Abortion Article

[Controlled Chaos]

Holiday for Abortionists—Seriously

Joel Mowbray

 

 

March 9, 2004 |

 

 

 

This Wednesday, March 10th, is a holiday with which you may not be familiar, but should be: the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.

 

The very fact that there exists such a “holiday”—created in 1996 and co-sponsored by more than twenty major groups, including Planned Parenthood and National Organization for Women (NOW)—says everything you need to know about the pro-abortion movement today.

 

Most ordinary Americans who identify themselves as “pro-choice” would be disgusted that abortion providers are being hailed as heroes. Even to people who support keeping the procedure legal, abortion is not something to be glorified.

 

The National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers cannot be dismissed as something celebrated by fringe elements, though.

 

Aside from Planned Parenthood and NOW, it is endorsed by such mainstream “pro-choice” groups as National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

 

The abortionist appreciation “holiday,” according to the web site of the umbrella group that founded it, Refuse and Resist, entails such as activities as “local appreciation day events,” and asking people to use their “imagination, creativity and dedication to help create a climate” where abortionists “can hold their heads high.”

 

The Refuse and Resist web site also encourages people to give gifts to their friendly local abortion providers.

 

So what do you get someone after a long day of collapsing the skulls of unborn children so their tiny bodies fall lifeless out of the uterus? A “breakfast basket of fruit or muffins” is recommended.

 

Some will complain that I’m making abortionists look worse by highlighting partial-birth abortion, a particularly gruesome procedure.

 

But that’s the thing about abortion. It’s always gruesome. It’s always violent. The end result is always that an unborn child dies at the hand of the abortionist.

 

Over the years, though, most Americans never really had to bother much with the details of abortion. All that changed, however, with the long-running debate over partial-birth abortion.

 

When the partial-birth abortion issue came to prominence in 1995, support for abortion was at its highest point in nearly two decades. Gallup found that 56% of Americans identified themselves as “pro-choice,” compared to only 33% calling themselves “pro-life.”

 

The hard-core abortion supporters preferred the clinical-sounding medical term “dilation and extraction.” The public didn’t.

 

Once Americans were forced to consider the ugly reality of a procedure where full-term babies are partially delivered breech (meaning feet first) so that the brain could be suctioned out, support for abortion—not just partial-birth—plummeted.

 

Since 2001, roughly the same number of people polled by Gallup identified themselves as “pro-choice” as “pro-life,” a seismic shift in public opinion in just six years.

 

Most Americans now find abortion morally wrong when done in any type of procedure, and only one-third think that ending the life of the unborn child is morally acceptable, according to a Gallup poll released last summer.

 

Perhaps the most logical explanation is that more and more people recognize the core nature of abortion. Even the most common procedures, such as “suction curettage” (typically performed in the first trimester) or “dilation and evacuation” (usually done in the second and third trimesters), are too horrifying to fathom.

 

As described by pregnantpause.org, “suction curettage” is where an abortionist inserts into a woman's dilated cervix a tube with a sharp edge on it that "is connected to a suction device, similar to a home vacuum cleaner but much more powerful. Between the sharp edge and the force of the suction, the developing baby is torn apart and the pieces sucked out through the tube.”

 

Even more gruesome is “dilation and evacuation.” From pregnantpause.org: “A seaweed-based substance called ‘laminaria’ is inserted into the cervix to dilate it, usually overnight. The next day forceps with sharp metal teeth are inserted and used to twist and tear off the unborn baby's limbs and remove them piece-by-piece. The head is usually too large to be removed whole and must be crushed.”

 

It’s not difficult to see why the more the details of abortion creep into the public debate, the more pro-life Americans become. It’s only natural. Abortion’s “ok”—as long as it is just a “choice.”

 

When people are forced to think about the details inherent in an abortion, however, fewer and fewer people support “choice” when they realize what that “choice” actually entails—and fewer still will celebrate the abortionist “holiday.”

[Goldmember]

:headshake

[Texsox]

Thank God the GOP will support a fine mother like this who didn't believe in abortion

CHICAGO -- A mother of 10 pleaded guilty Friday to felony charges for leaving her oldest child, a 14-year-old girl, in charge of the family for at least four days in December.

 

Tonia S. Haywood, 30, of South Wolcott Avenue, was placed on 18 months probation by Criminal Court Judge Lawrence Fox after pleading guilty to nine counts of felony child abandonment, according to Tom Stanton, a spokesman for the Cook County state's attorney's office.

