story. Dawn, is that really your last name?
maverick | 04.26.05 - 9:56 pm | #

Four million dollars could double the income of 160 families making $25,000?giving them something closer to a family-sustaining income.

That's four million dollars in private funds. No one has any right to say how a person spends their own privately earned money (short of using it to break the law).

Victoria and Nightfly raised a very good point.

Okay class, $265.2 million dollars could double the income of how many families making $25,000 each?

If Planned Parenthood's focus is on sustaining low-income families, I'm sure they agree their Federal (taxpayer-supplied) funding would be much better spent.

Maybe PP can try operating entirely on private contributions the way many pro-life groups do.
P.R. | 04.26.05 - 10:36 pm | #

see-dubya, when I was the Pennsylvania contace person for Feminists for Life, I got a phone call from a recent convert. She used to be an "escort" at a Philly abortion mill. The "volunteer coordinator" instructed them to never let the women take the leaflets from the prolfers, and to take them away if the women DID take them. This woman asked why, and the "volunteer coordinator" told her, "Because they're full of lies and scare tactics."

Well, this woman kept a set of the leaflets and did her research and found out that everything in them was accurate. She pointed this out to the "Volunteer coordinator" and asked why, if the leaflets were factually accurate, were they telling the women and escorts that they were full of lies and taking them away from the women. Weren't the women entitled to consider the information when making their choices?

The "volunteer coordinator" then admitted that whether or not the information was accurate didn't matter. What mattered is that the woman had scheduled an abortion, and anything that got in the way of that was a problem.

The next day, that "clinic escort" sent in her membership to Feminists for Life.
Christina | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:14 pm | #

Katharine, you might as well ask, "Will those firefighters provide homes for those people they're pulling out of that burning building?" Since when does sparing or saving somebody's life make you responsible for all that person's needs from that day forward?
Christina | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:16 pm | #

Joel, I think it would be great if prolifers could manage to get a coupon for a free ultrasound in every OTC pregnancy test! Oooohhhh, wouldn't the abortion lobby lay an egg!
Christina | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:17 pm | #

This behavior accurately describes a cult, not a health service, and I think it's high time that the government de-funds and organization that is clearly aspiring to be a religion.

Wow, nightfly! That's awesome! Blog that idea!
Christina | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:19 pm | #

Katharine, you're just a bubbling font of compassion, aren't you?
Christina | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:20 pm | #

Sr. Lorraine,

Of course children are a commitment "which should give one pause before starting an act that will lead to the conception of a child."

If people always did as they should do, this would be a much simpler place to live in.

Yes, increasing the consequences does increase the number of people who do as they "should", but it wouldn't eliminate unintended pregnancies.
Kris | 04.26.05 - 11:20 pm | #

victoria, good point. My daughter would consider herself rich if she had $25, 000 a year to support her family. I never made that much and I raised two kids.
Christina | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:21 pm | #

Kris, I raised two kids alone, and I'd have considered myself rich beyond my wildest dreams with a $25,000 a year income. My daughter has a baby now and she's an in-home caregiver and her boyfriend is Mr. Mom. They're making it. Kids need love far more than they need money. Love is free.
Christina | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:24 pm | #

Reading through these posts, it's just so clear to me that the pro-abortion folks are so full of it. Their arguments can never rise to providing adequate excuses for the death in which they deal.

They lie and use deceit, they constantly shift goal posts in argument, they deny access to information, and they redefine terms, chip away at true definitions, or proffer up mealy-mouthed no-speak ("I am for a woman's right to choose!" anyone? I cringe every time I hear people say that bunk.)

These PPers are running around like cockroaches scared out of their wits about these ultrasounds
because THEY DON'T WANT ANYONE TO SEE A LIVE BABY IN THERE!!!!

I was born in 1971, so the continuum I have lived in has been one of mounting acceptance and immersion in a world defined in part by the fact that we kill living things that we find inconvenient. For years I was either for or ambivalent about abortion. Didn't really care, to tell the truth. But in the last few years, I've realized how effective the pro-abortion intelligentsia was at getting their message out. My thoughts on the matter were just borne out of laziness and I was cruising along with default settings- the pro-abortion ones, natch!

