The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has referrals for post-abortion counseling with supportive clergy in many states (California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington). To get connected with the affiliate in your state, check out the “Contact Our Affiliates” section of the Religious Coalition’s web page. That state affiliate can then refer you to a local member of the clergy, from the denomination of your choosing, who can offer post-abortion counseling. If there isn’t an affiliate in your state, or if you have trouble accessing the web page, call Rabbi Bonnie Margulis (202) 628-7700 at the Religious Coalition.
Many groups that profess to offer neutral post-abortion counseling are actually tied to the anti-choice movement and are less interested in helping women and girls with their problems than in advancing their own partisan goals. Serious psychological damage can result from their unprofessional, agenda-oriented approach.
But if one reads all of her postings - what other view can one get other than 'I think its wrong and therefore you can't do it.' In her great wisdom, she decides for all. All bow before her Great Light. Be more careful to be precise, Paula and to temper your arguments with the proper degree of humility due to being human and therefore fallable. What do I say if they are undecided? I ask why are they undecided? You do not get anywhere if you do not help them open up and confront themselves. I do not push their decision either way, I only force them to face up and make one = being well aware of the consequences before they implement their decision. All of which is a great deal more effective, more useful, and more kind, than saying 'Come to God for forgiveness my erring daughter who has been a victim of the evil abortion mill'. Which implies she is weak and stupid.
Gee, maybe if they would have thought out their decision a little better to begin with...
You are dealing with the result, not the cause.
The point is, a person made a choice and got pregnant. Abortion is killing (not an option). The choice of involvement in an act which results in pregnancy to begin with and the responsibility of following thru on that choice (having the child) are what need to be dealt with.
Does it make it acceptable because you learn to live with it when you can totally avoid it under the circumstance of abortion?
how? by going full-term, and giving the child up for adoption, and 20 years later regretting that? i doubt there's much difference in the baggage that comes along with either of them.
Also, you said you were sure for everyone that felt regrets there were more that did not. Did you do a survey?
no i didn't do a survey, for the simple reason that the results of a survey are always skewed to meet the needs of the survey-takers. on such an issue as abortion, conducting surveys is a useless task, as the other side will always come up with a survey saying the exact opposite. its one of those "i gotta believe..." type things; believe it or not, examples do exist, in the form of women who've had multiple abortions.
i doubt there's much difference in the baggage that comes along with either of them.
Come on Ares, haven't you seen all those happy reunion shows of women reunited with the child they gave up for adoption years later? End result was a happy ending.
examples do exist, in the form of women who've had multiple abortions.
An example of stupidity in action. Some people never learn.
"... haven't you seen all those happy reunion shows of women reunited with the child they gave up for adoption years later? End result was a happy ending. "
That's the ones that are made for TV. I doubt that it's always the case.
and what about those who don't get reunited? i'm not sure how it is that the adoption system works, but isn't it usually the child who has to initiate the contact?
There is "baggage" with both deciding to have an abortion, and also having the child and giving them up for adoption. With an abortion though, it's the absolute end of it. You cannot go back and undo the abortion in the future, if your perspective and feelings about it change. With an adoption, there is a chance for both parties to reunite. You cannot go back and undo the adoption, but you can work on a new relationship with the child you gave up. Not everyone wants to reunite, and you have to respect their wishes. But with technology today, it might be easier now to find birth parents. As far as I know, there are various stipulations you can make for an adoption. The birth parents can be a part of the child's life from day one, with an agreement worked out between birth and adoptive parents. I would think there are choices that both sides can make, such as birth parents wanting their information private, and adoptive parents wanting their information private. It would vary though I think
from post 1051/ Dennis - Many groups that profess to offer neutral post-abortion counseling are actually tied to the anti-choice movement and are less interested in helping women and girls with their problems than in advancing their own partisan goals.
....You mean are actually tied to the Pro-Life movement, which respects life from the moment of conception to natural death.
Their focus is on helping women and girls heal from the horrid acts of the abortion (murder) for profit business. Luckily, they are alive to help!
Serious psychological damage can result from their unprofessional, agenda-oriented approach.
Please provide links and proof for that statement.
Being hardly lady-like or Christian, didn't you remark that the following post of mine was "bullshit"?
"Let's not forget that we're talking about a women's REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM issue, which must entail:
"Access to comprehensive, age appropriate information about sexuality and reproduction.
"Freedom to choose to have a child.
"Good, affordable health care to assure a safe pregnancy and delivery.
"Access to health services to help the infertile achieve pregnancy.
"Freedom to choose not to have a child.
"Access to a full range of contraceptive services and appropriate information about reproduction.
"Freedom to end an unacceptable pregnancy.
"Access to safe, legal, affordable abortion services.
"Freedom to make informed choices.
"Easily accessible health care that is proven to be safe and effective.
"Reproductive health and liberty for women to make their own choices."
Afterwards, when I posted about my female relative who'd nearly died as a result of these conditions NOT being completely and comprehensibly available -- in a context free of anti-choice harassment of those seeking abortions -- you opportunistically expressed "compassion" for her circumstance.
When it's your attitude, and the aggressive, reactionary politics behind it, that CREATED the stigma and fear that made her so reluctant to go to a women's health clinic -- frightened to be found out, and scared of running the gauntlet of extremist pickets outside -- that she attempted an unsuccessful, nearly fatal abortion in private.
With that incredible, destructive hypocrisy as your legacy...we're now supposed to turn her over to anti-choice "counselors" to get her straightened out?!
She did NOTHING wrong!
Unless well-warranted desperation is your idea of "sin".
You really became totally non-credible -- irrelevant -- in my eyes when you posted that juxtaposition, so indicative of the fundamental, cruel fraudulence your supposedly "moral" cause pretends to be built upon.
Afterwards, when I posted about my female relative who'd nearly died as a result of these conditions NOT being completely and comprehensibly available -- in a context free of anti-choice harassment of those seeking abortions -- you opportunistically expressed "compassion" for her circumstance. Â Â
Opportunistically? You are so full of it!
Every word I said was of sincere concern. I ignored your bias in the matter.
Furthermore, I did not address the possibility of her current condition being a result of an abortion by a "legal" abortion provider. There is enough time for that.
If it came out that the cause was the possibility I suggest above, would you be honest and tell us here, or would your passion for the cause keep you from telling the truth?
When it's your attitude, and the aggressive, reactionary politics behind it, that CREATED the stigma and fear that made her so reluctant to go to a women's health clinic -- frightened to be found out, and scared of running the gauntlet of extremist pickets outside -- that she attempted an unsuccessful, nearly fatal abortion in private.
Lets get real here for a minute. How many abortion picketers are outside of the clinic in her town daily? weekly? monthly?
Oh, so now you are BLAMING me for her "CHOICE"?
But when I had trouble dealing with killing the life inside of me, those of your liking basically said "Get Over It!".
She did NOTHING wrong!
Except for inflicting serious bodily injury on herself.
You're probably right! It was probably those Bastards at the abortion clinic.
Now Dennis, if you want to really help her, you may want to check out a few post-abortion sites for help.
I offered caring for you and prayers and concern for her. It's that plain and simple.
*Need Healing After Abortion? If you're suffering because of a past abortion, help is just a phone call away. call the toll-free numbers below and a CARING counselor will help you begin the healing process. Thousands of women have learned to forgive themselves, to overcome their depression, to effectively deal with their grief and guilt. Many of these women are the volunteers on the hotlines listed below. If you are suffering because of a past abortion, they want to...
Help you with post-abortion counseling
Connect you with post-abortion support groups in your area, where you can meet with other women who have had abortions. Call the following numbers:
Springfield, IL -- Pro-choice researchers writing in the August issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry have acknowledged that some women experience post-abortion syndrome (PAS). The research team, led by Dr. Brenda Major, diagnosed PAS among 1.4 percent of a sample of women who had abortions two years previously. Critics of abortion are elated by this admission but insist the researchers have only spotted the "tip of the iceberg."
Pro-choice Researchers Acknowledge Existence of "Postabortion Syndrome" — Half a Million Affected
Studies Cited: Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Cooper M.L., Zubek, J., Richards, C., Wilhite, M., Gramzow, R.H. (2000). Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 57(8):777-84. The full text is available on the web http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v57n8/ffull/yoa8222.html
Söderberg, H., Andersson, C., Janzon, L., & Sjöberg, N-O. (1998). Selection bias in a study on how women experienced induced abortion. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 77:67-70.
Söderberg, H., Janzon, L., & Sjöberg, N-O. (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 79:173-178. www.afterabortion.org
Please take the time to read the following interesting info. complete with graphs.
Abortion Is Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth
New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion
David C. Reardon, Ph.D. Abortion advocates, relying on inaccurate maternal death data in the United States, routinely claim that a woman's risk of dying from childbirth is six, ten, or even twelve times higher than the risk of death from abortion.
Originally printed in The Post-Abortion Review, 8(2), April-June 2000. Copyright 2000, Elliot Institute. See also:
*Informed Consent Booklets Hide True Risks of Abortion
*The Cover-Up: Why U.S. Abortion Mortality Statistics Are Meaningless
*Two Senseless Deaths: The Long Road to Recovery
*Abortionists Are Not Held Accountable for Mistakes
Notes 1. Gissler, M., et. al., "Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).
2. Mika Gissler, Elina Hemminki, Jouko Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: 1987-94: register linkage study" British Medical Journal 313:1431-4, 1996.
3. McFadden, A., "The Link Between Abortion and Child Abuse," Family Resources Center News (January 1998) 20.
4. S. J. Drower, & E. S. Nash, "Therapeutic Abortion on Psychiatric Grounds," South African Medical Journal 54:604-608, Oct. 7, 1978; B. Jansson, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 41:87, 1965.