 

Had she been convicted at trial, Haywood could have been sentenced to serve up to three years in prison, Stanton said.

 

During her probation, Haywood will have to submit to regular and random drug and alcohol testing, and must report daily to the Cook County Adult Probation Office, Stanton said.

 

In addition, Fox ordered she undergo 30 days inpatient substance abuse treatment and 30 days outpatient, and must move her family to a new home, Stanton said.

 

Acting on a tip from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, police discovered the 10 children home alone in her apartment at the Wolcott Avenue address Dec. 6, according to police News Affairs Officer Laura Kubiak and a Deering District lieutenant.

 

The children had adequate food, heat and hot water, and none of them appeared to have suffered any injuries, police said.

 

Kubiak and Assistant State's Attorney Lorraine Scaduto said the children were three girls, ages 14, 9, and 2, and seven boys, ages 11, 10, 7, 6, 3, 1 and 1.

 

After her arrest, Haywood told police that she left her children alone from Dec. 2 to Dec. 5 while she prostituted herself to raise $450 to pay the rent on the family's apartment.

 

Police and DCFS officials said the children might have actually been alone for up to 14 days.

 

DCFS spokeswoman Jill Manuel said the agency began investigating after a call to its child abuse and neglect hot line reported that the teenage girl was left in charge of up to 10 children for two weeks.

 

The children were placed in the care of a grandmother who had enough room in her home to care for them, Manuel said. She said DCFS caseworkers would maintain contact with the family and assist the grandmother as needed.

 

Good thing the GOP never wants to cut funding for "welfare mothers"

[Soxy]

Oh, Tex, don't even respond to this guy. I looked up his posts in this forum and he really only posts things that are pretty inflammatory--just ignore him. When is that button getting here?

[southsider2k5]

With posts like this, not soon enough

[Texsox]

Oh, Tex, don't even respond to this guy. I looked up his posts in this forum and he really only posts things that are pretty inflammatory--just ignore him. When is that button getting here?

I'm just trying to catch up with southsider in total posts and I need the excercise

 

This is one of the areas where I am embarrased to be anti abortion. Both sides use the worst bit of disinformation and have long ago left honest debate in favor of inflammitory images and lies.

 

Doctor Murdered as Anti-Abortion Violence and Terrorism Continue

Speaking of interesting articles.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Good thing the Christian Right doesn't murder people eith-- oh wait.

 

www.armyofgod.com

 

Pro-lifers murdering people. It's irony on a real basic level but I enjoy it.

 

I actually just read a really good book "When Abortion Was a Crime". It's a history of abortion from 19th Century America until 1973 when it was legalized.

 

It disturbed me greatly that the original anti-abortionists argued for the criminalization of abortion (and this is in the public record of America Medical Association publications of the late 1800s and early 1900s) because it would cause "race suicide" and immigrants and blacks would take over the population and take over political power. There was an overt sentiment of racism injected into the criminalization of abortion. Even when abortion was criminalized, abortions were still able to be had because women wanted them and many doctors knew women would do it themselves, so the doctors tried to do it medically as to minimize the death of the mother. Most of the AMA elite did not want abortion legalized because they admitted that they would lose money of child births and the new kids that they would have to give check-ups et al. It should also be known that for years until the criminalization of abortion that abortion before quickening (being able to feel the baby kick and move inside) was deemed perfectly acceptable. Women still proceeded to get abortions before quickening even into the 1900s because they still clung to the idea of quickening.

 

In the 1930s, especially during the height of the Great Depression, abortion was widely accepted even though it was criminal because women could not raise children in a good home and the costs of giving birth would sink their families economically. As the 1940s and 50s rolled in, many physicians came forward to act against the criminalization of abortion and wanted it legalized. As the backlash against abortion came in full force in the 1940s and 50s, these doctors saw that women who wanted them were forced to go underground to get them. In these underground backroom abortions, women were forced to give "package deals" (a.k.a. trading sex for an abortion), the tools were not sterilized and damn near all the time, the abortionist was not a trained doctor at all. This drastically put the woman's life at grave risk. And oddly enough, the sociological data that Leslie Reagan (the author) uses shows that most women who got abortions were married and had kids but could not afford more...and this was also during the times that contracentives and anything resembling birth control was being criminalized for being distributed so there was no other real option (unless you think married couples just would abstain from having sex altogether which ain't bloody likely) The doctors were the original ones starting in the 1950s promoting the legalization of abortion and were later joined in the 1960s and 1970s by feminist groups.

