I would say, no, I am not a feminist. But then, it would depend on your definition of “feminist.” Sometimes I think that there are as many definitions for “feminist” and “feminism” as there are people in this world — no two being exactly alike. Which complicates discussions like this quite a bit!
There have been several things about feminism that have come to my attention, most of them quite recent, but one being from a blog post written several months ago. In this particular post, the woman had some list of “definitions” of feminism, or “how you can tell if you’re a feminist.” Included in them were two that were particularly memorable — 1) if you think your husband shouldn’t beat you, and 2) if you think women should be able to hold property, or not be considered property themselves. By this definition, then, I would be a feminist, but that, to me, is not feminism; it’s just the typical Western, modern attitude, of both men and women. [When I mentioned those two points in the list of “defining characteristics of feminism,” my husband gave me this weird, confused look, and said, “That’s not ‘feminism,’ that’s just being… sane!] Perhaps in countries and cultures where women are still considered property, then these two things could be considered evidence of “feminism”; but not in modern-day America. I don’t think this list does the modern permutation of “feminism” any favors, because it waters it down so much as to make it meaningless. Perhaps some women may say, “Okay, I’m a feminist,” after reading that, but I think there are too many differences between “my” definition of feminism and this overly broad list for me and many other women to follow suit.
So, what is a feminist? In thinking about this topic, I thought about the similarities and differences between the early feminists (Susan B. Anthony, etc.) and those of the middle 20th century, and those of the modern era. One reason why I don’t identify with the feminist label is that to me it is far too politically and socially liberal. Most modern-day feminists are abortion advocates and call themselves “pro-choice.” Not all do — the organization “Feminists for Life” is a group of self-proclaimed feminists who among other things oppose abortion. In this, they are aligned with the early feminists, who called abortion “child murder,” and “infanticide,” with Elizabeth Cady Stanton writing, “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” So, while I shrink back from taking the label “feminist” to myself in part because of the connotations of abortion, I know that these two things do not necessarily go together.
Another “definition” of feminist in my mind is one who looks down on women who stay home with their children. In that, I was refreshed to find that several of the bloggers whom I read are proud feminists as well as proud stay-at-home moms. And while they do not denigrate women who must or choose to work instead of staying home to care for their own children, they say that for themselves, working outside the home would be difficult if not unthinkable — that their children, and taking care of their children, and being there for their children, are of the utmost importance. As I said, it is refreshing, because that is exactly the way I feel.
In thinking of this topic, the memory of the so-called Hegelian dialectic popped into my mind. Basically, you have the status quo or “thesis,” and then comes along the anti-thesis to challenge it, and eventually they come together to form the new synthesis. [Forgive me if that’s a horrible garbling of it, but I’m going on my memory of Sociology 101 from 15 years ago, so it may be a tad rusty.] The earliest wave of feminism was the antithesis of the then-current status quo, which eventually gave rise to a new synthesis (one in which women had the right to hold property and to vote). Then the synthesis (or thesis) was challenged by another wave of feminists, different from the first set, which ultimately resulted in another synthesis. Now, that synthesis is being challenged by a new group of feminists, who find themselves dissatisfied with at least certain aspects of their mothers’ generation of feminists and feminism.
What I would call a feminist is quite different from the dictionary definition. I can agree with many aspects of what is called “feminism,” but must vehemently disagree with other aspects, since I am socially and politically conservative. Where is the feminist zeal for promoting birth choice, as opposed to promoting birth avoidance? Or is abortion the only “choice” allowed? — and if the woman makes the choice to remain pregnant, she loses all other choices in pregnancy and birth? Some liberals/feminists have been vocal about this; but in large part the “pro-choice” people ignore women who have to fight to avoid a C-section. Perhaps because politics makes strange bedfellows, and ACOG is a strong supporter of abortion, so NARAL and NOW and other so-called feminist groups would rather make nice with abortion doctors (who are mostly OB/GYNs) even while women are being trampled. But I guess, just as long as abortion is sacrosanct, that’s all that matters.
Just a quick post because it was on my mind.
I’ve read some of the controversy surrounding the “Focus on the Family” ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mom who made the decision not to have an abortion when she was pregnant with him. Some of what I’ve read has been positive, some has been negative.
