Pro-Choice and proud of it
Whether unintentionally or by design, the pro-"choice" movement continues to mislead the public about pro-lifers. I can't tell you how fervently I believe in CHOICE.
I simply believe the choice comes before you take down your panties.
Rape and incest victims, women who's lives are on the line by childbirth, these ladies are the exception and should be afforded abortion due to the traumatic nature of their circumstances. And the fact, that their "choice" was denied them.
Elective abortion, outside those narrow limits, is like reproductive bulemia - you partake and then (oops) you get to expel it before it hits your hips and thighs. In our culture, we consider bulemia an illness and they are only regurgitating food!
Elective abortion for anyone who willingly and actively participated in sexual intercourse is an irresponsible choice and to promote it as healthy ,and even, as some do, admirable, does a great disservice to the community at large by promoting a culture devoid of personal accountability.
Check out this site: Democrats on Abortion (not all issues are strictly partisan)
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
You are right on with the first choice being to keep one's panties on. But I differ strongly on the rape/incest part. Yes, she had no opportunity to choose, but I will never justify baby dismemberment over counseling and loving support. It's not like I haven't been around to hear all the rhetoric -- I'm 56 and counting. A baby is a baby is a baby. I heard someone (hey, it was on CSI) quote a verse to support that until blood flows independently in the embryo, it is simply cellular tissue. Ok, but that occurs after approx. 18 days gestation. If that is true, after that point, we have a unique person who should have all the rights and respect granted under our constitution. I say we surround the mothers with everything they need to deliver a healthy baby rather than kill one of them.
Comment by Jane— 2006/02/24 @ 05:31 AM — (Reply)
Sometimes there just aren't enough caring people to go around - and while I agree that the horror of rape or incest doesn't justify doing harm to a baby - two wrongs don't make a right - there must be some legal out for women who don't have wonderful people like you in their lives.
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/24 @ 05:58 AM — (Reply)
Such situations are hard, but the emotional consequences down the road are just as bad.
What a sticky widget.
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/24 @ 07:44 AM — (Reply)
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/24 @ 07:56 AM — (Reply)
I would never advocate abortion or anything like unto it - but I have had a "chemical d&c" (the result of an incomplete miscarriage) and it was so much less painful than my other m/c which was a nightmare that of the two choices - I would NO DOUBT lean toward "emergency contraception".
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/24 @ 08:26 AM — (Reply)
If foster care or any alternate to abortion is available, yes. If government can take my taxes and fund Planned Parenthood, the government can fund a program(s) to avoid abortion.
Comment by — 2006/02/24 @ 08:38 AM — (Reply)
A pregnant teenage girl, struggling with the pain of victimization, is much harder to place.
My husband and I were foster parents - sadly, too many people are unwilling to do it. Unfortunately, there are many pro-life people who are quick to condemn abortion but not so quick to open their homes to girls in trouble. I don't say that to be mean - just painfully honest. Young victims need so much care - the friendly hand of a neighbor or a church lady with a plate of cookies once a week doesn't cut it. They need round the clock love, affirmation and support (and that goes quadruple for the pregnant teens who are carrying Uncle Joe's baby)
Now that we have a house full of our own children , there are strict policies about bringing children older than our natural children into the home (if they have been victims or perpetrators). The policies are designed to protect our kids but still they limit our ability to foster parent.
The whole system is a mess and too many people would rather throw tax dollars at it than to actually open their arms and homes. (Present company excluded, I'm sure.)
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/24 @ 09:12 AM — (Reply)
The county's children services stepped in and told them that they could put the baby in the basement, but not a foster child because she had to be housed in an area with two egresses in case of fire.
While I'm sure that some rules are in place to keep families safe while an often emotionally unstable child is with them, a good portion of rules are just dumb, and dcf is usually incompetent and a nightmare to deal with. It's no wonder that so few people are willing to foster!
Comment by C-Mom— 2006/02/26 @ 06:47 AM — (Reply)
I think if you are going to outlaw abortion in cases of incest, rape or abuse then you have to have a functioning and practically perfect system to get the girls through the nightmare of being first violated and then carrying a child unprepared.
t's not the ideal - ideally, we'd live in a culture that valued all life to the point where we couldn't even imagine abortion. But in the absence of such a society - we have to make some concessions.
Best bet would be offering the morning after pill or some other hormone altering drug asap after the rape. In cases of abuse where the atrocities are committed over long periods of time - you don't ordinarily find out until well beyond the point when emergency contraceptive are effective. Then what?
Comment by Cate— 2006/02/26 @ 11:11 AM — (Reply)