 

Having a woman's right to choose is key and integral because, as history shows, they will do whatever they have to to get an abortion if they need/want one.

 

Personally, I think an open discussion about sexuality and contraceptives would drastically reduce the need for abortion in the first place. We live in a highly repressed society that views sex as taboo as can be seen from anti-sodomy laws that were recently struck down to laws that limit the amount of sexual toys one can have in their home (I'm looking at you, state of Texas) to the idea that abstinence education will stop kids from having sex. In my eyes, taking away the protective measures (i.e. condoms, birth control etc.) will not stop children from engaging in sex, but rather increase the amount of kids having sex...and this seems to be the case in Bush's tenure as governor of Texas. Since his tenure as governor of Texas, President Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers “abstinence only” rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.38 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.

 

The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration went further by distorting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the CDC to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.

 

In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at the CDC at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency was forced to discontinue a project called “Programs that Work,” which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies. All five of the programs identi- fied in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website.

 

Source: Scientific Integrity in Policymaking Report

http://www.proudliberals.com/home/index.cf...8&T_ID=1&C_ID=0 This link has the source on it (I can't direct link to it since it's a .pdf file)

 

Even Ronald Reagan said that he believed sex was "inherently tinged with evil." If we live in a society that is so Puritanical that it loathes its own bodies and desires, then no wonder we're having the problems we're having. An openness about sex and sexuality in American culture might just be the means to lower the need for abortion instead of criminalizing it (which has shown that it does not do anything to curb women getting abortions)

[SoxAce]

sideshowapu, that is the best sig on this board!!

[Wong & Owens]

Good thing the Christian Right doesn't murder people eith-- oh wait.

 

www.armyofgod.com

 

Pro-lifers murdering people.  It's irony on a real basic level but I enjoy it.

 

I actually just read a really good book "When Abortion Was a Crime". It's a history of abortion from 19th Century America until 1973 when it was legalized.

 

It disturbed me greatly that the original anti-abortionists argued for the criminalization of abortion (and this is in the public record of America Medical Association publications of the late 1800s and early 1900s) because it would cause "race suicide" and immigrants and blacks would take over the population and take over political power. There was an overt sentiment of racism injected into the criminalization of abortion. Even when abortion was criminalized, abortions were still able to be had because women wanted them and many doctors knew women would do it themselves, so the doctors tried to do it medically as to minimize the death of the mother. Most of the AMA elite did not want abortion legalized because they admitted that they would lose money of child births and the new kids that they would have to give check-ups et al. It should also be known that for years until the criminalization of abortion that abortion before quickening (being able to feel the baby kick and move inside) was deemed perfectly acceptable. Women still proceeded to get abortions before quickening even into the 1900s because they still clung to the idea of quickening.

 

In the 1930s, especially during the height of the Great Depression, abortion was widely accepted even though it was criminal because women could not raise children in a good home and the costs of giving birth would sink their families economically. As the 1940s and 50s rolled in, many physicians came forward to act against the criminalization of abortion and wanted it legalized. As the backlash against abortion came in full force in the 1940s and 50s, these doctors saw that women who wanted them were forced to go underground to get them. In these underground backroom abortions, women were forced to give "package deals" (a.k.a. trading sex for an abortion), the tools were not sterilized and damn near all the time, the abortionist was not a trained doctor at all. This drastically put the woman's life at grave risk. And oddly enough, the sociological data that Leslie Reagan (the author) uses shows that most women who got abortions were married and had kids but could not afford more...and this was also during the times that contracentives and anything resembling birth control was being criminalized for being distributed so there was no other real option (unless you think married couples just would abstain from having sex altogether which ain't bloody likely) The doctors were the original ones starting in the 1950s promoting the legalization of abortion and were later joined in the 1960s and 1970s by feminist groups.

 

Having a woman's right to choose is key and integral because, as history shows, they will do whatever they have to to get an abortion if they need/want one.

 

Personally, I think an open discussion about sexuality and contraceptives would drastically reduce the need for abortion in the first place. We live in a highly repressed society that views sex as taboo as can be seen from anti-sodomy laws that were recently struck down to laws that limit the amount of sexual toys one can have in their home (I'm looking at you, state of Texas) to the idea that abstinence education will stop kids from having sex. In my eyes, taking away the protective measures (i.e. condoms, birth control etc.) will not stop children from engaging in sex, but rather increase the amount of kids having sex...and this seems to be the case in Bush's tenure as governor of Texas. Since his tenure as governor of Texas, President Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers “abstinence only” rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.38 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states.