5. David Reardon, "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion," The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8, Fall 1994; Anne C. Speckhard, The Psychological Aspects of Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987); Vincent Rue, "Traumagenic Aspects of Elective Abortion: Preliminary Findings from an International Study" Healing Visions Conference, June 22, 1996
6. Christopher L. Morgan, et. al., "Mental health may deteriorate as a direct effect of induced abortion," letters section, BMJ 314:902, 22 March, 1997.
7. E. Joanne Angelo, Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many Faces of Post-Abortion Grief," Linacre Quarterly 59:69-80, May 1992; David Grimes, "Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives 16(6):260; Myre Sim and Robert Neisser, "Post-Abortive Psychoses," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, ed. D. Mall and W.F. Watts, (Washington D.C.: University Publications of America, 1979).
8. Carl Tischler, "Adolescent Suicide Attempts Following Elective Abortion," Pediatrics 68(5):670, 1981.
9. "Psychopathological Effects of Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy on the Father Called Up for Military Service," Psychologie Medicale 14(8):1187-1189, June 1982; Angelo, op. cit.
10. B. Garfinkle, H. Hoberman, J. Parsons and J. Walker, "Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota" (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service, 1986)
11. Esther R. Greenglass, "Therapeutic Abortion and Psychiatric Disturbance in Canadian Women," Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 21(7):453-460, 1976; Helen Houston & Lionel Jacobson, "Overdose and Termination of Pregnancy: An Important Association?" British Journal of General Practice, 46:737-738, 1996.
12. Elizabeth Rosenthal, "Women's Suicides Reveal China's Bitter Roots: Nation Starts to Confront World's Highest Rate," The New York Times, Sunday January 24, 1999, p. 1, 8.
13. R.F. Badgley, D.F. Caron, M.G. Powell, Report of the Committee on the Abortion Law, Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa, 1977:313-319.
14. Jeff Nelson,"Data Request from Delegate Marshall" Interagency Memorandum, Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, Mar. 21, 1997.
15. Carl Tischler, "Adolescent Suicide Attempts Following Elective Abortion," Pediatrics 68(5):670, 1981; E. Joanne Angelo, Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many Faces of Post-Abortion Grief," Linacre Quarterly 59:69-80, May 1992.
16. D.C. Reardon and P.G. Ney, "Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse" Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 26(1):61-75.
17. David Reardon, "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion," The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8, Fall 1994
18. Personal communication with Mika Gissler, March 8, 2000.
19. D. Berkeley, P.L. Humphreys, and D. Davidson, "Demands Made on General Practice by Women Before and After an Abortion," J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract. 34:310-315, 1984.
20. Philip G. Ney, Tak Fung, Adele Rose Wickett and Carol Beaman-Dodd, "The Effects of Pregnancy Loss on Women's Health," Soc. Sci. Med. 48(9):1193-1200, 1994.
Once again, anyone who obscenely dismisses the crux of women's reproductive rights and the entire issue as "bullshit", as you plainly did, and incessantly spews a fog of disinformation and guilt- and fear-inducing claims and stories -- all obviously intended to frighten or shame young girls from even approaching abortion clinics -- where they'd often be confronted by phalanxes of highly intimidating anti-choice activists if they dared get THAT far...HAS to be held accountable for the frightened reluctance that quite commonly causes teens who are pregnant to try to abort themselves.
Frequently with terrible results.
If we had abortion availiability predicated on scientific, medical and legal clarity, rather than the demonizing propaganda of insufferably arrogant and intolerant religious tyrants (Our views are the only correct ones, and they WILL rule your life!), females of all ages who needed abortions could readily and safely obtain them, without serious complications, either during or after.
For the anti-choice "cause" to place these obstacles before desperate women, adding further weight to their already heavy burden, and then to ballyhoo whatever emotional distress ensues, for the partisan purpose of striving to add yet ANOTHER barrier to free reproductive choice...is utterly disgusting.
How do we know without a shadow of a doubt that the unborn child is not a human being with a soul? Again I will ask, is it not better to err on the side of hoping to save an innocent child rather than err on the side of taking that same child's life?
It scares me to think that our society has come to this. The unborn child's life has been belittled to the point that it has become the "choice" of the mother. Does it fit into her lifestyle or not has become the determining factor of whether God's precious gift of a child will see the light of day.
Every day we hear how old and sick people should be allowed to commit assisted suicide, it is the womens body so she should chose, those Palistinians who blow up a mother holding her child is just a rightious rebeler, etc. Then we wonder why Columbine style of tragedies occur. Must be the fault of the guns.
How do we know without a shadow of a doubt that the unborn child is not a human being with a soul?
I don't think we can know, but for that matter, we don't even really "know" that anyone has a soul. And yet again, we don't know that animals don't have souls, yet we don't choose to err on the side of caution and refrain from killing all animals. But since some animals kill other animals, and that seems to be the natural order of things, we can probably safely conclude that our killing of animals isn't going to cause a terrible tragedy (except when taken to extremes).
But let's get back to humans and address the question of whether an unborn child has a soul. If it does, if the soul enters the body sometime prior to birth, the next logical question would be when? Is there any point between conception and birth that one can clearly draw such a line? It seems unlikely and thus the only other comfortable point at which to assume the soul arrives other than birth is at conception. But does that make any sense? Something like 40% of all fertilized eggs never make it to birth. Most of those never even manage to attach themselves to the wall of the uterus and never develop past the stage of being just a few cells. Others end up as miscarriages, abortions, stillborns, or what have you. Yet if we're to believe that every fertilized egg had a soul, then that would mean 40% of all souls never even see the light of day. Does this not seem like a terrible, illogical waste? If your belief in souls stems from a belief in God, isn't it a little hard to believe that the same God who made everything else in such amazing, intricate detail, would suddenly become so careless and clumsy? What's the point in making all these unique souls if you're not going to use them? (And if you believe in reincarnation, then big deal, they just move on to the next body instead). To me it seems the only logical point at which to assign a soul to a body is at the point of birth, specifically when you draw your first breath (just as Adam came to life when God breathed into him). Your body continues to exist after you've died and your soul has departed. Why is it so hard to believe that your body could also exist before the soul enters it?
Now granted every fertilized egg will have a unique combination of DNA. But if you consider yourself to be more than just your body, then what matters is the uniqueness of your soul, not the uniqueness of your genes. There are so many DNA combinations possible that most of them will probably remain unrealized for eternity. And like I said before, a large percentage of those that are formed, never make it to birth anyway. So to lament every gene combination that fails to make it to birth is more than a full time job. At some point, you have to accept that that's just how life is and celebrate the children that do make it to birth instead of fretting over those that don't.
So you're right that I don't know beyond the shadow of a doubt that a fetus has a soul. But I do know that at this point anyway it's impossible to know one way or the other. Being that knowledge is impossible, and there isn't much in the way of proof either way, then the only thing left is to decide the probability of each scenario and decide your willingness to live with the consequences. Personally I consider the possibility that every zygote has a soul to be illogical and unlikely for the reasons stated above. On the off chance it does have a soul, then it would partake in the same fate as all the other souls that never make it to birth. If there are really that many, it can't be such a bad fate. Skipping this life and going directly to heaven with a spotless record doesn't really seem like such a harsh thing to impose on someone. Not nearly as harsh as forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy and bear a child against her will.
Everyone concedes that abortion isn't a pretty thing, and all rational and caring souls would like to see its prevalence reduced, if not eliminated. But banning it, as conservatives insist, would dictatorially deny women who need that option...the free exercise of their private rights. And since abortion wouldn't go away, we'd simply go back to the bad, old, bloody days before Roe v.Wade.
What would it really take, then, to lessen abortion's societal occurrence?
1.) Greatly expanded sex education combined with a much readier availablity of inexpensive yet effective contraceptives.
2.) A basic change in male, sexist thinking that women and girls exist for scant purpose other than as outlets for guys' libidinous yearning.
3.) Conquering poverty, achieving full female liberation, winning pay equity within the framework of a universal living wage, and establishing comprehensive social supports that would remove the unequivocal impossibility of bringing children into this world, under so many women's desperate personal circumstances.
Does our system, with its domination by reactionary, patriarchial assumptions on the one hand, and Playboy/MTV-inspired hormonal excess on the other, have a realistic capacity for achieving any of the aformentioned requisites?
No!
So abortion will continue, due to our flawed order's obvious inability to do away with its underlying, causal factors.
That being the case, we need to maximize all opportunities for females to freely act upon their life needs, in the realm of controlling their own reproductive destinies, to avoid massively and horribly compounding a problem the current limitations of our culture make essentially endemic and sadly ongoing.
Now here's a concept that'll make ultraconservative wingnuts really twirl on their screw threads. http://www.liberalslant.com
"Let's confirm their worst, wacky fears of a globalist conspiracy by truly acting to unite, across international differences and such ultimate inconsequentialities as religion, race, gender or sexual orientation, to promote a mutual agenda based on nonexclusionary, nonexploitative, progressive politics and economy, with a definite de-emphasis of national identity/loyalty, and all the destructive jingoism and xenophobia it engenders." ...
"If some silk-suited or uniformed honcho tells me that this, that or another "foreigner" is my mortal enemy, trying to convince me I've gotta accept bombing his demonized personna into oblivion (along with myriad innocents who always wind up being the mass victims of war), I'll simply laugh in his face and walk away."
"Leading us to an underscored awareness that we mustn't harm family."
*Dennis, It looks like you have your own issues to work on. I appreciate your opinions on abortion, however, I will still stand by my support for Life from conception to natural death. thank you.
"as Citizens of Earth, predicating our unselfish concerns on doing the greatest good for the largest planetary number, focusing primarily on the acute needs of humanity's impoverished worldwide majority."
Reminds me of that scene in Rick's Bar in Casablanca (paraphrased):
Major Strausser: May I ask you, Mr. Blane, what is your nationality.
