Something tells me you'll be waiting a long time...
Elizabeth | 12.31.07 - 12:46 am | #

Don't forget forced abortions by the atheist government in China, too!
Joan | Homepage | 12.31.07 - 1:55 am | #

Something about that text you linked to made me feel queasy. And shudder.

"Can I hear an Amen?"

Like the sound of Hilary's down-home-Southern drawl appearing when she talked to the crowd at the civil rights memorial.
corita | 12.31.07 - 3:28 am | #

I thought Hilary was from Chicago? No Southern Drawl there.
Anonymous | 12.31.07 - 11:49 am | #

I'm starting to think Western liberalism and Isalm are like the North Pole and South Pole: They may be a world apart, but the dead and deadening consequentialist landscape is the same.
Scott W. | Homepage | 12.31.07 - 11:59 am | #

I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who identified themselves as pro-choice who voiced support for forced abortions, for ANY reason -- whether it's a government population control program, a religious authority or an obnoxious boyfriend behind the coercion, interfering with the woman's free will.
L. | Homepage | 12.31.07 - 1:05 pm | #

There is a phenomenal book called 'Victims and Victors' with testimonies from women who have been raped, some aborted, others did not.

My favorite quote is right at the beginning:

"I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we're not been asked to tell our side of the story..."

A violent act has already been perpetrated on this woman, why should the government then be able to force another violent act onto her body. Talk about oppression. Where are all the feminist activists now?
Destiny | Homepage | 12.31.07 - 1:50 pm | #

I'll second L.'s statement, even though it should go without saying.

Furthermore, this is another example of why I oppose ALL forms of religious fundamentalism, regardless of the flavor.
johanna | 12.31.07 - 3:33 pm | #

L. and Johanna, I think you are mistaken about the advocates of "choice". Many do in fact support forced abortion; many who don't go that far will still refuse to credit stories that it exists.

In the late 1980s, at a time when many US "choice" advocates were incensed by the way the Reagan gov't had withdrawn funds from family-planning agencies, many women's groups complained about this issue without ever mentioning the problem of forced abortion, which was the reason behind the withdrawal of funds. (If my recollection is correct, family-planning agencies in nations that did not run such programs - even if they did fund abortions - still received federal funds.)

I also recall that when Glamour magazine, always a pro-choice publication, published an as-told-to article by/about a Chinese woman who had fled China because she was horrified by the number of forced abortions she had been obliged to perform as a medical worker (I think that was her story; I think she was also pregnant herself), no one objected to the piece on the grounds that it might be untrue. Instead, dozens of readers wrote in to say that China had a serious over-population problem and was justified in doing whatever was necessary in order to control it.
alias clio | 01.01.08 - 12:46 am | #

Many do in fact support forced abortion; many who don't go that far will still refuse to credit stories that it exists.

I have seen no evidence, either statstical nor anecdotal, that "many" support it. But I believe it does exist, because there are always extremists on both sides.

The "forced abortion" supporters are no more representative of mainstream pro-choice opinion than supporters of "forced birth" (as in, involuntary confinement of pregnant women) are representative of mainstream pro-life opinion. I know a few genuine "forced birth" advocates, and they are nutters who detract from a cause usually supported by rational, compassionate people.
X. | Homepage | 01.01.08 - 2:16 am | #

Oop -- that was me. Wrong initial!
L. | Homepage | 01.01.08 - 2:16 am | #

L. I've told you perhaps a thousand times that the abortion lobby is not prochoice. YOU may be prochoice, Tlaloc may be (mostly) prochoice, achromic may be prochoice, but Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and the other arms of the abortion lobby are no more pro-choice than the Pope is Jewish. They put out a line of prochoice talk, but when the rubber hits the road it's all about abortion, not choice.

They prefer for abortion to be freely chosen by the woman, but hey, a coerced or forced abortion is still better than birth.
Christina | Homepage | 01.01.08 - 2:46 am | #

I wouldn't go so far as Christine does. But L., your talk of extremists makes it clear that you missed an essential part of my point: ignoring stories of coerced abortion and sterilization in China and India was actual US gov't policy until Reagan came to office. When the Reagan gov't introduced the so-called "Mexico City Policy" in 1984, which prevented US agencies from promoting or supporting abortion, in part because of suspicions that some nations might use US funds to compel abortion or sterilization, many US aid and pro-choice groups objected vociferously while either ignoring or denying stories about coercive family planning agendas in some parts of the world.*

Most people who support abortion may be genuinely "pro-choice" (on your terms) when it comes to Europe and North America, but are willing to wink at coerced abortion in other parts of the world, or to pretend that it doesn't exist, if it serves the population control agenda.

I am greatly concerned that anxiety about global warming is making such views respectable again. Those who hold them may be a minority, but they tend to occupy positions of power or academic authority, and are not viewed as extremists by the media.


*From a New York Times story [doesn't prove anything about coercion; just shows how the issue was soft-pedalled by the media]: "At a 1984 conference on international population in Mexico City, the United States delegate, James L. Buckley, said the Reagan Administration would halt contributions to the United Nations fund unless it received assurances that the fund would not engage in abortion or 'coercive family planning programs.'

The United States later cut off its annual contribution of $36 million to the fund, with the Reagan Administration saying the fund assisted a program in China that coerced abortions and sterilizations. Although the fund replied that it does not support abortion programs and the allegations were not substantiated by two Agency for International Development inquiries, the United States contribution was not restored."
alias clio | 01.01.08 - 10:36 am | #

Yes, Alias Clio, I did miss your point -- sorry. I thought you were speaking of individuals and not of government policy. I have no doubt that past administrations ignored coerced abortions, just as they ignored people being pushed out of airplanes, etc. The U.S. is now paying for many of its foreign policy mistakes in ways that go far beyond abortion.
L. | Homepage | 01.01.08 - 10:49 am | #