I've seen the light, though. Abortion is about the worst thing anyone can do. Unless the woman has been raped, the man and woman who created the growing, living thing in her womb are responsible for it. They shouldn't be allowed to have an "out" in killing it. The woman should bear the unfortunate burden of being a woman and have the child and give it up for adoption.

Thanks to Dawn for spreading the message. More ultrasounds, baby!!!!
John R. | Homepage | 04.26.05 - 11:31 pm | #

The prize for the most relavant and hilarious NYT reference of the year goes to you, Madam. A story which can never be forgotten much less stomached is the woman who had a selective abortion because she was afraid to buy a big jar of mayonaise (which you don't really even get to until your family tips over the 7+ range and that's assuming that mayonaise is pleasing to everyone).

You know that the terrorists have won when the quantity of condiment in your fridge determines whether you kill your baby in a PLANNED and scientifically engineered pregnany, no less.
Lauren | 04.27.05 - 1:14 am | #

No, actually, the terrorists haven't won. In fact, abortion is one of the reasons many of the terrorists see us as the great Satan (and on that point, it is hard to argue against them). They haven't won; we have lost.
c matt | 04.27.05 - 10:56 am | #

What I find interesting is that the abortion clinics use US machines themselves - to date the pregnancy, to determine the 'best procedure', and to ensure that the abortion is complete. Why the stink about letting 'the other side' have the same access to technology?
(BTW, I have been told that the screen is turned away from the patient when abortion providers do their US - ya think?)
alicia | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 11:42 am | #

It appears that I'm late to the discussion, because the much reviled "Katharine Mellon" appears to have stopped posting. Nevertheless, I must respond to her last post, an "Aha! I was just waiting for you to say that . . . look at THIS!" post linking to the article about the "consented-to" baseball bat abortion.

Unbelievable. I mean, literally, that claim is unbelievable. Anybody who believes for a second that 16-year-old girl actually wanted to get walloped by a baseball bat has absolutely no clue about the dynamics of domestic violence at work there. As a prosecutor, I deal with claims that "she consented to my [insert abuse of choice here] her" all the time, as well as the obvious claims by the victim that "it didn't happen; I made it up." Prosecutors like me don't believe these claims not because we have some holy-war axe to grind, but because the photos, frantic 911 call, and experience have told us that to do so is both irresponsible and wrong.

The fact that an abuser has succeeded in using remorse/love/threats (using a combo of all) to get the victim to recant and claim that the violence was consensual does not make it true. That this story of the girl wanting this horrific fate came from the boy's defense attorney speaks volumns to its origin and purpose.

Amazing how the "defenders of choice," as typified by Katharine's posts, only defend the choices women make out of fear - abort the child, solicit the bat beating, ensure more beatings by saying it never happened and sticking around - and not the choices based upon a full exposure to all the information available, slanted or otherwise. Odd that they would vigorously champion the right to "choose" for the very women whom they think are so intellectually inept as to be completely powerless to repel the jedi mind tricks of the anti-abortion counselor.
Lance | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 11:43 am | #

"In fact, abortion is one of the reasons many of the terrorists see us as the great Satan (and on that point, it is hard to argue against them). They haven't won; we have lost."

Actually that's not true, I'd say abortion isn't even on their radar in terms of their complaints about the West. It's not fueling their rage. They're far more tolerant of abortion than you think. I'd be really surprised if anyone had a quote from a terrorist accusing us of that.
Hannah | 04.27.05 - 12:09 pm | #

Excellent post, Lance!

I wonder how many would-be children have been aborted by mothers who were pressured/guilt-tripped/cajoled by the fathers into doing it when, in their heart-of-hearts, they didn't want to do it.

Conversely, how many fathers have seen their would-be children aborted by mothers, when the fathers clearly wanted the child to be born?

Abortion fills the human spirit with so much ugliness I can't fathom how anybody can stand it.
John R. | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 3:47 pm | #

Who will feed and clothe these babies, huh, Katherine? I quote Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, with all sincerity: "I'll take your babies."

There are lots of us out there who wold stretch time, money and family resources to take these children. I'm one of them. If they knew how to do a wonb-to-womb transplant, I'd do that, too.