Ricky Blane: I'm a drunkard.
Police Chief Louis: Rick is a Citizen of the World.
I do some traveleing overseas. I wanted to think of myself as a Citizen of the World. Sophisticated as hell, it sounded.
Then I watched my country explode from a half a world away, early one morning, Sept. 12, where I was.
That was a fabulous post. I think I'll leave for the weekend with that last post sticking in my mind as a good tonic from the week I had. Thanks. Excellent post sir. One of the better I've read in a while. Have a good week end.
"...support for Life from conception to natural death."
Am I correct, Paula, in reading that to mean that -- if any of us became terminally ill in an excruciatingly painful way, under medical conditions so costly that they could bankrupt our families if our lives were needlessly, futilely prolonged -- you and your abrasively interventionist anti-choicers would try to keep us from dying with dignity, on our own terms, if that's what we desired?
And what's your position on capital punishment?
Also, is it just human life you profess to venerate?
Are you a vegetarian, from the principled standpoint that eating meat kills animals?
Politically, do you protest U.S. outrages overseas that kill children, such as the Iraq embargo, or the largely indiscriminate nature of our "war on terrorism" bombing?
Have you voiced indignation over the 20,000-plus people who starve to death globally each day, in not insignificant measure because the neo-colonial/imperialist West purposely, selfishly thwarts internal, native, independent development in Third World countries...the better to perpetuate its own profiteering policies?
Do you refrain from killing army worms, sacrificing your lovely trees instead?
Have you ever slapped (murdered) a mosquito because it annoyed (inconvenienced) you?
In other words, may we put your name up for sainthood?
Or does your "pro-life" character break down and evaporate in certain places and situations?
Stop insulting the people you disagree with. You may have thought that you were being insulting but if that last post had been directed at me - well I would be highly inflammatory instead of merely cautionary now.
You, Paula, must here and now acknowledge the fact that you and those who believe as you do, Augustinian Christians all, created a world where having children out of wedlock is a sin. And that you have done this so very, very well, after all why did your parents throw you out?, that women are often pushed to this most horrible of solutions.
But you will not, cannot?, acknowledge that you, et al., have created the problem that forced the situation to this point. Your parents obviously were overjoyed to know that their daughter was going to be a mother and that they were going to be the proud grandparents of your child, yes? NO. They threw you out like last week's garbage, never mind your family ties and shared genetic inheritance, and why? Because you sinned by not being married when pregnant.
And now you go on to compound your error by making it a running of the gauntlet to even enter a clinic, nevermind she may not be there for an abortion just a well pregnancy checkup - they do more than just abortions, as well as posting her picture, name and address on the Internet. You have also used the terms 'murderers' and 'bastards' to describe those who work in these clinics.
I believe that you are compensating. You know in your heart that this culture is of 'your' making and yet cannot accept the guilt. You adhere so strongly to keep the demons at bay. Since you cannot accept you would deny.
No, you do not have to be religious to be against abortion but it helps. Being religious gives you a set rule book that makes it unnecessary to think since all the answers have been given to you. Not to say that it is easy to live by, conquering one's self never is, but it does give you WWJD answers to all possible questions. And that is precisely what this 'at conception' stand is - the WWJD answer.
Once again, anyone who obscenely dismisses the crux of women's reproductive rights and the entire issue as "bullshit", as you plainly did, and incessantly spews a fog of disinformation and guilt- and fear-inducing claims and stories --
(Our views are the only correct ones, and they WILL rule your life!) Rahkonen, that is the psoition you take when you support abortion. The view that killing is okay. Each time an abortion occurs a child dies. That is OBSCENE!
For the anti-choice "cause" to place these obstacles before desperate women, adding further weight to their already heavy burden, and then to ballyhoo whatever emotional distress ensues, for the partisan purpose of striving to add yet ANOTHER barrier to free reproductive choice...is utterly disgusting.
If you take Garfield Avenue into Duluth from the Blatnik Bridge, at its intersection with Superior St. you'll see a Pro-Life billboard with 13 cute babies depicted.
There's a huge caption: "America's greatest asset."
"America's" is bodaciously prominent, with the letters comprising a stars and stripes motif.
As you turn right, immediately across the street is the Duluth Gospel Tabernacle, with dozens of large white, PVC-pipe crosses erected on its grounds, symbolizing what are billed as "dead babies" lost to abortion.
As one passes this, and head-shakingly ponders the ridiculous manipulativeness of it all, a stoplight quickly forces motorists to stare out across the adjacent freeway expanse.
What is the first thing anybody will see?
A billboard for the Miller Mall...with a huge photograph of a wire coat hanger on it (small, explaining lettering not entirely legible).
We obviously look at abortion through very different prisms.
To me, all of the fetuses aborted throughout history cannot BEGIN to compare, in terms of "moral outrage", with the first (of countless) bloody deaths among American women and young girls that would surely result if reproductive choice once again became outlawed.
We can't make criminals and corpses of our sisters. That's unconscionable.
I'm emphatically convinced that my living, breathing, already born, socially functioning teenaged daughter's definite rights MUST NOT be replaced by imagined rights purportedly belonging to a rudementarily developing embryonic entity that wouldn't yet have cerebral cortex...that might one day come to dependently exist within her womb as a consequence of an unwanted union of sperm and egg.
HER objective life circumstances should be the only factor guiding what ought to be subsequently done, if anything.
I think it's simply WRONG, and the height of un-American abrogation of our personal liberty, for some insufferably sanctimonious outsider -- or government -- rigidly believing that they wield God's will...to FORCE my girl, or any female, to have or not have an abortion.
To get or not get sterilized.
Through my eyes, that's the unalterable bottom line.
I feel that's a totally principled and completely ethical stance.
If you and others think otherwise -- well, that's your CHOICE.
Stop insulting the people you disagree with. You may have thought that you were being insulting but if that last post had been directed at me - well I would be highly inflammatory instead of merely cautionary now.
I happen to have a sense of humor. Even though this is a serious subject, occasionally I will attempt to lighten things up a little. That was not meant to be an insult. It was more along the lines of ... we've had great debate this week, it's Friday,
<lighten up for a bit> let's relax, we can get back at the debate after the weekend. Have a nice weekend, ok? <I guess I should have inserted :) to show the emotion behind the statement.>
I could see you thinking it was sarcastic, but insulting?
You, Paula, must here and now acknowledge the fact that you and those who believe as you do, Augustinian Christians all, created a world where having children out of wedlock is a sin.
God made the rules long before there were Christians.
And that you have done this so very, very well, after all why did your parents throw you out?, that women are often pushed to this most horrible of solutions.
Where did you ever get that my parents threw me out?
This is either 1) an attempt to throw me (the opponent) off by purposefully making false statements about me.
< BTW - It isn't working ;)> or 2) you have me confused with another poster.
To set the record straight, for you or anyone else who is getting to know me.... My parents have never kicked me out. That is not their style.
But you will not, cannot?, acknowledge that you, et al., have created the problem that forced the situation to this point. Your parents obviously were overjoyed to know that their daughter was going to be a mother and that they were going to be the proud grandparents of your child, yes? NO. They threw you out like last week's garbage, never mind your family ties and shared genetic inheritance, and why? Because you sinned by not being married when pregnant.
Sorry the above paragraph does not apply to me. It does however sound a bit like a personal attack.
My parents have always shown me unconditional love . That is what a good relationship with God can do.
And now you go on to compound your error by making it a running of the gauntlet to even enter a clinic, nevermind she may not be there for an abortion just a well pregnancy checkup - they do more than just abortions, as well as posting her picture, name and address on the Internet.
As I have stated before in past posts I do not support blocking clinics, or posting personal info about abortion doctors, etc. Those few and far between
<minute amount> are behaving in extreme ways as compared to the millions of people who are Pro-Life who lovingly and caringly do positive efforts on behalf of children in utero and their mothers before, during, and after the birth of their child.
You have also used the terms 'murderers' and 'bastards' to describe those who work in these clinics.
Ya got that one right! And the "bastard" was an emotional response to the story relayed about the girl who is related to Dennis and the probability
<my assumption> that she was damaged at the hands of an s.o.b., for profit abortion provider.
Anyone who could do such a thing is horrid!
I believe that you are compensating. You know in your heart that this culture is of 'your' making and yet cannot accept the guilt. You adhere so strongly to keep the demons at bay. Since you cannot accept you would deny. Â Â
If I didn't think you were serious, this would almost be funny.
I think I have touched on some points that you know in your heart, as well. Furthermore, I commend you that when you do speak about the issue, you ask a lot of the right questions.
No, you do not have to be religious to be against abortion but it helps. Being religious gives you a set rule book that makes it unnecessary to think since all the answers have been given to you. Not to say that it is easy to live by, conquering one's self never is, but it does give you WWJD answers to all possible questions. And that is precisely what this 'at conception' stand is - the WWJD answer. Â Â
Having faith in God and his word is a source of strength, but it is not just for the weak, it is for all to experience (or not).
"at conception" is the most positive, realistic, and moral view to take on the matter of human life for all involved.
The most positive thing a person can do when they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of their choices is to give the baby up for adoption.
Am I correct, Paula, in reading that to mean that--if any of us bacame terminally ill in an excruciatingly painful way, under medical conditions so costly that they could bankrupt our families if our lives were needlessly, futilely prolonged--you and your abrasively interventionist anti-choicers would try to keep us from dying with dignity, on our own terms, if that's what we desired?
Lets examine this closely.
Are you aware, Dennis that a person will die within 5 days if they choose not to drink any water?
<no food either, of course> That is all one has to do to die within 5 days because the body cannot function without water.
The persons bodily organs will slow down and soon, very soon, the heart will beat slow...slower...and then it will take it's last beat.
5 days Dennis, and you can do it at your own home, with dignity.
Pain medication, yes...but death by euthanization...no.