What I don’t like a lot about the “negative” comments is from the supposedly “pro-choice” people who seem to be vastly upset about the choice Mrs. Tebow made. Even some of their own have said that this attitude makes them look merely pro-abortion, rather than the “pro-choice” position they claim to have. Not all of the negative comments have been like that; and there was even at least one positive article about the ad (and Tim Tebow in particular) from someone who called herself pro-choice.
But here’s what really bothers me — the ad is fine and I have no problems with it, but since I’m pro-life, you would probably expect that. What bothers me about ads during sporting events is that so many of them feature women as just eye candy, and the more scantily clad, the better. I don’t particularly like most sports, but really don’t like watching the games because of all the half-naked women and suggestive situations in so many of the commercials. Practically soft porn, in many instances.
I wish that NOW and all the rest of the feminists and others who have gotten themselves worked up into a fury about Mrs. Tebow’s choice would direct a bit of that energy into decrying the raunchy advertisements that denigrate women and in so doing belittle men. In both instances, these make people to be somewhat less than whole people — making women to be just bodies rather than women with feelings, and men to be little better than animals guided solely by sexual passions.
There are some religious people who claim to believe the Bible (or at least the Old Testament), and say that abortion is not wrong, is not murder, is justifiable, is not prohibited by the Bible, etc. They will usually “argue from silence” and note that abortion as such is never mentioned, much less prohibited. Or they’ll take the passage in the Law of Moses that talks about if a pregnant woman is struck and “her fruit pass from her”, that it is not a murder charge — there is no taking of the striker’s life for causing the fetal demise — they assume that “her fruit pass from her” is a miscarriage, and the “evil” that may happen afterward is maternal injury. Others will note that this passage could easily (and, they say, more properly) mean that this is talking about a preterm birth in which the baby lives, and the “evil” that happens afterwards could be either maternal or neonatal injury. Obviously, in those days, there was precious little that could be done to save preterm babies, so it could easily mean that if the baby was big and old enough to survive, then the person that struck the woman and caused the premature birth would only receive a mild sentence for endangering the pregnant woman and by extension her fetus/neonate; but if the baby could not survive and/or the mother was injured or killed, then the person would pay with his life, if a life was taken, or he would pay some sort of restitution for the injury.
That’s about the sum total of so-called “Biblical support” for abortion that I’ve seen. If there are others that I’ve missed that you’ve heard of, feel free to add them.
Most Christians that try to answer this question or argument basically give the explanation I outlined in the first paragraph, in response to the “her fruit” passage; and say things like, “Of course abortion as such isn’t mentioned — it’s obviously murder, so wouldn’t need to be specially mentioned, any more than a specific type of rape or child molestation would need to be mentioned, other than a general prohibition against any sort of sexual conduct outside of marriage.”
While I agree with this, it doesn’t go far enough, because all the opponent has to say is, “The fetus is not a person and therefore cannot be murdered. It is not obviously murder.” Then the two people just end up in a stalemate.
The line of reasoning I’m about to put forth will only work for people who believe the Bible. The others will find some carnal excuse to continue to support abortion.
In the creation story, God created Adam and Eve in His image, and also the animals, and said that they each would reproduce “after their kind.” [Kinds are not necessarily “species” as we define them, but probably could be a “family” or “genus” as we classify them. All dog types, including domestic dogs of all breeds, wolves, foxes, dingos, etc. would have been originally one “kind,” which speciated after the flood.] But, using species that are familiar to us, it’s obvious that dogs produce other dogs — they don’t give birth to cats; cats give birth to cats; mice give birth to other mice; cows don’t give birth to horses; humans give birth to humans, etc.
Later on in Genesis (perhaps even a few different times, plus other times in Exodus), capital punishment for murder is not just allowed but even required. Gen. 9:6 is one such passage. But more than just being a law given, this verse also contains the reasoning for the law: namely, “for in the image of God created He man.”