So take your "who will care for these unwanted burdens?" argument somewhere else.
Cin | 04.27.05 - 7:58 pm | #

Christina,

I agree that in general people are more concerned with money than they ought to be. And lots of people who have plenty of money complain about being too poor.

However, a woman who can make only $10/hr is going to have a lot of trouble getting by without free babysitting. I'm not even sure it's profitable for her to work, given taxes, transportation, and the fact that she probably needs to pay for babysitting for more hours than she works, due to commuting time.
Kris | 04.27.05 - 8:13 pm | #

"However, a woman who can make only $10/hr is going to have a lot of trouble getting by without free babysitting."

So maybe she should keep her legs shut if she's only making $10/hr. She isn't going to die from a lack of sex after all.

"I'm not even sure it's profitable for her to work, given taxes, transportation, and the fact that she probably needs to pay for babysitting for more hours than she works, due to commuting time."

I have the perfect solution. It's called "Wait til you get married, THEN have kids and become a SAHM." For those not willing to wait until marriage, we have another wonderful program called "Adoption".

I also bet that the Federal government could fund orphanages for all those children (especially if it was centralized, and had them all at one large orphanage) for less money than they give PP every year.
Paul | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 8:21 pm | #

Posted this question over at Open Book- does anyone know how many family planning clinics have been closed down due to their failure to report statutory rapes? Was also wondering how many school boards have decided not to affiliate themselves with clinics due to taxpayer concerns over lawsuits that could cite the schools in their district... anyone here know the stats?
Faith | 04.27.05 - 8:38 pm | #

Kris, only $10 an hour? My daughter would give her eye teeth for $10 an hour! She's getting about $7.25 and glad to get it.
Christina | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 8:53 pm | #

Right on! I love this idea from FOTF! I will make a donation to help them out. I never have before, and I wouldn't have known about it if PP hadn't raised a stink. It's quite fitting that they should be responsible for me giving money to one of those horrible pro-life groups.

Thanks for the heads-up on this, as I don't listen to FOTF, though I think they do great work. :)
Victoria | Homepage | 04.27.05 - 9:24 pm | #

In general, I find the "she should have kept her legs shut" arguments pretty unhelpful. First of all, there's a him in the picture somewhere who bears equal responsibility. And second, it's pretty much water under the bridge at that point. We do our cause no service by reducing people's circumstances (which are very real and often very difficult) to "should-haves."
What we can do, though, as a number of people have pointed out, is give our love, however we can, to the mother and her baby. Financially, emotionally, spiritually, anything. It makes all the difference.
And Lance, many thanks for your post. Thanks for speaking up on behalf of women.
paas | 04.27.05 - 10:48 pm | #

"In general, I find the "she should have kept her legs shut" arguments pretty unhelpful. First of all, there's a him in the picture somewhere who bears equal responsibility."

Quite true. That still does not excuse her.

"And second, it's pretty much water under the bridge at that point. We do our cause no service by reducing people's circumstances (which are very real and often very difficult) to "should-haves."

So she's got two good options. Miss out on the materialist lala of American society or give it up for adoption.
Paul | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 12:09 am | #

Or THEY could decide to respect themselves and each other and not give anyone the business.
Faith | 04.28.05 - 8:31 am | #

I have no problem with ultrasound at abortion clinics. If anything, seeing that the almost-3-month fetus looked like a little grey jellybean helped me feel less like I was doing something wrong. Because I wasn't. And I didn't. Hardest, and smartest, decision I ever made.

I hope you can someday find your way to a more Christ-like mindset.

God Bless.
Eve | 04.28.05 - 3:20 pm | #

No no no. 3 month old fetuses look like fish. It was so cute to see my son swimming around in there. It was like my belly was a big fishbowl. :)
Lynn | 04.28.05 - 3:44 pm | #

I have no problem with ultrasound at abortion clinics.

The debate is about ultrasound machines at crisis pregnancy centers.

If anything, seeing that the almost-3-month fetus looked like a little grey jellybean helped me feel less like I was doing something wrong.

And do you get mad when men judge you solely on your looks, m'dear?

Because I wasn't. And I didn't. Hardest, and smartest, decision I ever made.

Oh, of course. And your child, never to see the light of day, surely would applaud your courage and intelligence.