I do at this time recognize the right of the state to punish serious crime with the death penalty. But, if the death penalty is abolished, it is fine with me.
Is it ever permitted to take the life of another?
Yes.
To kill in legitimate self defense is not sinful. The state has the right to punish serious crime with the death penalty.
To take part in a just war (one in which the cause and the means are just and in which there is reasonable hope of success) is not against the fifth commandment.
I think possibly, if prisons were taken over by corporations, and real life, living-wage work skills were taught we might not see so many repeat offenders.
Also, many in prison suffer from untreated mental illness. I think there needs to be much advancement in the prison system.
Abortion and "mercy killing"(mortal sins) are different because in both cases human life is taken unjustly.
Also, is it just human life you profess to venerate?
Are you a vegetarion, from the principled standpoint that eating meat kills animals?
Humans need a balanced meal with the nutrients provided by meat and fish. BTW - There is a good article in this weeks readers digest about the great benefits of milk.
Politically, do you protest U.S. outrages overseas that kill children, such as the Iraq embargo, or the largely indiscriminate nature of our "war on terrorism" bombing?
Politically, I support all military & veterans, past, present, and future in the necessity of war. Furthermore, our military leaders have done an excellent job conducting this war on terrorism.
I honor and respect all our military as heroes.
Have you voiced indignation over the 20,000-plus people who starve to death globally each day,
Yes, I think it is horrid. I especially detest warring tribes who keep the food we send from those starving people.
Also, female genital mutilation and acid-throwing are things that outrage me.
in not insignificant measure because the neo-colonial/imperialist West purposely, selfishly thwarts internal, native, independent development in Third World countries...the better to perpetuate its own profiteering policies?
I don't see it the same way as you do. Could you imagine how far worse off those countries would be, if it were not for the millions we send them yearly to help combat their countries horrid conditions?
How is it our country has come so far in a little over 200 years, yet those countries who have been in existence for longer still have not evolved culturally, economically, and humanly?
Do you refrain from killing army worms, sacrificing your lovely trees instead?
I have not had the opportunity yet to act upon such a situation.
Have you ever slapped (murdered) a mosquito because it annoyed (inconvenienced) you?
Mosquitoes carry the west nile virus, hemmhorragic fever, and various other potentially fatal illnesses all currently here in the United States. I kill them upon sight. Furthermore, I do not like wearing pesticides on my body.
In other words, may we put your name up for sainthood?
There are better people than I who make Pro-Life issues their cause in life. I just do my small part by voting, being slightly politically active, speaking words of wisdom when needed, and teaching others the ways of unselfish love.
But, speaking of Saints, wasn't Mother Teresa a wonderful human being?
Or does your "pro-life" character break down and evaporate in certain places and situations?
Actually, only a miniscule few can validly claim to be authentically "pro-life" because, as Paula has demonstrated, virtually everyone reaches a point of personal or societal justification for "playing God" -- i.e., taking a life for some reason that they feel is compelling enough to warrant it, if only in their own minds.
If we accept the simple premise, espoused especially by certain Eastern faiths, that "all life is sacred", and equally so, then there can be no killing of vermin, say, on the grounds that they transmit disease.
The only non-hypocritical stance to take would be to graciously tolerate their existence, treating them as deserving of life on a par with human beings, and leaving it to God or Nature to determine who and what dies, and why.
Since I personally make no pretense of being pro-life, however, I can be pro-abortion rights, anti-capital punishment, anti-war, pro-assisted suicide, etc., being wholly consistent with progressive philosophical ideals, but NOT in violation of what ought to be, but isn't, a hard and fast, inalterable rule that's implicit in the beliefs of anyone who makes a showy moral contention of being...pro-life.
Furthermore, contrary to what anti-choice adherents will always wrongly claim, an abortion (emphatically in the first-trimester period when the overwhelming amount of pregnancy terminations occur) doesn't claim "a life", which HAS to rationally be seen as a living entity capable of independent, ex utero survival.
An egg is not a chicken. An embryo is not a baby.
And, as much as anti-choice propaganda would relish the thought of spreading the image, a fetus doesn't ride around on a little tricycle in mamma's womb.
If ever there was a group to whom the phrase "Get Real!" could fittingly be applied, it's anti-choicers with their preposterous assertions, all manipulatively contrived to try to guilt-trip women and teenaged girls from exercising their inalienable abortion option.
As for why we're so "developed" compared to others, particularly the Third World, an entirely different interpretation from Paula's is dominant in the affected countries. There, you'll find few who believe that the legacy of colonialism, combined with current imperialism, is "humane". Or that the millions we spend on "foreign aid", most of which goes to militarily prop up sell-out comprador regimes compliant to our one-sided economic exploitation of their own people and resources...is charitable.
We need to move beyond fetus fetishism and think about the bigger picture, including the deteriorating status of born babies right here in America.
For a brief period during the late 1990s economic boom, the U.S. child poverty rate fell--barely--for the first time in decades. Politicians on both sides of the aisle claimed the decrease as a vindication of their policies dismantling welfare.
Now the blip is over. It's the 21st century and child poverty is rising again. And what do the experts think is a leading cause?
You guessed it: the dismantling of welfare.
The official rate of child poverty bottomed out at 16 percent in 2000--not even close to the 14-percent rate of the late 1960s and early 1970s. It rose again in 2001. The analysts are still debating by how much.
For the U.S. government to admit that you live in poverty, you have to be extremely poor. The fact is, many, many more children actually live in poverty. Some experts put the real total closer to 25 percent.
But some facts are indisputable. There are fewer jobs and more unemployment. Many parents--former welfare recipients who managed to find jobs during the last boom--are now unemployed again, with no safety net to catch them or their kids.
Those most at risk are children whose families face the most oppression in this racist society. In 2000 the poverty rate among Black children was 30 percent; among Latino children, 28 percent.
Compared to other big capitalist countries, the U.S. is far and away the worst offender. Based on a poverty line that is 40 percent of a country's median income, academics Timothy Smeeding and Lee Rainwater have determined that the U.S. has the highest child poverty rate among the 19 wealthiest members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Their study sets the poverty line even lower than official U.S. policy. But that doesn't make the picture any brighter.
Using this method, 14.8 percent of U.S. children lived in poverty in 1997. Only one other country--Italy--came close, with a rate of 14.6 percent. The next closest was Canada, with 9.6 percent.
Contrary to the perception shaped by the government and mass media that child poverty is exclusively an urban problem, recently released data from the 2000 census show just how widespread the problem is.
A study of the data by the Children's Defense Fund shows that 38 mostly rural counties around the U.S. have higher rates of child poverty than any major cities.
In 14 of these counties--which range from the Deep South to the Midwest--the child poverty rate is more than 50 percent.
George W. Bush's home state, Texas, had two among the 10 worst larger cities: Brownsville, with 45.3 percent of children in poverty, and Laredo, with 38.0 percent.
Hartford, New Orleans, Providence, Atlanta, Buffalo, N.Y., Miami, Gary, Ind., and Cleveland also made the list.
In nine states, at least 20 percent of children were poor: Mississippi (27.0 percent), Louisiana (26.6 percent), New Mexico (25.0 percent), West Virginia (24.3 percent), Arkansas (21.8 percent), Alabama (21.5 percent), Kentucky (20.8 percent), Texas (20.5 percent) and New York (20.0 percent). The District of Colombia had a worse rate than any state: 31.7 percent.
The working class and progressive movement must make war on the $396 billion Pentagon budget Bush is requesting for 2003, if for no other reason than to demand that millions of children living in the world's richest country be lifted out of poverty.
George W. Bush's home state, Texas, had two among the 10 worst larger cities: Brownsville, with 45.3 percent of children in poverty, and Laredo, with 38.0 percent.
How many of these are here illegally and cannot get a job due to their illegal status?
The working class and progressive movement must make war on the $396 billion Pentagon budget Bush is requesting for 2003, if for no other reason than to demand that millions of children living in the world's richest country be lifted out of poverty.
Which is constitutionally mandated?
These figures do not take into effect government subsidies, or consider geographic difference in the cost of living. Is a house in Mississippi worth the same as one in Minneapolis? Of course not. Income and real estate taxes are also lower or non-existant in many of the states you have listed as well.
(We've seen how the status of born children has declined, through the impact of conservative "values" that favor business interests and use divisive, wedge issues like abortion to keep our attention elsewhere.)
NOW ABOUT YOUR RAISE...
Feel like you're falling behind in these hard economic times? Why not become Chief Executive Officer of a Fortune 500 company?
The pay can't be beat. In 2000, the average annual pay of the top 10 U.S. CEOs was $154 million.
While most working women and men struggled to keep up with inflation during the last two decades, corporate chiefs made out like, well, bandits.
In his new book, "Wealth and Democracy," Kevin Phillips compares the earnings of workers and CEOs from 1981 through 2000. Phillips' study gives more proof of how the gap between rich and poor makes the Grand Canyon look like a pothole.
He found that on average, workers' wages doubled between 1981 and 2000. Sounds good, right? But after inflation, there was very little real gain for most workers.
Workers in some of the lowest-paying jobs actually made less in real dollars than they did 20 years earlier.
And the top bosses? In 1981 they were making a paltry $3.5 million a year. But you can't keep a good thief down.
In the years from 1981 to 2000, executive compensation rose 4,300 percent.
Yeah. That's right: 4,300 percent.
Keep that in mind the next time you need to ask for a raise.
Those most at risk are children whose families face the most oppression in this racist society. In 2000 the poverty rate among Black children was 30 percent; among Latino children, 28 percent.
The AP had an article in todays local paper titled "Poverty, F schools linked, analysis says".
"Statewide, 56% of Florida public school students are White, 23 percent are Black and 18 percent are Hispanic" ... At every F elementary and middle school, more than six out of 10 students come from a low-income family, and at almost 1/2 of the schools, almost every child qualifies for free school lunches, being from poor families.