 

The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration went further by distorting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the CDC to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.

 

In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at the CDC at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency was forced to discontinue a project called “Programs that Work,” which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies. All five of the programs identi- fied in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website.

 

Source: Scientific Integrity in Policymaking Report

http://www.proudliberals.com/home/index.cf...8&T_ID=1&C_ID=0 This link has the source on it (I can't direct link to it since it's a .pdf file)

 

Even Ronald Reagan said that he believed sex was "inherently tinged with evil." If we live in a society that is so Puritanical that it loathes its own bodies and desires, then no wonder we're having the problems we're having. An openness about sex and sexuality in American culture might just be the means to lower the need for abortion instead of criminalizing it (which has shown that it does not do anything to curb women getting abortions)

Great stuff, Apu, I couldn't agree more.

[Controlled Chaos]

Oh, Tex, don't even respond to this guy. I looked up his posts in this forum and he really only posts things that are pretty inflammatory--just ignore him. When is that button getting here?

INFLAMMATORY????????????

 

Why?? Cause it is a side you don't agree with??? Gimmie a f***in break. I posted an article. It wasn an interesting article and I never read how any of that stuff was performed...I figured many people on this board haven't either. I have already stated I am not 100% against abortion as most PRO LIFE people are. I believe there are circumstances when it is very necessary. I am not some religious freak as some of the other posts have mentioned. In fact I haven't been to church except for weddings in about 15 years....that stuff stopped when I was old enough to say so. Don't judge me and lump me in with everyone. I enjoy the banter back and forth and learn opinions I wouldn't normally hear...whether I agree with it or not. I also prefer to hear the stuff from a fellow sox fan cause I know we always have that in common, but you prefer to just get a button and put me on ignore.

 

"With posts like this it couldn't be soon enough...."

 

Thanks for checking up on my posts though...

[Texsox]

Oh, Tex, don't even respond to this guy. I looked up his posts in this forum and he really only posts things that are pretty inflammatory--just ignore him. When is that button getting here?

Interesting you felt controlled choas is a guy, for some reason I thought a woman. The more I read the threads, you are probably correct.

 

Not that it makes a difference.

[southsider2k5]

Interesting you felt controlled choas is a guy, for some reason I thought a woman. The more I read the threads, you are probably correct.

 

Not that it makes a difference.

I think on a board that is probably 95% male, at least, it is a default assumption to assume someone is a male, unless there exsists something to instantly tell you they are female, such as a screenname that indicates so.

[Wong & Owens]

I think on a board that is probably 95% male, at least, it is a default assumption to assume someone is a male, unless there exsists something to instantly tell you they are female, such as a screenname that indicates so.

You mean like, "Controlled Chaos and the Women Who Love it"

 

or maybe, "Men are from Mars, Controlled Chaos is from Venus"

[Controlled Chaos]

30 year old male...moved from Bridgeport when I was about 3 to 79th Pulaski...Moved to Naperville area when I was about 19. My mom and dad were both brought up in Bridgeport. I lived in the building Jimbo's is located in..My grandpa owned it back then. My dad ran the bar that is now Jimbo's.....back then it was called M&M tap. That should take care of the demographics.

[Controlled Chaos]

You mean like, "Controlled Chaos and the Women Who Love it"

 

or maybe, "Men are from Mars, Controlled Chaos is from Venus"

Not sure I attacked you personally???

 

Are you calling me out???????

[Texsox]

I think on a board that is probably 95% male, at least, it is a default assumption to assume someone is a male, unless there exsists something to instantly tell you they are female, such as a screenname that indicates so.

Wait, do you mean Steff isn't a 56 year old Dennis Franz look alike from China Town?

damn PA's fantasy is shot

[Wong & Owens]

Not sure I attacked you personally???

 

Are you calling me out???????

Er, relax, I am not "calling you out" on a stupid message board.

 

I was referring to southsider's statement about screennames that indicate the user is female.

[Texsox]

Congratulations to Chaos for 50 posts and 360 replies

[Controlled Chaos]

GRAZIE!!!!!!!!!!

 

I had not realized I hit that plateau!! Perhaps I'll keep the next 50 posts in the Pale Hose Talk forum.