I hope you can someday find your way to a more Christ-like mindset.

I hope you can someday find your way to a more Christ-like heart. Mine may be tiny as all hell, but it still beats, dammit.
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 4:34 pm | #

Christina,

I picked $10/hr precisely because it wasn't the lowest you can go. (It's about what college-educated friend with several years of experience makes.)

Your daughter making $7.25/hr and being happy about it has nothing to do with my point (unless she's supporting at least one kid on that salary with no free babysitting).
Kris | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 4:49 pm | #

...helped me feel less like I was doing something wrong. Because I wasn't. And I didn't. Hardest, and smartest, decision I ever made.

So very pat. Why didn't you give the child up for adoption? Couldn't you have made it another six months?

It's warped how the decision to eradicate from the timeline of the planet Earth the birth of real, living human being is considered "smart". What was the decision to put yourself in the position where the only "smart" way out was to kill it?

Do you ever wonder what your child would look like now? Wonder what games they might like to play, or what musical instrument they might take to? If they'd prefer dogs or cats, or both? Would your child be a Bugs Bunny person or a Daffy Duck person? (Me, I'm a Daffy Duck, but my sister is a Bugs Bunny...same family, go figure.)

Yeah, smart decision to kill that possibility. Gotta protect "your" life at the expense of others.

I hope you can someday find your way to a more Christ-like mindset.

I'm gob-smacked at how you think Christ could possibly condone what you do. I'm sure he's completely dissatisfied with the way I live my life- and I'm against abortion! But do you really think Christ would approve of what you've done? If you know the truth- that he doesn't- then you have a lot of nerve to put Him up as a shield, so you can dodge your way out of the ramifications of what you've done.

Goodness...it's a good thing Mary didn't have your sense of "smarts!" :(
John R. | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 9:11 pm | #

It's not as though women are all a bunch of weak-willed, sentimental fools. They KNOW there's a future baby in their bodies. It does not take an ultrasound to point that out.

Women who want abortions DO NOT want to HAVE that baby. Seeing it will not change that. Women who want abortions will have them, whether it's legal or not--all the legal status of abortion changes is whether they can do it safely or if they'll be at the mercy of whatever home remedy or back-alley practicioner they can find.
Sith Vicious | 04.28.05 - 10:08 pm | #

Women who want abortions DO NOT want to HAVE that baby.

I don't believe that's true in all cases. Many women are pushed into having an abortion from pressure applied by the father, or family members, or other pressures.

But whether they want to have it or not, or whether the father is pressuring her to do it or not, it still doesn't change the fundamental nature of what abortion is: the elective taking of a life.
John R. | Homepage | 04.28.05 - 10:30 pm | #

I never wonder what the child I might have had had I not aborted (because, of course, pregnancy is never a sure thing) would have been like. I don't care, really. And yes, my life is more important than that of an 8-week embryo that's leaching the calcium from my bones.
Jasindra | 04.29.05 - 10:22 am | #

I never wonder what the child I might have had had I not aborted (because, of course, pregnancy is never a sure thing) would have been like. I don't care, really. And yes, my life is more important than that of an 8-week embryo that's leaching the calcium from my bones.

Wow. Just...wow.
John R. | Homepage | 04.29.05 - 11:41 am | #

Sith Vicious -

You are wrong. I'm sure everyone else will point this out too, but let me start since I'm pro-choice.

Seeing something makes it much more real for many people. The pink line on a pregnancy test is not nearly gut-level meaningful as kicks from the baby. There's a reason "I'll believe it when I see it" is a saying.

It's not as though women are all a bunch of weak-willed, sentimental fools.

Interesting. Here you are implying that anyone who thinks that women will change their mind upon seeing an ultrasound is a sexist pig. I don't think that follows.

You are also wrong when you say that making abortion illegal has no effect on the number of abortions. How any rational person can believe that, I don't know. I'm don't know how many abortions wouldn't happen if it were illegal, but I'm pretty confident that some women would either be either unable or unwilling to get an abortion if they were illegal. Certainly, they wouldn't be funded though health insurance, and that alone would have an effect.
Kris | Homepage | 04.29.05 - 1:53 pm | #