"But," the article goes on to say "poverty and race don't guarantee failure." More than 100 schools with low-income students earned good grades, which was more than the number (68) that received failing grades.
Compared to other big capitalist countries, the U.S. is far and away the worst offender. Based on a poverty line that is 40 percent of a country's median income, academics Timothy Smeeding and Lee Rainwater have determined that the U.S. has the highest child poverty rate among the 19 wealthiest members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
How much money do we send away to other impoverished countries that could be helping our own poor here in the U.S. to rise above poverty?
The working class and progressive movement must make war on the $396 billion Pentagon budget Bush is requesting for 2003, if for no other reason than to demand that millions of children living in the world's richest country be lifted out of poverty. --Greg Butterfield, Workers World
Or maybe we should let charity do what they do best and help them help our poor to succeed in life.
What was the old saying "give a person a fish... teach them how to fish..."
And just how is the abortion for profit industry improving things? Apparently, they are not.
http://www.rcrc.org/
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has referrals for post-abortion counseling with supportive clergy in many states (California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington). To get connected with the affiliate in your state, check out the “Contact Our Affiliates” section of the Religious Coalition’s web page. That state affiliate can then refer you to a local member of the clergy, from the denomination of your choosing, who can offer post-abortion counseling. If there isn’t an affiliate in your state, or if you have trouble accessing the web page, call Rabbi Bonnie Margulis (202) 628-7700 at the Religious Coalition.
Many groups that profess to offer neutral post-abortion counseling
are actually tied to the anti-choice movement and are less interested in helping women and girls with their problems than in advancing their own partisan goals. Serious psychological damage can result from their unprofessional, agenda-oriented approach.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/18/02 5:52pm
Dennis, so very sorry to hear about your relative. I will keep her and the family in my prayers.
Please keep us posted on how she is doing.
Thank God she got to the hospital in time!
We are on complete polar sides of this issue, but after all the debating, I wish you and your family only the best.
Take care, and again sorry she's (& you are) having to go thru this.
Thank you for your opinion. :(
But if one reads all of her postings - what other view can one get other than 'I think its wrong and therefore you can't do it.' In her great wisdom, she decides for all. All bow before her Great Light.
Be more careful to be precise, Paula and to temper your arguments with the proper degree of humility due to being human and therefore fallable. What do I say if they are undecided? I ask why are they undecided? You do not get anywhere if you do not help them open up and confront themselves. I do not push their decision either way, I only force them to face up and make one = being well aware of the consequences before they implement their decision. All of which is a great deal more effective, more useful, and more kind, than saying 'Come to God for forgiveness my erring daughter who has been a victim of the evil abortion mill'. Which implies she is weak and stupid.
Does it make it acceptable because you learn to live with it when you can totally avoid it under the circumstance of abortion?
Also, you said you were sure for everyone that felt regrets there were more that did not. Did you do a survey?
'Bill - Fold' 6/19/02 5:44am
Thank you.
Kit Zupan 6/18/02 9:09pm
Advice considered! Thanks for answering my questions.
Allison Wonderland 6/18/02 11:46am
Gee, maybe if they would have thought out their decision a little better to begin with...
You are dealing with the result, not the cause.
The point is, a person made a choice and got pregnant. Abortion is killing (not an option). The choice of involvement in an act which results in pregnancy to begin with and the responsibility of following thru on that choice (having the child) are what need to be dealt with.
My argument isn't about choice, it's about life.
Does it make it acceptable because you learn to live with it when you can totally avoid it under the circumstance of abortion?
how? by going full-term, and giving the child up for adoption, and 20 years later regretting that? i doubt there's much difference in the baggage that comes along with either of them.
Also, you said you were sure for everyone that felt regrets there were more that did not. Did you do a survey?
no i didn't do a survey, for the simple reason that the results of a survey are always skewed to meet the needs of the survey-takers. on such an issue as abortion, conducting surveys is a useless task, as the other side will always come up with a survey saying the exact opposite. its one of those "i gotta believe..." type things; believe it or not, examples do exist, in the form of women who've had multiple abortions.
ares 6/19/02 7:01am
Come on Ares, haven't you seen all those happy reunion shows of women reunited with the child they gave up for adoption years later? End result was a happy ending.
An example of stupidity in action. Some people never learn.
"... haven't you seen all those happy reunion shows of women reunited with the child they gave up for adoption years later? End result was a happy ending. "
That's the ones that are made for TV. I doubt that it's always the case.
and what about those who don't get reunited? i'm not sure how it is that the adoption system works, but isn't it usually the child who has to initiate the contact?
There is "baggage" with both deciding to have an abortion, and also having the child and giving them up for adoption. With an abortion though, it's the absolute end of it. You cannot go back and undo the abortion in the future, if your perspective and feelings about it change. With an adoption, there is a chance for both parties to reunite. You cannot go back and undo the adoption, but you can work on a new relationship with the child you gave up. Not everyone wants to reunite, and you have to respect their wishes. But with technology today, it might be easier now to find birth parents. As far as I know, there are various stipulations you can make for an adoption. The birth parents can be a part of the child's life from day one, with an agreement worked out between birth and adoptive parents. I would think there are choices that both sides can make, such as birth parents wanting their information private, and adoptive parents wanting their information private. It would vary though I think
....You mean are actually tied to the Pro-Life movement, which respects life from the moment of conception to natural death.
Their focus is on helping women and girls heal from the horrid acts of the abortion (murder) for profit business. Luckily, they are alive to help!
Please provide links and proof for that statement.
Paula...
Being hardly lady-like or Christian, didn't you remark that the following post of mine was "bullshit"?
"Let's not forget that we're talking about a women's REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM issue, which must entail:
"Access to comprehensive, age appropriate information about sexuality and reproduction.
"Freedom to choose to have a child.
"Good, affordable health care to assure a safe pregnancy and delivery.
"Access to health services to help the infertile achieve pregnancy.
"Freedom to choose not to have a child.
"Access to a full range of contraceptive services and appropriate information about reproduction.
"Freedom to end an unacceptable pregnancy.
"Access to safe, legal, affordable abortion services.
"Freedom to make informed choices.
"Easily accessible health care that is proven to be safe and effective.
"Reproductive health and liberty for women to make their own choices."
Afterwards, when I posted about my female relative who'd nearly died
as a result of these conditions NOT being completely and comprehensibly available -- in a context free of anti-choice harassment of those seeking abortions -- you opportunistically expressed "compassion" for her circumstance.
When it's your attitude, and the aggressive, reactionary politics behind it, that CREATED the stigma and fear that made her so reluctant
to go to a women's health clinic -- frightened to be found out, and scared of running the gauntlet of extremist pickets outside -- that
she attempted an unsuccessful, nearly fatal abortion in private.
With that incredible, destructive hypocrisy as your legacy...we're now supposed to turn her over to anti-choice "counselors" to get her
straightened out?!
She did NOTHING wrong!
Unless well-warranted desperation is your idea of "sin".
You really became totally non-credible -- irrelevant -- in my eyes when you posted that juxtaposition, so indicative of the fundamental, cruel fraudulence your supposedly "moral" cause pretends to be built upon.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/20/02 1:25pm
Opportunistically? You are so full of it!
Every word I said was of sincere concern.
I ignored your bias in the matter.
Furthermore, I did not address the possibility of her current condition being a result of an abortion by a "legal" abortion provider. There is enough time for that.
If it came out that the cause was the possibility I suggest above, would you be honest and tell us here, or would your passion for the cause keep you from telling the truth?
Lets get real here for a minute. How many abortion picketers are outside of the clinic in her town daily? weekly? monthly?
Oh, so now you are BLAMING me for her "CHOICE"?
But when I had trouble dealing with killing the life inside of me, those of your liking basically said "Get Over It!".
Except for inflicting serious bodily injury on herself.
You're probably right! It was probably those Bastards at the abortion clinic.
Now Dennis, if you want to really help her, you may want to check out a few post-abortion sites for help.
I offered caring for you and prayers and concern for her. It's that plain and simple.
http://www.afterabortion.org
http://www.hopeafterabortion.org
Post Abortion Counseling (24hrs./day)1-800-848-5683
American Victims of Abortion (202)628-8800 ext. 1322
Victims of Choice (630) 378-1680
Silent Voices (619) 422-7057
Springfield, IL -- Pro-choice researchers writing in the August issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry have acknowledged that some women experience post-abortion syndrome (PAS). The research team, led by Dr. Brenda Major, diagnosed PAS among 1.4 percent of a sample of women who had abortions two years previously. Critics of abortion are elated by this admission but insist the researchers have only spotted the "tip of the iceberg."
Pro-choice Researchers Acknowledge Existence of "Postabortion Syndrome" — Half a Million Affected
Studies Cited:
Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Cooper M.L., Zubek, J., Richards, C., Wilhite, M., Gramzow, R.H. (2000). Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 57(8):777-84. The full text is available on the web http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v57n8/ffull/yoa8222.html
Söderberg, H., Andersson, C., Janzon, L., & Sjöberg, N-O. (1998). Selection bias in a study on how women experienced induced abortion. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 77:67-70.
Söderberg, H., Janzon, L., & Sjöberg, N-O. (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 79:173-178. www.afterabortion.org
http://www.afterabortion.org/News/Bmajor.html
Please take the time to read the following interesting info. complete with graphs.
Abortion Is Four Times Deadlier
Than Childbirth
New Studies Unmask High Maternal Death Rates From Abortion
David C. Reardon, Ph.D.
Abortion advocates, relying on inaccurate maternal death data in the United States, routinely claim that a woman's risk of dying from childbirth is six, ten, or even twelve times higher than the risk of death from abortion.
http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html
Originally printed in The Post-Abortion Review, 8(2), April-June 2000. Copyright 2000, Elliot Institute.