To kill a man is to kill God in effigy, which is why the murderer is required to lose his own life. He has, one might argue, made the ultimate insult to God. This is also, I would argue, why Satan loves murder so much. He would love to kill and/or dethrone God; but since he can’t, he will do as much as he can — and this includes killing men himself (perhaps by subtly encouraging them to do self-destructive things, including suicide, promiscuous behavior [becoming infected with lethal diseases such as AIDS], addictions to drugs and alcohol, etc.), and inciting them to kill each other — on a large scale like the Holocaust, or on a small scale like drive-by shootings. Also by abortion.
Because, as I said before, man produces after his kind. This has been proven by genetics — at conception, the male and female gametes come together, and their genes mix to produce a genetically new human. If that “conceptus” is taken and analyzed, it would show that it was definitely human, even though it was only a one-celled creature. It is also most certainly alive, biologically speaking, so to kill this life would be to kill a genetically unique human. To kill a man, a human, one of the human kind, one of the creatures made “in the image of God,” is to commit murder.
In the wake of the murder of notorious abortionist Dr. Tiller, some of my pro-choice acquaintances have given me some links as “food for thought” for why abortion should still be legal. The first story was a woman who had an abortion with wanted twins because one twin had died and the other was nearly dead, and her health was deteriorating very quickly as well (high blood pressure, no urine output, etc.). I consider her abortion to be life-saving, not merely health-saving, unless I’m missing a big piece of the puzzle. It was also carried out when she was 22 weeks along, so the chances of her baby even surviving were very small, so we’re not talking about third-trimester abortions that kill viable babies, which is what Tiller was infamous for.
The other blog post was the story of a woman who also killed her wanted baby after finding out that he had some sort of deformity that might kill him in utero, or soon after birth; and at the most, he might have a few years of life, with painful surgeries that would be necessary to extend his life, and his particular problem was such that the baby would have constant muscle spasms and be in pain. Let’s assume she was correct in this. She made it sound like her choice was a mercy killing, and even picked a Bible verse, “Do unto others…” as her reasoning behind it, saying that she wouldn’t want to be in pain, so that gave her the right to kill her baby. But what stood out to me is that she stated that his disease or deformity was such that he likely would be stillborn. So, no abortion would then be necessary, to save him from being born alive, right? Also, she said that he would have to undergo surgeries to extend his life. No, he wouldn’t. Parents choose all the time to withhold treatment from their children that have marginal benefits — and in fact, some doctors will refuse to perform surgeries or otherwise care for or treat babies they consider to be unable to be saved, and therefore not worth the effort. About a year ago, I read a blog of a woman whose baby had Down Syndrome, and also had a particular heart defect or two, and her doctor refused to operate on the baby, saying that it would not be worthwhile to perform the surgery that could save his life because the second defect also had a high death rate, and it was not curable by surgery. Well, God cured the baby — the other defect just went away, with no medical justification or reasoning; then the doctor performed the surgery (three months after the baby “should have” died). Doctors have also refused to resuscitate babies who are born with anencephaly, as another example.
So, going back to this woman — she killed her baby when he likely would have died of natural causes before ever seeing the light of day; and even if he had been born alive, he likely would have died very soon. My sister-in-law died of colon cancer several years ago, and although her case was terminal, if I had gone over to her house and “put her out of her misery” by killing her two days before she naturally died, I still would have been a murderer. I understand to some extent this mother’s feelings, because I wouldn’t want my child to suffer — I didn’t even allow my boys to be circumcised! But I still fail to see where anyone gets the justification to take an innocent person’s life — that belongs to God alone.
In case you want to know — I’m not glad Tiller is dead, and I think his murderer should be punished for his crime. We have a rule of law in the country, and we are not allowed to take justice into our own hands. This was the action of one nut-job, not indicative of the entire 160,000,000 pro-life people in this country. If you want to check out more reasons behind why Tiller’s death is bad for the pro-life movement, or if you want to get more information about Tiller and his replacement, or anything about abortion, you can check out Real Choice.
When I hear from abortion advocates who say that only white newborns are the only adoptable babies, I want to scream and laugh. From my small circle of friends and acquaintances, I know numerous white couples who have adopted many children who were not newborns at adoption and/or are not Caucasian. I’m going to write them here, so that next time I come across someone who seems to think abortion is okay because nobody adopts non-white children or older children, I can just direct them here, rather than writing it out again and again. When I say “older children” I’m meaning anyone over about a few months old, typically a child of about a couple years of age. Most of these people adopted because one spouse or the other is infertile, but some of them do have biological children. All couples are American, and all are white (except one person who is half-white, half-Vietnamese).