See also:
*Informed Consent Booklets Hide True Risks of Abortion
*The Cover-Up: Why U.S. Abortion Mortality Statistics Are Meaningless
*Two Senseless Deaths: The Long Road to Recovery
*Abortionists Are Not Held Accountable for Mistakes
Notes
1. Gissler, M., et. al., "Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).
2. Mika Gissler, Elina Hemminki, Jouko Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: 1987-94: register linkage study" British Medical Journal 313:1431-4, 1996.
3. McFadden, A., "The Link Between Abortion and Child Abuse," Family Resources Center News (January 1998) 20.
4. S. J. Drower, & E. S. Nash, "Therapeutic Abortion on Psychiatric Grounds," South African Medical Journal 54:604-608, Oct. 7, 1978; B. Jansson, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 41:87, 1965.
5. David Reardon, "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion," The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8, Fall 1994; Anne C. Speckhard, The Psychological Aspects of Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987); Vincent Rue, "Traumagenic Aspects of Elective Abortion: Preliminary Findings from an International Study" Healing Visions Conference, June 22, 1996
6. Christopher L. Morgan, et. al., "Mental health may deteriorate as a direct effect of induced abortion," letters section, BMJ 314:902, 22 March, 1997.
7. E. Joanne Angelo, Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many Faces of Post-Abortion Grief," Linacre Quarterly 59:69-80, May 1992; David Grimes, "Second-Trimester Abortions in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives 16(6):260; Myre Sim and Robert Neisser, "Post-Abortive Psychoses," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, ed. D. Mall and W.F. Watts, (Washington D.C.: University Publications of America, 1979).
8. Carl Tischler, "Adolescent Suicide Attempts Following Elective Abortion," Pediatrics 68(5):670, 1981.
9. "Psychopathological Effects of Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy on the Father Called Up for Military Service," Psychologie Medicale 14(8):1187-1189, June 1982; Angelo, op. cit.
10. B. Garfinkle, H. Hoberman, J. Parsons and J. Walker, "Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota" (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service, 1986)
11. Esther R. Greenglass, "Therapeutic Abortion and Psychiatric Disturbance in Canadian Women," Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 21(7):453-460, 1976; Helen Houston & Lionel Jacobson, "Overdose and Termination of Pregnancy: An Important Association?" British Journal of General Practice, 46:737-738, 1996.
12. Elizabeth Rosenthal, "Women's Suicides Reveal China's Bitter Roots: Nation Starts to Confront World's Highest Rate," The New York Times, Sunday January 24, 1999, p. 1, 8.
13. R.F. Badgley, D.F. Caron, M.G. Powell, Report of the Committee on the Abortion Law, Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa, 1977:313-319.
14. Jeff Nelson,"Data Request from Delegate Marshall" Interagency Memorandum, Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, Mar. 21, 1997.
15. Carl Tischler, "Adolescent Suicide Attempts Following Elective Abortion," Pediatrics 68(5):670, 1981; E. Joanne Angelo, Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many Faces of Post-Abortion Grief," Linacre Quarterly 59:69-80, May 1992.
16. D.C. Reardon and P.G. Ney, "Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse" Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 26(1):61-75.
17. David Reardon, "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion," The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8, Fall 1994
18. Personal communication with Mika Gissler, March 8, 2000.
19. D. Berkeley, P.L. Humphreys, and D. Davidson, "Demands Made on General Practice by Women Before and After an Abortion," J. R. Coll. Gen. Pract. 34:310-315, 1984.
20. Philip G. Ney, Tak Fung, Adele Rose Wickett and Carol Beaman-Dodd, "The Effects of Pregnancy Loss on Women's Health," Soc. Sci. Med. 48(9):1193-1200, 1994.
21. Gissler, et.al. (1997) 652.
Sorry, Paula, I'm buying none of it.
Once again, anyone who obscenely dismisses the crux of women's reproductive rights and the entire issue as "bullshit", as you plainly did, and incessantly spews a fog of disinformation and guilt- and fear-inducing claims and stories --
all obviously intended to frighten or shame young girls from even approaching abortion clinics -- where they'd often be confronted by phalanxes of highly intimidating anti-choice activists if they dared get THAT far...HAS to be held accountable for the frightened reluctance that quite commonly causes teens who are pregnant to try to abort themselves.
Frequently with terrible results.
If we had abortion availiability predicated on scientific, medical and legal clarity, rather than the demonizing propaganda of insufferably arrogant and intolerant religious tyrants (Our views are the only correct ones, and they WILL rule your life!), females of all ages who needed abortions could readily and safely obtain them,
without serious complications, either during or after.
For the anti-choice "cause" to place these obstacles before desperate women, adding further weight to their already heavy burden, and then to ballyhoo whatever emotional distress ensues, for the partisan purpose of striving to add yet ANOTHER barrier to free reproductive choice...is utterly disgusting.
It's abuse, pure and simple.
Dennis,
How do we know without a shadow of a doubt that the unborn child is not a human being with a soul? Again I will ask, is it not better to err on the side of hoping to save an innocent child rather than err on the side of taking that same child's life?
It scares me to think that our society has come to this. The unborn child's life has been belittled to the point that it has become the "choice" of the mother. Does it fit into her lifestyle or not has become the determining factor of whether God's precious gift of a child will see the light of day.
Every day we hear how old and sick people should be allowed to commit assisted suicide, it is the womens body so she should chose, those Palistinians who blow up a mother holding her child is just a rightious rebeler, etc. Then we wonder why Columbine style of tragedies occur. Must be the fault of the guns.
.....who obscenely dismisses the crux of women's reproductive rights.....
You make it sound like they had no part in getting pregnant. Now that's obscene.
....rather than the demonizing propaganda of insufferably arrogant and intolerant religious tyrants....
You think only religious people are anti-abortion?
It's abuse, pure and simple.
What's abusive is basically using murder, as a solution to an almost totally preventable problem.
How do we know without a shadow of a doubt that the unborn child is not a human being with a soul?
I don't think we can know, but for that matter, we don't even really "know" that anyone has a soul. And yet again, we don't know that animals don't have souls, yet we don't choose to err on the side of caution and refrain from killing all animals. But since some animals kill other animals, and that seems to be the natural order of things, we can probably safely conclude that our killing of animals isn't going to cause a terrible tragedy (except when taken to extremes).
But let's get back to humans and address the question of whether an unborn child has a soul. If it does, if the soul enters the body sometime prior to birth, the next logical question would be when? Is there any point between conception and birth that one can clearly draw such a line? It seems unlikely and thus the only other comfortable point at which to assume the soul arrives other than birth is at conception. But does that make any sense? Something like 40% of all fertilized eggs never make it to birth. Most of those never even manage to attach themselves to the wall of the uterus and never develop past the stage of being just a few cells. Others end up as miscarriages, abortions, stillborns, or what have you. Yet if we're to believe that every fertilized egg had a soul, then that would mean 40% of all souls never even see the light of day. Does this not seem like a terrible, illogical waste? If your belief in souls stems from a belief in God, isn't it a little hard to believe that the same God who made everything else in such amazing, intricate detail, would suddenly become so careless and clumsy? What's the point in making all these unique souls if you're not going to use them? (And if you believe in reincarnation, then big deal, they just move on to the next body instead). To me it seems the only logical point at which to assign a soul to a body is at the point of birth, specifically when you draw your first breath (just as Adam came to life when God breathed into him). Your body continues to exist after you've died and your soul has departed. Why is it so hard to believe that your body could also exist before the soul enters it?
Now granted every fertilized egg will have a unique combination of DNA. But if you consider yourself to be more than just your body, then what matters is the uniqueness of your soul, not the uniqueness of your genes. There are so many DNA combinations possible that most of them will probably remain unrealized for eternity. And like I said before, a large percentage of those that are formed, never make it to birth anyway. So to lament every gene combination that fails to make it to birth is more than a full time job. At some point, you have to accept that that's just how life is and celebrate the children that do make it to birth instead of fretting over those that don't.
So you're right that I don't know beyond the shadow of a doubt that a fetus has a soul. But I do know that at this point anyway it's impossible to know one way or the other. Being that knowledge is impossible, and there isn't much in the way of proof either way, then the only thing left is to decide the probability of each scenario and decide your willingness to live with the consequences. Personally I consider the possibility that every zygote has a soul to be illogical and unlikely for the reasons stated above. On the off chance it does have a soul, then it would partake in the same fate as all the other souls that never make it to birth. If there are really that many, it can't be such a bad fate. Skipping this life and going directly to heaven with a spotless record doesn't really seem like such a harsh thing to impose on someone. Not nearly as harsh as forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy and bear a child against her will.
Everyone concedes that abortion isn't a pretty thing, and all rational and caring souls would like to see its prevalence reduced, if not eliminated. But banning it, as conservatives insist, would dictatorially deny women who need that option...the free exercise of their private rights. And since abortion wouldn't go away, we'd simply go back to the bad, old, bloody days before Roe v.Wade.
What would it really take, then, to lessen abortion's societal occurrence?
1.) Greatly expanded sex education combined with a much readier availablity of inexpensive yet effective contraceptives.
2.) A basic change in male, sexist thinking that women and girls exist for scant purpose other than as outlets for guys' libidinous yearning.
3.) Conquering poverty, achieving full female liberation, winning pay equity within the framework of a universal living wage, and establishing comprehensive social supports that would remove the unequivocal impossibility of bringing children into this world, under so many women's desperate personal circumstances.
Does our system, with its domination by reactionary, patriarchial assumptions on the one hand, and Playboy/MTV-inspired hormonal excess on the other, have a realistic capacity for achieving any of the aformentioned requisites?
No!
So abortion will continue, due to our flawed order's obvious inability to do away with its underlying, causal factors.