I’ll start with the only ones I know who adopted only white infants — my uncle and aunt who are both of pure Dutch ancestry, and wanted to adopt a baby who was at least half-Dutch; their two children both have full-blooded Dutch birth-mothers.
- Anna and her husband adopted two children from Ethiopia (their ages at the times of the adoptions were 13 and 7 months old)
- a couple who are friends with Anna adopted one child from Ethiopia and a black child from America (neither were newborns)
- Laura and her husband adopted a white child of about the age of 4, after his mother’s parental rights were terminated
- Curt and Fancy adopted a Hispanic newborn; they wanted to adopt their two (white) foster children (ages 3 & 5 at the start of their foster care), whom they cared for for 3 years, but the children’s mother cleaned up her act and got them back
- Curt’s brother also adopted a Hispanic newborn
- one couple I know is a white man and a half-Vietnamese woman; they unsuccessfully tried to adopt a Vietnamese child, then decided to adopt from Russia; recently, they adopted two Vietnamese children (all of whom were several months old at the time of the adoptions)
- another couple adopted three Korean children some 30 years ago, a girl and identical twin boys
- one couple in Alabama adopted three children, all in early infancy, a girl and two boys; all of the children are mixed-race
- another couple in Ohio has “his, hers, ours… and theirs“, as the mother likes to say — they each have at least one child from a previous relationship in addition to at least one child together, plus numerous children by adoption. At least one of the adopted children is mixed-race, and most if not all of them were adopted when they were older — I’ve known them since before the adoption of the last two, who are full brother and sister, and are about 2 & 4 years of age
- one couple who attended our church for a few years — they already had two white children by adoption — I believe the oldest was gotten as an infant; I’m not sure about the second. This younger child, a boy, has learning disabilities (and possibly some other kinds of disabilities), but I don’t know if the parents know this when they adopted him — I never knew he had any disabilities at the time I knew him, but it became more apparent as he grew older — he’s now about 16 and has minimal reading skills, as an example. Then while they were members of our church, they adopted three siblings who were of Hispanic descent, approximately aged 2-5 at the time of the adoption.
Most of these people may yet try to adopt again (although the older couples are probably done), since most of them have adopted their youngest children only recently — the last year or so.
I’ll just link to the whole post over on RealChoice. The first video is of a kid who was born with spina bifida “wheelchairing” like some kids skateboard or bike-ride. Puts me to shame. Other videos are of other people who can’t walk, but are still a whole heck of a lot more athletic than I am.
On another blog I read, someone made a comment that people who are against coerced abortions should be for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). I asked how that would work, knowing that most cases of coersion are from the woman’s boyfriend or parents. She unwillingly walks into the abortion clinic and submits to the abortion, feeling like she has no other choice. There are cases of child molesters who bring in the children they got pregnant and make them undergo abortions so that the pregnancy does not advance and expose them as the perpetrators. So this commenter asked me if I had actually read the text of FOCA. I had not, so I found it as Senate Bill 1173.
(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.
Interesting how they leave out one of the “core principles” if not the core principle of life. And, hate to break it to ya, but our government has interfered throughout its history with a person’s life, liberty and personal privacy to protect an innocent person’s life, liberty and personal privacy. For instance, the death penalty is legal; also, it is legal to kill a person who is threatening the life of another person. I do not have the liberty to drink and drive. I do not have the liberty to ingest heroin, though it is done in the privacy of my own home. So this statement is at best a half-truth.
(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.
Except that terminating a pregnancy takes a genetically unique human life. Who speaks for him or her, to protect that life?
(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.
Yet the South Dakota Task Force on abortion pointed out many problems with that decision, namely that the state of science and medicine has improved so much in that time, that some assumptions the Court made in its decision have been shown to be false.
(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State’s interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman’s decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.
But the fetus is alive until the point of abortion. The commenter on that other blog even used the term “to kill the pregnancy”, which is not a correct use of the term, since “pregnancy” is defined as “the state of being pregnant” or “the period from conception to birth.” You can’t “kill” a state of being nor a period. When I wake up, I don’t “kill sleep.” You can, however, kill a living thing, which is exactly what abortion does. “Pregnant” basically means “to be filled with” — such as a “pregnant pause”, and it is in this way that the term came to be applied to being “with child”. Those who fight for abortion claim that it is the woman only who is to be considered, that it is her body and her right to do whatever she wants to with it. This denies the very meaning of the terms of pregnancy, of being “filled with” something. You cannot be pregnant — filled with — yourself; you can only be pregnant — filled with — something else. That something else is not your body; though vitally connected with your body, it is genetically unique.
Also, after a fetus is viable, there is no way that ensuring the baby will be born dead will protect a woman’s life or health. The same methods of terminating a pregnancy are the same after viability, whether to intentionally produce a living child or a dead child. A woman whose life or health is precarious because of a continued pregnancy can be induced or given a C-section and have a living child. Ensuring the baby is dead at birth is an extra step that carries additional risks to the mother.
(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.
This is a lie, founded on an assumption, founded on a lie. There is no basis of proof for this — it was a figment of an abortion promoter’s imagination, which he later admitted. Unfortunately, no one in the abortion industry nor an abortion promoter has the guts to promote the truth; and no one in the pro-life movement is believed, because, well, they’re pro-life, so they’d say stuff like that. Even when there is proof of the truth and no proof of the lie, the lie is still believed because it makes a better story for the abortion advocates.
(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.
This wording is deliberate verbal sleight of hand. “Legal” does not equate to “safe” — as is proved by Romania’s legal abortions which end half of all pregnancies, and also cause half of all deaths counted as “maternal mortality.” The reasons of maternal mortality in underdeveloped countries are the same as in this country in the early 1900s, including poor nutrition, poor sanitation, no clean water, little or no medical care, etc. Ireland is a “countr[y] in which abortion remains illegal,” yet it has among the lowest, if not the lowest maternal mortality in the world. In countries where conditions are such that pregnancy and birth are dangerous, abortion is also dangerous. Countries that cannot deal with complications such as postpartum hemorrhage (easily treatable in America and other developed countries by a simple, cheap injection) or infection (easily treatable by antibiotics, which are hard to obtain in third world countries), cannot deal with abortion and post-abortion dangers such as hemorrhage, infection, lacerated cervices or uteri, amniotic fluid embolism, shock, sepsis, etc.
(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman’s health…
This is a reference to the extremely grisly and harsh method of partial-birth abortion. This is only performed on a fetus after viability, when, again, if the woman’s physical health requires the pregnancy to end (or in some way being pregnant is causing real mental problems — which is extremely unlikely), the pregnancy can be terminated by the live birth of the child, by induction or C-section. These happen every day in the United States, in every state, and probably nearly every hospital.
(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women’s health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.
Oh, waah! I’m cryin’ buckets of tears over this. Y’know what? My county doesn’t have a doctor who attends the birth of babies — the only hospital in my county does not have birth facilities. While I choose home births, were I to choose a hospital birth, I’d have to drive a minimum of a half-hour to the nearest hospital. My sisters have driven nearly two hours to go to the hospital of their choices in order to find a care provider they liked and trusted. There are certain areas of states in which there is no obstetrician for nearly two hours in any direction — because of medico-legal problems like malpractice lawsuits and premiums that have driven doctors out of business or at least out of the area. This means that women are forced to drive for hours to go to prenatal appointments (which means probably at least a dozen visits), and then have to drive a couple of hours to the hospital in labor in order to have a legal birth attendant (since many of these states also restrict midwives from attending home births). So, spare me the crocodile tears about there being no abortion mills in every neighborhood.
(15) Federal protection of a woman’s right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because–
(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;
(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and
(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.
Yeah, and my sisters both crossed state lines to give birth in the hospital of their choice, yet it is not a federal matter that midwives are legal in some states but not in others; nor that there are this set of malpractice laws in Mississippi and that set in Tennessee. Hospitals regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers — big deal! Heck — the little independent pharmacy where I was employed for over five years bought almost all of its medicine, equipment, and other necessary supplies from an out-of-state company, but I sure hope it doesn’t make it a federal matter! Many people, especially those who live close to the State lines, live in one state and work in another, but that doesn’t put them nor their places of employment under Federal jurisdiction — otherwise companies in Memphis or New Orleans or New York City, and elsewhere, will be in for a big shock!