That being the case, we need to maximize all opportunities for females to freely act upon their life needs, in the realm of controlling their own reproductive destinies, to avoid massively and horribly compounding a problem the current limitations of our culture
make essentially endemic and sadly ongoing.
not really, rick, as it's just a click away behind his avatar.
Subject: "Worldians" Unite! - Dennis Rahkonen
"Worldians" Unite!
By: Dennis Rahkonen - 06/02/02
Now here's a concept that'll make ultraconservative wingnuts really twirl on their screw threads.
http://www.liberalslant.com
"Let's confirm their worst, wacky fears of a globalist conspiracy by truly acting to unite, across international differences and such ultimate inconsequentialities as religion, race, gender or sexual orientation, to promote a mutual agenda based on nonexclusionary, nonexploitative, progressive politics and economy, with a definite de-emphasis of national identity/loyalty, and all the destructive jingoism and xenophobia it engenders."
...
"If some silk-suited or uniformed honcho tells me that this, that or another "foreigner" is my mortal enemy, trying to convince me I've gotta accept bombing his demonized personna into oblivion (along with myriad innocents who always wind up being the mass victims of war), I'll simply laugh in his face and walk away."
"Leading us to an underscored awareness that we mustn't harm family."
http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/pubarchive.php?haney+890
For those interested in reading the entire "'Worldians' Unite!"
piece...
Dennis Rahkonen 6/21/02 2:07pm
Thank you!
"as Citizens of Earth, predicating our unselfish concerns on doing the greatest good for the largest planetary number, focusing primarily on the acute needs of humanity's impoverished worldwide majority."
Reminds me of that scene in Rick's Bar in Casablanca (paraphrased):
Major Strausser: May I ask you, Mr. Blane, what is your nationality.
Ricky Blane: I'm a drunkard.
Police Chief Louis: Rick is a Citizen of the World.
I do some traveleing overseas. I wanted to think of myself as a Citizen of the World. Sophisticated as hell, it sounded.
Then I watched my country explode from a half a world away, early one morning, Sept. 12, where I was.
I'm an American, now.
Rick,
That was a fabulous post. I think I'll leave for the weekend with that last post sticking in my mind as a good tonic from the week I had. Thanks. Excellent post sir. One of the better I've read in a while. Have a good week end.
"...support for Life from conception to natural death."
Am I correct, Paula, in reading that to mean that -- if any of us became terminally ill in an excruciatingly painful way, under medical conditions so costly that they could bankrupt our families if our lives were needlessly, futilely prolonged -- you and your abrasively interventionist anti-choicers would try to keep us from dying with dignity, on our own terms, if that's what we desired?
And what's your position on capital punishment?
Also, is it just human life you profess to venerate?
Are you a vegetarian, from the principled standpoint that eating meat kills animals?
Politically, do you protest U.S. outrages overseas that kill children, such as the Iraq embargo, or the largely indiscriminate nature of our "war on terrorism" bombing?
Have you voiced indignation over the 20,000-plus people who starve to death globally each day, in not insignificant measure because the neo-colonial/imperialist West purposely, selfishly thwarts internal, native, independent development in Third World countries...the better to perpetuate its own profiteering policies?
Do you refrain from killing army worms, sacrificing your lovely trees instead?
Have you ever slapped (murdered) a mosquito because it annoyed (inconvenienced) you?
In other words, may we put your name up for sainthood?
Or does your "pro-life" character break down and evaporate in certain places and situations?
Just curious...
Rick 6/21/02 2:31pm
Awesome! :)
Dennis Rahkonen 6/21/02 2:50pm
Oh, honey, do yourself a favor and take a break.
You've worked hard and you deserve one.
Have a nice weekend, ok?
Stop insulting the people you disagree with. You may have thought that you were being insulting but if that last post had been directed at me - well I would be highly inflammatory instead of merely cautionary now.
You, Paula, must here and now acknowledge the fact that you and those who believe as you do, Augustinian Christians all, created a world where having children out of wedlock is a sin. And that you have done this so very, very well, after all why did your parents throw you out?, that women are often pushed to this most horrible of solutions.
But you will not, cannot?, acknowledge that you, et al., have created the problem that forced the situation to this point. Your parents obviously were overjoyed to know that their daughter was going to be a mother and that they were going to be the proud grandparents of your child, yes? NO. They threw you out like last week's garbage, never mind your family ties and shared genetic inheritance, and why? Because you sinned by not being married when pregnant.
And now you go on to compound your error by making it a running of the gauntlet to even enter a clinic, nevermind she may not be there for an abortion just a well pregnancy checkup - they do more than just abortions, as well as posting her picture, name and address on the Internet. You have also used the terms 'murderers' and 'bastards' to describe those who work in these clinics.
I believe that you are compensating. You know in your heart that this culture is of 'your' making and yet cannot accept the guilt.
You adhere so strongly to keep the demons at bay. Since you cannot accept you would deny.
No, you do not have to be religious to be against abortion but it helps. Being religious gives you a set rule book that makes it unnecessary to think since all the answers have been given to you.
Not to say that it is easy to live by, conquering one's self never is, but it does give you WWJD answers to all possible questions.
And that is precisely what this 'at conception' stand is - the WWJD answer.
Once again, anyone who obscenely dismisses the crux of women's reproductive rights and the entire issue as "bullshit", as you plainly did, and incessantly spews a fog of disinformation and guilt- and fear-inducing claims and stories --
Rahkonen, you and the baby killers are obscene.
Kit, you deserved to be insulted.
(Our views are the only correct ones, and they WILL rule your life!) Rahkonen, that is the psoition you take when you support abortion. The view that killing is okay. Each time an abortion occurs a child dies. That is OBSCENE!
For the anti-choice "cause" to place these obstacles before desperate women, adding further weight to their already heavy burden, and then to ballyhoo whatever emotional distress ensues, for the partisan purpose of striving to add yet ANOTHER barrier to free reproductive choice...is utterly disgusting.
It's abuse, pure and simple.
What it is, KILLER, is an attempt to save life.
Kit wrote: I believe that you are compensating. You know in your heart that this culture is of 'your' making and yet cannot accept the guilt.
I believe you ar an immoral (fill in the balnk.)
If you take Garfield Avenue into Duluth from the Blatnik Bridge,
at its intersection with Superior St. you'll see a Pro-Life billboard
with 13 cute babies depicted.
There's a huge caption: "America's greatest asset."
"America's" is bodaciously prominent, with the letters comprising a stars and stripes motif.
As you turn right, immediately across the street is the Duluth Gospel Tabernacle, with dozens of large white, PVC-pipe crosses erected on its grounds, symbolizing what are billed as "dead babies" lost to abortion.
As one passes this, and head-shakingly ponders the ridiculous manipulativeness of it all, a stoplight quickly forces motorists to stare out across the adjacent freeway expanse.
What is the first thing anybody will see?
A billboard for the Miller Mall...with a huge photograph of a
wire coat hanger on it (small, explaining lettering not entirely legible).
God works in delightful ways, doesn't She?!
Where do you think you came from Dennis?
We obviously look at abortion through very different prisms.
To me, all of the fetuses aborted throughout history cannot BEGIN to compare, in terms of "moral outrage", with the first (of countless) bloody deaths among American women and young girls that would surely result if reproductive choice once again became outlawed.
We can't make criminals and corpses of our sisters. That's unconscionable.
I'm emphatically convinced that my living, breathing, already born, socially functioning teenaged daughter's definite rights MUST NOT be replaced by imagined rights purportedly belonging to a rudementarily developing embryonic entity that wouldn't yet have cerebral cortex...that might one day come to dependently exist within her womb as a consequence of an unwanted union of sperm and egg.
HER objective life circumstances should be the only factor guiding what ought to be subsequently done, if anything.
I think it's simply WRONG, and the height of un-American abrogation of our personal liberty, for some insufferably sanctimonious outsider -- or government -- rigidly believing that they wield God's will...to FORCE my girl, or any female, to have or not have an abortion.
To get or not get sterilized.
Through my eyes, that's the unalterable bottom line.
I feel that's a totally principled and completely ethical stance.
If you and others think otherwise -- well, that's your CHOICE.
Dennis, you do realize that in Minnesota as well as other states, you are advocating a criminal offense carrying a life sentence?
609.2661 Murder of an unborn child in the first degree.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder of an
 unborn child in the first degree and must be sentenced to
 imprisonment for life:
(1) causes the death of an unborn child with premeditation
 and with intent to effect the death of the unborn child or of
 another;
Kit Zupan 6/21/02 10:02pm
I happen to have a sense of humor. Even though this is a serious subject, occasionally I will attempt to lighten things up a little. That was not meant to be an insult. It was more along the lines of ... we've had great debate this week, it's Friday,
<lighten up for a bit> let's relax, we can get back at the debate after the weekend. Have a nice weekend, ok? <I guess I should have inserted :) to show the emotion behind the statement.>
< BTW - It isn't working ;)> or 2) you have me confused with another poster.
<minute amount> are behaving in extreme ways as compared to the millions of people who are Pro-Life who lovingly and caringly do positive efforts on behalf of children in utero and their mothers before, during, and after the birth of their child.
<my assumption> that she was damaged at the hands of an s.o.b., for profit abortion provider.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/22/02 5:32pm
Lets examine this closely.
Are you aware, Dennis that a person will die within 5 days if they choose not to drink any water?
<no food either, of course> That is all one has to do to die within 5 days because the body cannot function without water.
The persons bodily organs will slow down and soon, very soon, the heart will beat slow...slower...and then it will take it's last beat.
5 days Dennis, and you can do it at your own home, with dignity.
Pain medication, yes...but death by euthanization...no.
I do at this time recognize the right of the state to punish serious crime with the death penalty. But, if the death penalty is abolished, it is fine with me.
Is it ever permitted to take the life of another?
Yes.
To kill in legitimate self defense is not sinful. The state has the right to punish serious crime with the death penalty.
To take part in a just war (one in which the cause and the means are just and in which there is reasonable hope of success) is not against the fifth commandment.
I think possibly, if prisons were taken over by corporations, and real life, living-wage work skills were taught we might not see so many repeat offenders.
Also, many in prison suffer from untreated mental illness. I think there needs to be much advancement in the prison system.
Abortion and "mercy killing"(mortal sins) are different because in both cases human life is taken unjustly.
Humans need a balanced meal with the nutrients provided by meat and fish. BTW - There is a good article in this weeks readers digest about the great benefits of milk.
Politically, I support all military & veterans, past, present, and future in the necessity of war. Furthermore, our military leaders have done an excellent job conducting this war on terrorism.
I honor and respect all our military as heroes.
Yes, I think it is horrid. I especially detest warring tribes who keep the food we send from those starving people.
Also, female genital mutilation and acid-throwing are things that outrage me.
I don't see it the same way as you do.
Could you imagine how far worse off those countries would be, if it were not for the millions we send them yearly to help combat their countries horrid conditions?
How is it our country has come so far in a little over 200 years, yet those countries who have been in existence for longer still have not evolved culturally, economically, and humanly?
I have not had the opportunity yet to act upon such a situation.
Mosquitoes carry the west nile virus, hemmhorragic fever, and various other potentially fatal illnesses all currently here in the United States. I kill them upon sight. Furthermore, I do not like wearing pesticides on my body.
There are better people than I who make Pro-Life issues their cause in life. I just do my small part by voting, being slightly politically active, speaking words of wisdom when needed, and teaching others the ways of unselfish love.
But, speaking of Saints, wasn't Mother Teresa a wonderful human being?
Not really.
Hope I have satisfied your curiosity.
Actually, only a miniscule few can validly claim to be authentically "pro-life" because, as Paula has demonstrated, virtually everyone reaches a point of personal or societal justification for "playing God" -- i.e., taking a life for some reason that they feel is compelling enough to warrant it, if only in their own minds.
If we accept the simple premise, espoused especially by certain Eastern faiths, that "all life is sacred", and equally so, then there can be no killing of vermin, say, on the grounds that they transmit disease.
The only non-hypocritical stance to take would be to graciously
tolerate their existence, treating them as deserving of life on a par with human beings, and leaving it to God or Nature to determine who and what dies, and why.
Since I personally make no pretense of being pro-life, however, I can be pro-abortion rights, anti-capital punishment, anti-war, pro-assisted suicide, etc., being wholly consistent with progressive philosophical ideals, but NOT in violation of what ought to be, but isn't, a hard and fast, inalterable rule that's implicit in the beliefs of anyone who makes a showy moral contention of being...pro-life.
Furthermore, contrary to what anti-choice adherents will always wrongly claim, an abortion (emphatically in the first-trimester period when the overwhelming amount of pregnancy terminations occur) doesn't claim "a life", which HAS to rationally be seen as a living entity capable of independent, ex utero survival.
An egg is not a chicken. An embryo is not a baby.
And, as much as anti-choice propaganda would relish the thought of spreading the image, a fetus doesn't ride around on a little tricycle in mamma's womb.
If ever there was a group to whom the
phrase "Get Real!" could fittingly be applied, it's anti-choicers with their preposterous assertions, all manipulatively contrived to try to guilt-trip women and teenaged girls from exercising their inalienable abortion option.
As for why we're so "developed" compared to
others, particularly the Third World, an entirely different interpretation from Paula's is dominant in the affected countries. There, you'll find few who believe that the legacy of colonialism, combined with current imperialism, is "humane". Or that the millions we spend on "foreign aid", most of which goes to militarily prop up sell-out comprador regimes compliant to our one-sided economic exploitation of their own people and resources...is charitable.
We need to move beyond fetus fetishism and think about the bigger picture, including the deteriorating status of born babies right here in America.
CHILD POVERTY RISING AGAIN
For a brief period during the late 1990s economic boom, the U.S. child poverty rate fell--barely--for the first time in decades. Politicians on both sides of the aisle claimed the decrease as a vindication of their policies dismantling welfare.
Now the blip is over. It's the 21st century and child poverty is rising again. And what do the experts think is a leading cause?
You guessed it: the dismantling of welfare.
The official rate of child poverty bottomed out at 16 percent in 2000--not even close to the 14-percent rate of the late 1960s and early 1970s. It rose again in 2001. The analysts are still debating by how much.
For the U.S. government to admit that you live in poverty, you have to be extremely poor. The fact is, many, many more children actually live in poverty. Some experts put the real total closer to 25 percent.
But some facts are indisputable. There are fewer jobs and more unemployment. Many parents--former welfare recipients who managed to find jobs during the last boom--are now unemployed again, with no safety net to catch them or their kids.
Those most at risk are children whose families face the most oppression in this racist society. In 2000 the poverty rate among Black children was 30 percent; among Latino children, 28 percent.
Compared to other big capitalist countries, the U.S. is far and away the worst offender. Based on a poverty line that is 40 percent of a country's median income, academics Timothy Smeeding and Lee Rainwater have determined that the U.S. has the highest child poverty rate among the 19 wealthiest members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Their study sets the poverty line even lower than official U.S. policy. But that doesn't make the picture any brighter.
Using this method, 14.8 percent of U.S. children lived in poverty in 1997. Only one other country--Italy--came close, with a rate of 14.6 percent. The next closest was Canada, with 9.6 percent.
Contrary to the perception shaped by the government and mass media that child poverty is exclusively an urban problem, recently released data from the 2000 census show just how widespread the problem is.
A study of the data by the Children's Defense Fund shows that 38 mostly rural counties around the U.S. have higher rates of child poverty than any major cities.
In 14 of these counties--which range from the Deep South to the Midwest--the child poverty rate is more than 50 percent.
George W. Bush's home state, Texas, had two among the 10 worst larger cities: Brownsville, with 45.3 percent of children in poverty, and Laredo, with 38.0 percent.
Hartford, New Orleans, Providence, Atlanta, Buffalo, N.Y., Miami, Gary, Ind., and Cleveland also made the list.
In nine states, at least 20 percent of children were poor: Mississippi (27.0 percent), Louisiana (26.6 percent), New Mexico (25.0 percent), West Virginia (24.3 percent), Arkansas (21.8 percent), Alabama (21.5 percent), Kentucky (20.8 percent), Texas (20.5 percent) and New York (20.0 percent). The District of Colombia had a worse rate than any state: 31.7 percent.
The working class and progressive movement must make war on the $396 billion Pentagon budget Bush is requesting for 2003, if for no other reason than to demand that millions of children living in the world's richest country be lifted out of poverty.
--Greg Butterfield, Workers World
Where do you think you came from Dennis?
You don't really want to know, THX.
Suffice to say I remove my zippered "human" suit when I sleep on the ceiling.
Yes, I do want to know.
Where do you think you came from, Dennis?
George W. Bush's home state, Texas, had two among the 10 worst larger cities: Brownsville, with 45.3 percent of children in poverty, and Laredo, with 38.0 percent.
How many of these are here illegally and cannot get a job due to their illegal status?
The working class and progressive movement must make war on the $396 billion Pentagon budget Bush is requesting for 2003, if for no other reason than to demand that millions of children living in the world's richest country be lifted out of poverty.
Which is constitutionally mandated?
These figures do not take into effect government subsidies, or consider geographic difference in the cost of living. Is a house in Mississippi worth the same as one in Minneapolis? Of course not. Income and real estate taxes are also lower or non-existant in many of the states you have listed as well.
(We've seen how the status of born children has declined, through the impact of conservative "values" that favor business interests and use
divisive, wedge issues like abortion to keep our attention elsewhere.)
NOW ABOUT YOUR RAISE...
Feel like you're falling behind in these hard economic times? Why not become Chief Executive Officer of a Fortune 500 company?
The pay can't be beat. In 2000, the average annual pay of the top 10 U.S. CEOs was $154 million.
While most working women and men struggled to keep up with inflation during the last two decades, corporate chiefs made out like, well, bandits.
In his new book, "Wealth and Democracy," Kevin Phillips compares the earnings of workers and CEOs from 1981 through 2000. Phillips' study gives more proof of how the gap between rich and poor makes the Grand Canyon look like a pothole.
He found that on average, workers' wages doubled between 1981 and 2000. Sounds good, right? But after inflation, there was very little real gain for most workers.
Workers in some of the lowest-paying jobs actually made less in real dollars than they did 20 years earlier.
And the top bosses? In 1981 they were making a paltry $3.5 million a year. But you can't keep a good thief down.
In the years from 1981 to 2000, executive compensation rose 4,300 percent.
Yeah. That's right: 4,300 percent.
Keep that in mind the next time you need to ask for a raise.
--Greg Butterfield, Workers World
Dennis Rahkonen 6/23/02 7:42pm
CHILD POVERTY RISING AGAIN
The AP had an article in todays local paper titled "Poverty, F schools linked, analysis says".
"Statewide, 56% of Florida public school students are White, 23 percent are Black and 18 percent are Hispanic" ... At every F elementary and middle school, more than six out of 10 students come from a low-income family, and at almost 1/2 of the schools, almost every child qualifies for free school lunches, being from poor families.
"But," the article goes on to say "poverty and race don't guarantee failure." More than 100 schools with low-income students earned good grades, which was more than the number (68) that received failing grades.
How much money do we send away to other impoverished countries that could be helping our own poor here in the U.S. to rise above poverty?
Or maybe we should let charity do what they do best and help them help our poor to succeed in life.
What was the old saying "give a person a fish... teach them how to fish..."
And just how is the abortion for profit industry improving things? Apparently, they are not.