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–
(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
Since one of the things that was under consideration in the blog I referred to previously was that of “coerced abortion”, this is the thing that is particularly of interest. It says “a government may not” — nothing about the boyfriends, husbands, families, or friends of women or adolescents who may force or coerce them into an abortion against their wishes. And these happen all the time. About 60% of all abortions, I believe it has been said, were entered into unwillingly by the woman, and done only at the behest of those around them, or because they felt like they had no other alternative. Even if the number is only 6%, that is still too many coerced abortions. And this bill doesn’t say anything about non-government coersion.
And there is also a big, huge problem with the tiny, little phrase in (2) of “a government may not… discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forthin paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of… information.” This says to me that this bill would prohibit the government from requiring that honest and factual information be given to women who may have an abortion. Considering also the many, many lies I have heard from abortion advocates on fetal development, as well as stories from women who have had a prior abortion but were given inaccurate or misleading information from the abortion provider, this is absolutely untenable. Women who make the choice to have an abortion because of lies told them are not having an abortion of their own free will, and may even be having a coerced abortion. Women who are told that their fetuses are “a clump of cells” and “mostly just tissue” or “just blood and tissue”, and get an abortion because they think that is factual, when in fact the baby is very well-developed and obviously identifiable as a human, are having abortions under false reasons, and if they were told the truth, would not have an abortion. Why is it that abortion advocates fight tooth and nail against providing women with honest, factual information regarding fetal development, and showing women an ultrasound picture of the baby, and other similar things? It is because when women know these things, they choose not to have an abortion. But these hypocrites still call themselves “pro-choice.”
Planned Parenthood covers up child abuse, child rape, and coaches kids on crossing states lines to obtain an abortion without parental consent
Reading some of the comments after this was part refreshing and part annoying. Some commenters seemed to suggest that since the woman was merely “posing” as a 13-year-old, and not actually thirteen years of age, that this PP nurse did nothing wrong in what she did — which was to say “I didn’t hear his age” after the girl said the baby’s father was 31, and told the girl that since she was just 13 she would have to report her case to Child Protective Services because it was child abuse and child rape (proving that this nurse was not ignorant of the law, although she more or less showed she had no problem with ignoring the law), and coached her to say that the father was “a boy at school” in the same grade with her, “problem solved.” Then because the girl was underage, and didn’t want to tell her parents (a requirement in Indiana in underage abortions — as it well should be, because this is a medical procedure performed on a minor — we can’t even freakin’ give Tylenol at schools to a minor without parental consent!!), the nurse showed her (but did not tell her) the name of a clinic in Illinois where she could obtain an abortion without parental consent.
It does not matter what the girl or woman’s actual age was. The nurse accepted that she was 13, and without batting an eye told her how to circumvent the law. When police officers set up stings in chat rooms hoping to nab adults who want to have sex with minors (as seen on Dateline with some frequency — one guy was even caught twice!), the police officers are not actually under 18. Probably a great many of them are actually men, instead of teenage girls. But what matters is what the perps think the person’s age is. Same thing here.
This nurse got disciplined, but do you really think it’s an isolated incident?
Well, we’ve elected the first black President of the United States. I’m not upset about that. I just wish it were a conservative black President — I would’ve voted for a man such as Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts, but could not vote for a man like Obama. It does stick in my craw that he has repudiated his white half. I’ve rarely seen him speak of his biracial status — only “African American”, and with praise for his biological father that left him as a youngster. Yes, he spoke lovingly of his white grandmother… but what of his white mother? He seems to want to be as little “white” as possible, which is not the language of inclusion he mouths so eloquently on other fronts.
I didn’t like John McCain, but I voted for him, because I liked Obama far less. A lot of people I know couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either one of them, so abstained or voted third-party. That’s fine; it’s their choice. We’ve now elected probably the most liberal President of the United States. I hope you people that helped him win like what you get!
Here are some other posts which I’ve enjoyed reading on the post-election aftermath: