Devin has responded to my arguments that marriage does not apply to homosexual relationships. She has done so in more words than I used to make the original post. Her comment warrants a more detailed reply than what will fit in a combox, so I will dedicate two posts to it. This, the first post, deals with the first part of her reply, about the seemingly-unrelated topic of abortion. It is actually somewhat appropriate considering there is a direct and strong link between homosexual "marriage" and abortion, which I will talk about later.
Devin linked to a video from NARAL where several women spoke of alleged misinformation given to them at an unnamed "Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center". I watched the video, and my first response was the word most commonly written in red ink on my history papers by Miss Smyth, my high school history teacher: "evidence". I.e., the lack thereof. Unlike the video I linked, which shows the statements of a nurse in a Planned Parenthood clinic giving false information to a patient, the NARAL video consists only of a series of women stating things which allegedly they were told at an unnamed crisis pregnancy center, like neighbors gossiping over the fence. No context is given for these statements. We are not told who made them, if they were in printed materials, if they were spoken, what the context was, if they represent the view of one recently-hired nurse or the director of the center. We are not told the affiliation of the center, if it was run by a major national pro-life organization or out of someone's garage. All those details are left to the viewers imagination to encourage us, I guess, to assume the worst.
For these reasons alone, I could dismiss the entire video as uninformative and unhelpful, but I will address the allegations point by point.
First alleged statement: HIV can swim through the holes in condoms.
Well, if there are holes in the condom, this is true. But I assume the statement refers to the urban legend that HIV is small enough to fit between the molecules of the condom, or whatever.
While this has been debunked, it is largely irrelevant the point about condoms' ineffectiveness. The typical use conception rate for condoms is 10-18% per year [Guttmacher Institute (1992). "Choice of Contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics 34 (885): 111–114]. That means if 100 women use condoms as their primary form of birth control for one year, 10-18 of them are expected to get pregnant. The "perfect" use pregnancy rate is 2% per year.
The rate of breakage is between 0.4% and 2.3%, while the rate of slippage is between 0.6% and 1.3%. [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (2001-07-20). "Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention".] Even if no breakage or slippage is observed, 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom. [Walsh, T; Frezieres, R; Peacock, K; Nelson, A; Clark, V; Bernstein, L; Wraxall, B (2004). "Effectiveness of the male latex condom: combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical trials". Contraception 70 (5): 407–13.]
So while the details of the alleged statement may be wrong, the message is correct: condoms can't always protect against HIV.
Second alleged statement: Your risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion.
This is a true statement, or near enough to it. If the National Cancer Institute disagrees, then they have their collective heads stuck firmly in the sand, to the detriment and harm of women worldwide.
Here is a list of studies that have found more than a two-fold increase in breast cancer risk after abortion:
- M. Segi, et al., “An Epidemiological Study on Cancer in Japan,” GANN, Vol. 48, Supplement: April, 1957.
- Pike, et al., (1981) British Journal of Cancer 43 Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women
- Nishiyama, (1982) Shikoku Ichi 38: 333-43
- Laing et al., (1993) Journal of the National Medical Association 85:931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African - American women: the Howard University Tumor Resistry experience
- Laing, et al., (1994) Genetic Epidemiology 11:A300 Rohan et al. American Journal of Epidemiology September 1988;128(3):478-89.
- Rohan, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1988 Sep;128(3):478-89
- A population-based case-control study of diet and breast cancer in Australia.
- Bu, et al., (1995) American Journal of Epidemiology 141:S85
- Ye, et al., (2002) British Journal of Cancer 87:977-981
- Brinton, et al., (1983) British Journal of Cancer 47:757-62 Reproductive factors in the etiology of breast cancer.
- Rosenburg, et al., (1988) American Journal of Epidemiology 127:981-9 Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion.
- Marcus, et al., American Journal of Public Health 1999 Aug; 89(8):1244-7 Adolescent reproductive events and subsequent breast cancer risk.
- Palmer, et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9 Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer.
- Lazovich, et al., Epidemiology 2000 Jan;11(1):76-80 Induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
- Daling, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology 1996 Aug 15;144(4):373-80 Risk of breast cancer among White women following induced abortion.
- Daling, et al., Journal of National Cancer Institute 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1584-92 Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion.
- Laing, et al., Journal of National Medical Association 1993 Dec;85(12):931-9 Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience.
- White, et al., (1994) Journal of the National Cancer Institute 86:505-14 Breast cancer among young U.S. women in relation to oral contraceptive use.
- Newcomb, et al., (1996) Journal of the American Medical Association 275:283-7 Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer.
- Howe, et al., International Journal of Epidemiology 1989 June;18(2):300-4 Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40.
- Andrieu, et al., British Journal of Cancer 1995 Sep;72(3):744-51 Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer—a combined analysis of six case-control studies.
- Hirohata, et al., (1985) National Cancer Institute Monograph 69:187-90 Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan.
- Ewertz & Duffy (1988) British Journal of Cancer 68:99-104 Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark.
- Lipworth, et al., (1995) Int Journal Cancer 61:181-4 Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece
- Rookus & van Leeuwan Journal Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64 Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study
- Talamini et al. (1996) Eur Journal Cancer 32A:303-10 The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause
- Watanabe & Hirayama (1968) Nippon Rinsho 26:1853-9
- Dvoirin & Medvedev (1978) Meth Prog Breast Cancer Epidemiol Research, Tallin 1978. USSR Acad Sci pp 53-63 (In Russian)
- Le, et al., (1984) British Journal of Cancer 72:744-51
- Luporsi, (1988) British Journal of Cancer 72:744-51
- Wu et al., (1996) British Journal of Cancer 73:680-6
- Robertson, Van Den Donk, Primic-Zakelj, MacFarlane, Boyle, The association
- between induced and spontaneous abortion and risk of breast cancer
- in Slovenian women aged 25-54. Breast 2001; 10:291-8.
of Cancer Research) 48 (Suppl.) (1957): 1-63.]
As of March, 2002, there have been published in the worldwide medical literature 37 studies reporting data on the risk of breast cancer among women with a history of induced abortion. Twenty-eight of these studies report increased risk. Thirteen of the 15 American studies report increased risk, eight with statistical significance (at least 95 percent probability that the result is not due to chance) irrespective of age at first full term pregnancy. The relative risk increase of the 37 studies combined is 30 percent. [(2002, July). APLOG Statement on Abortion & The Risk of Breast Cancer, Physicians for Life.]
Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic. Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion. She said, "I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate."
Even Planned Parenthood admits the breast cancer/abortion connection: “It is known that having a full-term pregnancy early in a woman’s childbearing years is protective against breast cancer. ... Interruption during the first trimester of a first pregnancy causes a cessation of cell differentiation, which may result in a subsequent
increase in the risk of cancerous growth in these tissues.” [(1997, September 5). Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, Inc. Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Issues 3.]
This is what I found in about 30 minutes of searching. One could write volumes on the proven link between abortion and breast cancer, and volumes have been written, but I will stop here, my case having been made.
To address the National Cancer Institute's study, their summary report, "Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer," reached contradictory conclusions with respect to the link between abortion and breast cancer. It acknowledges one of the two breast cancer risks associated with abortion - the protective effect of a full term pregnancy - but then contradicts itself by stating that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." And during the production of that study, Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's "study" of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed.
The pro-abortion activists are tipping their hand here. They demonstrate that the sacrament of abortion is so sacred to them, so paramount, that they are willing to ignore evidence. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of women to uphold the "right" to slaughter an innocent babe in the womb. I hold nothing but contempt for these people's lies.
Third alleged statement: 28% of women attempt suicide after an abortion.
This is a slight misquote of a Finnish study. With no context to NARAL's claims, it's impossible to determine if the crisis pregnancy worker was misquoting the study, or the NARAL supporter was misquoting the crisis pregnancy worker:
According to the study, "approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, and half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records-based study. They identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. Suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9). Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage, the rate was 18.1 per 100,000 and for abortion 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women carrying to term and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers." [A. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987). M. Gissler, E. Hemminki and J. Lonnqvist, “Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study,” British Journal of Medicine 313 (1996): 1431-4.C. N.Campbell, K.Franco, and S. Jurs, “Abortion in Adolescence,” Adolescence, 23(92) (1988): 813-823. H.Vaughan, “Canonical Variates of Post-Abortion Syndrome,” Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990.]
So it's not 28% of women who obtain abortions; it's 28% of women who experience psychological trauma related to those abortions. The number of women who experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to abortions is difficult to determine. A Russian study puts the figure at about 46% [N. Mufel, A. Speckhard and S. Sivuha, Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Abortion in a Former Soviet Union Country, Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health 17(1) Fall 2002.], while an American study put the number at a minimum of 19% [C. Barnard, The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion (Portsmouth, N.H.: Institute for Pregnancy Loss, 1990)].
Fourth alleged statement: The more abortions you have, the more you miscarry.
True statement. The health risks that abortion causes with subsequent pregnancies are well-documented. At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions. Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Induced abortion increased the odds of ectopic pregnancy four-fold over live birth. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility. [A. Levin, S. Schoenbaum, P. Stubblefield, S. Zimicki, R. Monson and K. Ryan., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion,” American Journal of Public Health 72 (1982): 253. C.S. Chung, “Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies,” American Journal of Epidemiology 115 (6) (1982): 879-887.
Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66 or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent preterm delivery, compared to women who carry to term. Prior induced abortion not only increased the risk of premature delivery, it also increased the risk of delayed delivery. Women who had one, two or more induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.61 and 2.23 times more likely to have a post-term delivery (over 42 weeks). [Z. Weijin, et al., “Induced Abortion and Subsequent Pregnancy Duration,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 94 (6) (December 1999): 948-953.]
Women who had one induced abortion had a 17.5% miscarriage rate in subsequent pregnancies, as compared to a 7.5% rate in a non-aborted group. [Richardson & Dickson, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy," British Med. Jour., vol. 1, 1976, pp. 1303-4.]
Women who had delivered their first pregnancy had (in the second pregnancy) the "best reproductive performance." Those who had a spontaneous miscarriage on the first had "the highest frequency of an early loss." Those with induced abortion on their first had "the highest frequency of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [Koller & Eikham, "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primagravida" Acta OB-GYN Scand, 56 (1977) p. 311.]
"In a series of 520 patients who had previously been aborted, 8.6% had premature labor compared to 4.4% of [non-aborted] controls." [G. Ratten et al., "Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy," Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480.]
Sixth alleged statement: You probably have several STDs from sleeping around, and you’ll be dead before college if you continue this lifestyle.
Seventh alleged statement: If you have an abortion, your next baby will be twice as likely to die in the first few months of life.
Eighth and ninth alleged statements: Because the doctor can’t see what he’s doing, he could accidentally suck out your bowels. During an abortion, the uterine lining can be pulled out entirely, and, once it gets pulled out, it will never grow back.
Women who had delivered their first pregnancy had (in the second pregnancy) the "best reproductive performance." Those who had a spontaneous miscarriage on the first had "the highest frequency of an early loss." Those with induced abortion on their first had "the highest frequency of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [Koller & Eikham, "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primagravida" Acta OB-GYN Scand, 56 (1977) p. 311.]
"In a series of 520 patients who had previously been aborted, 8.6% had premature labor compared to 4.4% of [non-aborted] controls." [G. Ratten et al., "Effect of Abortion on Maturity of Subsequent Pregnancy," Med. Jour. of Australia, June 1979, pp. 479-480.]
"The induced abortion group had the highest incidence of late spontaneous abortion and premature delivery." [O. Kaller et al., "Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion in Primigravidae," Acta OB GYN Scandinavia, vol. 56, 1977, pp. 311-317.]
Fifth alleged statement: STDs can hide in the vagina, crawl up into the fallopian tubes and make you infertile.
Aside from the cartoonish idea of an STD hiding and crawling, NARAL's response agrees with the pregnancy center's statement, that STDs/STIs can cause infertility. We are in agreement on this one.
As a point of fact, neither the Murloc nor I have ever been tested for STDs. I can only imagine that it would be "important" to get regular check ups for these things if you decide to live the type of dangerous lifestyle, in opposition to prudence and common sense, that would put you at risk. Wisdom teaches us that STDs/STIs are easily avoided.
It is to laugh. NARAL expects us to believe that this represents the type of official information given by crisis pregnancy centers? What was the context for the statement? Did the NARAL advocate accuse the crisis worker of hating women, or tell her her mother was a whore? Was this part of a heated debate over abortion in which the worker lost her cool? We can never know.
Expressing care for others by urging them away from a dangerous lifestyle, i.e., one that carries a risk of STDs is noble and an expression of Christian charity. One simply has to be careful of the words one uses to do so. The worker's heart may have been in the right place, even if her head was not.
See point four about the increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. The actual increased risk is four-fold. True statement.
Context required. Worker is likely confused. Abortion does carry a risk of uterine and cervical damage. Between two and three percent of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed. [S. Kaali, et al., “The Frequency and Management of Uterine Perforations During First-Trimester Abortions,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 161 (August 1989): 406-408. M.White, “A Case-Control Study of Uterine Perforations documented at Laparoscopy,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 129
(1977): 623.]
Uterine rupture occurs during labor in almost 1% of cases when women have had earlier first trimester abortions. [140 D. Nemec et al., "Medical Abortion Complications," OB & GYN, vol. 51, no. 4, April 1978, pp. 433-436.]
In addition to overt injury to the cervix during suction curettage, covert trauma is also important. Microfractures of the cervix may occur during forceful dilatation of the cervix, which may lead to persistent structural changes, cervical incompetence, premature delivery and pregnancy complications. [K.Schulz, et al., “Measures to Prevent Cervical Injuries During Suction Curettage Abortion,” The Lancet (May 28, 1983): 1182-1184.]
The statement there is a “preponderance of evidence that abortion does not impair women’s future fertility" is a lie. The preponderance of evidence is that abortion harms a woman's future fertility. Tipping the hand, the sacrament of abortion, once again, is more important to these people than women's wellbeing.
Basically true statement. See fourth, eighth, and ninth points, about risks of abortion on subsequent pregnancies, and damage to uterus and cervix.
True statement. Nowhere does it say that all women are the same. NARAL's response is a strawman and a lie.
An exaggeration, but largely true.
Dr. Anne Speckhard, of the University of Minnesota, published a study on women who had abortions. These women reported:
Preoccupation with the aborted child 81%
Flashbacks of the abortion experience 73%
Feelings of “craziness” after abortion 69%
Nightmares related to the abortion 54%
Perceived visitations from dead child 35%
Hallucinations related to the abortion 23%
[A. Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1987).]
Dr. Hanna Söderberg, the lead author of a study, conducted interviews with women one year after their abortions. Her research team found that approximately 60 percent of the women in their sample of 854 women had experienced emotional distress after their abortions. This distress was classified as “severe,” warranting professional psychiatric attention, among 16 percent of the women. The research team noted that over 70 percent of the women stated that they would never consider an abortion again if they faced an unwanted pregnancy. [H. Söderberg, C. Andersson, L. Janzon and N. Sjöberg. Selection bias in a study on how women experienced induced abortion. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 77 (1998): 67-70. H. Söderberg, L. Janzon N. Sjöberg. (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 (1998): 173-178.]
In a study of post-abortion patients eight weeks after their abortion, 55 percent of the women expressed at least some guilt feelings, 44 percent complained of nervous symptoms, 36 percent had experienced sleep disturbances, 31 percent had regrets about their decision, 11 percent had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by a doctor, eight percent believed they had make a mistake by having an abortion and eight percent
reported worsening guilt feelings. [J.Ashton, “The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion,” British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 87 (1980): 1115-1122.]
True statement. NARAL and I agree on this one. Their further statement "it also indicates that there are no other options," is a strawman and a lie. The original statement says no such thing.
That aside, abstinence is the only 100% reliable option. Women have gotten pregnant on the pill (a friend of mine got pregnant three times, each on a different kind of pill), when using condoms, when using any imaginable form of birth control (including NFP). The only responsible way of dealing with pregnancy is not to have sex unless you are ready to deal with the consequences. That is the message of chastity, of the Church throughout its 2000 year history, and the message that NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and all those who profit through abortion want to suppress. To promote contraceptives as a viable alternative to abstinence for the unmarried is like promoting drunk driving as a viable alternative to calling a cab. Yes, you will likely get home, maybe even safely. But the risks and the potential for injuries do no make it worth it. Those who attempt to live by the virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and wisdom cannot substitute safety and health for mere personal pleasure, nor condone such in the behavior of others.
A perfectly monogamous society would have no concept of such things as unwanted pregnancy and STIs. We as a society can choose between those two options: free sex or free Life. So long as sex is seen as consequence-free, we will need contraceptives. So long as we use contraceptives, there will be failures. So long as there are failures, there will be unwanted pregnancy. And so long as there is unwanted pregnancy, there will be abortion.
That is the link from gay "marriage" to abortion. To paraphrase Mark Shea, show me a society that hates chastity, and I'll show you a society that hates children. The society that encourages fornication will find the need to do away with the inconvenient result of it:
 |
| An inconvenient result. Not worthy of protection. Does not have a right to life. |
Conclusion
The biggest difference between the alleged misinformation of the Unnamed Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center and the lies of Planned Parenthood has not yet been mentioned: Crisis Pregnancy Centers are suppressed by the government, while Planned Parenthood is encouraged. As you point out, the city of Baltimore is trying to steer people away from the crisis pregnancy centers (no other charity is required to list the services it doesn't perform). However, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year from the federal government. That makes their lies government-subsidized.
There is one more difference worth mentioning. The alleged misinformation given by the Unnamed Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center is at debatable, or an exaggeration, or true in concept but false in details, it is at least in some way related to the truth. You and I can debate endlessly, linking and quoting surveys and studies. We can dismiss each other's references with charges of bias or argumentum ad hominem as you have dismissed the pro-life sources and I have dismissed the National Cancer Institute's findings. A study can be made to say whatever it is you want it to say. But the crisis center claims were at least backed up by something. There is some evidence, some piece of information that supports the claims, even if it is misquoted or exaggerated.
Planned Parenthood's statement about the humanity, or lack thereof, of the unborn cannot make any such claim. The worker's statement that "there is no head, no brain, no arms, no legs, no heart," has absolutely no basis in fact. No evidence can be brought to support it. No scientific report could be misinterpreted to make her think the baby does not have the shape of a human. The statement cannot be justified or explained away as being partially true. It is simply not true. It is the exact opposite of truth. It is a Lie.
Part II to follow when I'm done playing StarCraft II I have time.
Okay, my expected response (in 2 posts as it is too long).
ReplyDeleteAlleged statement 1:
I would first state that there is a large difference between a condom failing and HIV swimming through the holes in a condom.
A condom is not intended to fail, obviously. The issue at hand, however, is not how often they fail, but whether or not the majority of them have holes large enough for the virus to flow through. And latex ones do not. Thus, the statement causes fear and gives incorrect information.
And yes, a condom can fail. And that is supposed to be one of the reasons for having back up plans (i.e. knowing your partner, a second form of birth control, etc.). However, if you are involved with someone who you do not know whether or not they have diseases, then we have an entirely different situation on our hands.
Alleged statement 2:
If in case this is true, I would like to know what the likelihood of someone who has polycistic ovarian syndrome (like my sister-in-law) or endometriosis getting breast cancer. When the situation in her uterus gets problematic, doctors will perform a DNC to remove the affected region. And the situation grows back and is incredibly painful and detrimental to deal with. I seem to recall my sister-in-law having quite a few DNCs because of her syndrome. However, she has never been told that it could increase her likelihood of breast cancer. So if the DNC is not what causes an increase in the likelihood, than what does?
Alleged statement 3:
Not only is it difficult to determine the number of women to experience PTSD due to abortions but the number of women who experience postpartum depression is generally not reported but the number grows larger daily. Granted a lot has been done to try to combat it due to its existence in the media these days (Brooke Shields, Scrubs, etc.). However, having not had a child I cannot claim or deny that it is something that is discussed with a doctor prior to giving birth. But I would assume that a doctor would not discuss it for fear that it could be hypochondriac-ally induced. Can you touch on this for me?
Alleged statement 4:
I suppose in this situation, we should be looking at why one woman would have three or four abortions in the first place. A woman in that position is simply using the abortive methods as birth control and that's wrong. Abortion should be used as a last measure, not as a first thought.
Alleged statement 5:
All I have to say to this is before I was ever sexually active I was tested for everything. It's what the doctor's office suggested. And while STDs/STIs are easily avoided, HPV is so common now that there is a vaccine for it (which I have some massive issues with the use of it but this is not the platform for that) and the Herpes I virus is in 1 in every 4 Americans - it's called the cold sore. I don't have to go into detail about how Herpes I could become a problem for those who have only had one partner but it can cause problems. HPV can be transmitted by skin to skin contact and a few studies indicate that it can be spread by inanimate objects. So it's still important to get regular check ups, just to make sure that you're healthy in every sense of the word.
Alleged statement 6:
I would agree with your assessment here. There is a HUGE difference between "you might want to change your lifestyle because it is risky" and "you probably have several STDs from sleeping around, and you’ll be dead before college if you continue this lifestyle". One shows absolute concern, one shows scorn and ire.
Alleged statement 7:
As I understood this statement, ectopic pregnancy is not what is being discussed here. The statement, as I understood it, is that if you have an abortion, after giving birth to your next child, it will die after only a few months. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Alleged statement 8 and 9:
ReplyDeleteThe context is not required. Here we see that the CPC worker does not know anatomy or have any medical background which is why there should be something listed saying that there is no medical person on staff.
Alleged statement 10:
The emphasis has been on the well-being of the woman. Well, what about the well-being of women that have had forceps used on them? While they don't reach the cervix, if used incorrectly (and sometimes even correctly) they can cause massive tearing of the internal tissues, rectovaginal fistulas can result as well as nerve damage or fractures to the baby and the cervical cord.
Alleged statement 11:
NARAL's response was a strawman and a lie? The statement of "not all women react the same" was mine. My only thought to this was that if a woman has this symptom of an abortion, I guess either her mate will vacuum or she'll hire someone to do it (joke, of course). Having never had one, I cannot understand this statement (the CPC's).
Alleged statement 12:
I don't think you can speak for everyone. To say that every woman who has an abortion regrets it even if she says she doesn't is like saying that everyone loves my chocolate pie even if they say they don't. It's a blanket statement that is used to scare and intimidate.
Alleged statement 13:
Okay, I think there's been a bit of a mix-up here. The statement of "it also indicates that there are no other options" is mine, not theirs. And I totally understand what you mean about waiting until you can handle the consequences. But does that means that a newly married couple should not consummate the relationship for fear of a child? Unfortunately, that goes against my faith (yes, believe it or not, a newly married Jewish couple must consummate on the wedding night or the marriage is invalid).
And I think it's wrong to assume that a perfectly monogamous society with have no concept of unwanted pregnancy. Sweetie and I are strictly monogamous but certainly have the concept of an unwanted pregnancy. We lack the financial support for a child as well as the time spent just the two of us as a married couple. We want to wait to have children until we have more money saved, less work to do on our home, etc. etc. So does that mean that we should not have gotten married in the first place?
And then we get back to the reason for marriage in the first place (next post).
But that aside. Supposing they are telling the truth, and the CPC worked was a clueless buffoon; which is worse, for a paid, registered nurse at the nation's largest women's "health" chain to lie or at least demonstrate a severe ignorance about pregnancy, or for a non-medical person to not know the details of a procedure that she has nothing to do with? I don't think the comparison is equal.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, CPCs are not medical centers, nor do they claim to be. Their primary purpose is to counsel women facing unplanned pregnancies and teach them about their (non-violent) choices. To make them have signs that say they are not what they do not claim would be akin to our company being forced to put a sign on the door that says: "Warning! We do not sell chocolate chip cookies."
In this case, it is merely an attempt to steer women away from places that will not try to talk them into exterminating their child.
However, being fair minded, I will accept a compromise. I will petition to have CPCs have signs that say "we do not provide medical services" if Planned Parenthood clinics must also have signs that say "we do not believe that pre-born human beings are worthy of basic human rights."
Statement 10: I don't see the relevance of forceps to the issue at hand.
Statement 11: My apologies. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the rebuttal was NARAL's, given their propensity for untruth (see above). I now know it was a simple misunderstanding, since I know you would never willfully lie. Again, I did not mean to slander you. Please accept my heartfelt apologies.
Statement 12: I admit the statement was an exaggeration, but one with a bit of truth to it. It is overreaching in its assumption.
Statement 13: Again, I apologize for misinterpreting your words.
I accept your point about unwanted pregnancy even within marriage, but I would submit that there is still a vast difference between the fear and apprehension you would feel upon discovering you were pregnant versus the fear of a 16-year-old girl. As emotionally unprepared as you may feel, you are in a position that you could (and would) love and care for the child, as difficult as it may be. The worry and stress that a 16-year-old, or even a 26-year-old single women, would feel over the uncertainty, the lack of support, and the social stigmas, would be orders of magnitude worse.
"Abortion should be used as a last measure, not as a first thought." Why, Devin?
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. However, these are both isolated incidents. I have read many a times where nurses and doctors at hospitals have told women that their child has no brain/is brain dead/etc. and suggest a late-term abortion, knowing full well of the repurcussions.
ReplyDeleteI would be fine putting a sign up at my desk that says "Warning! We do not sell chocolate chip cookies!" It would be a nice conversation starter. :D
The relevance of forceps is that it can seriously scar the woman and the baby while trying to be helpful.
Not to worry. I take everything that gets written on your blog as a conversation and misinterpretations are bound to happen. Perhaps I should have said IMHO. My apologies as well.
I would not deny that there is a huge difference between myself and a scared 16 year-old girl. But it doesn't mean that I too would not be scared.
And Tom, would you rather it be used the other way around?
When a woman (or girl) finds out she is pregnant, the first thing that goes through her mind should not (ideally) be "oh goodie, I can make this go away." She should sit down and think about all the ramifications of her pregnancy, on her mental, physical and emotional health as well as on her financial situation (pre-natal care with no health insurance is very expensive). She should discuss things with the baby's father. She should allow him to search through his mental, physical and emotional health as well as his financial situation to see if this is something he is interested in being a part of at all. I would offer that she should also talk to a few mothers - some who have had it easier than others (financially abile to stay home if they so choose) and some who have had it harder than others (raising multiple children on welfare) - to see what might lie ahead of her. If after all of this, as well as some soul-searching and deep thought, it is my opinion that she should have the option of considering to end the pregnancy as well.
Now mind you, every woman is different. Take me for example. As you can tell, I am a proponent of choice. But that does not mean that I would take advantage of that choice. I just don't think that that the choice should be gone.
I only ask because it sounds like it implies there is something morally wrong with an abortion. It is not a logical requirement for your statement, it just looked like it might have been implied.
ReplyDeleteSo I take it from your explanation that an abortion can be analogous to killing someone in self defense (ie last resort in the escalation of force) or perhaps in declaring bankruptcy (ie last resort when trying to get out of debt). Those are always "last resort" because of all their negative effects.
Most of your paragraph addressed to me sounds like a couple looking into buying a house or a car. I can terminate those in a hearbeat if I haven't already signed a contract. It is not a "last resort" for me to walk away from a financial deal. I can always start over with no penalty.
Perhaps I didn't see you articulate what you thought the negative effects of abortion were. Please remind me if that is the case. Or perhaps your reasoning behind what makes something a "last resort" doesn't match up with my reasoning. If that's the case, please explain to me how something "should be a last resort" without having negative consequences.
I don't think there is anything morally wrong with abortion. I just don't think it should be used as birth control, thus not being the first thing that goes through a woman's mind. I would also like to think that children are a blessing, but they are not always seen as such.
ReplyDeleteTo me, abortion is a last resort because a baby is something that should be wanted, not required. No one should look at a baby as (as Tom Papa put it on last night's finale of Last Comic Standing) "a DUI from the universe" and no one should be required to do so. I would like to try to assume that people who have an unplanned pregnancy might take a look at the world and realize there are people who want children but cannot conceive and thus would have no problems putting their child up for adoption. But we do not live in an ideal world (or else, for one reason or another, we would not be having this conversation).
I don't think that I have the right to judge someone else for their choices when it comes to their personage.
I suppose I should clarify myself. I do not, in any form, agree with third trimester abortions. I am of the firm belief that if it has taken you that long to decide you do not want a baby, just let the baby "cook a little more" (sorry, its a term my family used growing up [when a baby was born prematurely and then was placed in an uterine-like machine to help it develop the rest of the way]. I know it sounds gross, but to me, it's like a dead spread [when people gather after the funeral for food - or is that just a Jewish thing?], just something I grew up with) and then give it up for adoption.
We differ in how we see things due to the fact that I do not see an unborn child as a human being. In Judaism, we are taught that the soul does not enter the body until the head of the child is born. And, based upon Exodus 21:22 (which states "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine”), we can see that the loss of the pregnancy is equated with payment, not a consequence of murder/manslaughter.
Judaism teaches us that we cannot use abortion for gender selection nor can it be used as a means of birth control. It goes on to say that if the mother is in a place in her life that she could successfully raise a child, she is encouraged to do so.
Does that help?
“To me, abortion is a last resort because a baby is something that should be wanted, not required.”
ReplyDeleteCan you substitute any other subject for abortion in that sentence? Declaring bankruptcy? I can think of no subject where the reason to treat something as a last resort is because someone is supposed to desire the opposite.
If something has no negative consequences, why shouldn’t it be used for even the most flippant of reasons? How does the reasons that a baby should be wanted distinguish abortion from other kinds of birth control? What are the reasons for preferring a condom over a morning after pill?
While there is a lot here to discuss here either about which trimesters are acceptable for abortion or religious beliefs, for the time being I’m more interested in just trying to understand your reasoning on “last resorts” and how abortion fits in that understanding.
I suppose I never really thought about why it should be considered a last resort. Perhaps that has to do with society's pressures or my own feelings on the subject. I just know that it should not be the first thing people think of.
ReplyDeleteAs to why abortion is different from birth control, I feel that there is a large difference between stopping something from happening and erasing it all together - much like Prop 8 in California. To take something away (a baby that has begun to grow) rather than have it exist in the first place (no fertilization at all).
The more I think about it, the more the phrase "last resort" seems a strange one. Defined, it's the last thing you could ever think to do that would satisfy a situation. I suppose that means that it either has the most problems with the outcome, is the most expensive, is socially unacceptable or something to that effect. In that regard, I suppose an example would be putting my (non-existant) teenager in a religious (not my own) private school were they to be expelled from multiple public schools. It's expensive, but would be the last resort to them going to jail, for example. It's not the most desired situation, but it will do. (I used to know someone in a similar situation. She was not expelled, but the schools in her area were unacceptable to her parents so they put her at a Catholic high school even though they were Jewish. She said she enjoyed the dichotomy and being the only Jew but it was odd for her.)
So for the future, I will rethink my phrasing before using it.
Thebluefox (who is having browser issues and is unable to comment) says:
ReplyDelete"I just wanted to post the follow-on logical progression to legalized at-will killing:
-pre-natal
-post-natal (failed abortions, but also extending to all infants)
-toddlers
-children
-tweens
-teens
-emancipated minors?
-dependent adults? (20-somethings living with mom & dad)
-roommates
-spouse
-seniors
-employees
-cow-orkers
-people who do not share religious beliefs
-people who do not share political beliefs
When does it become "wrong"?
I loved Tom's post. Really pulled out the latent morality.
-TBF"
My comment: the actual progression is outlined by J. Budziszewski in "The Revenge of Conscience.":
"First we were to approve of killing unborn babies, then babies in process of birth; next came newborns with physical defects, now newborns in perfect health. Nobel-prize laureate James Watson proposes that parents of newborns be granted a grace period during which they may have their babies killed, and in 1994 a committee of the American Medical Association proposed harvesting organs from some sick babies even before they die. First we were to approve of suicide, then to approve of assisting it. Now we are to approve of a requirement to assist it, for, as Ernest van den Haag has argued, it is "unwarranted" for doctors not to kill patients who seek death. First we were to approve of killing the sick and unconscious, then of killing the conscious and consenting. Now we are to approve of killing the conscious and protesting, for in the United States, doctors starved and dehydrated stroke patient Marjorie Nighbert to death despite her pleading "I’m hungry," "I’m thirsty," "Please feed me," and "I want food." Such cases are only to be expected when food and water are now often classified as optional treatments rather than humane care; we have not long to go before joining the Netherlands, where involuntary euthanasia is common. Dutch physician and author Bert Keizer has described his response when a nursing home resident choked on her food: he shot her full of morphine and waited for her to die. Such a deed by a doctor in the land that resisted the Nazis."
Devin, suppose you were to meet someone who actively campaigned to legalize the killing of infants up to one year of age. This fictional person firmly believed that until a baby is one year old, it is not really a human being, or not really a person. His ancient religious tradition teaches that the spirits ignite the flame of the baby's mind at the first birthday, and he can cite the relevant quote from his holy book that infanticide is treated as property loss and not as murder.
ReplyDeleteSuppose, furthermore, that this person thinks that this should only rarely be done, and then only as a last resort. He personally may never do it, but he doesn't want to keep other people from choosing what is best for their families, limit their options, or interfere with their privacy. He thinks that a family who decides they can't care for the newborn should not be forced to do so—such a thing would be cruel to both the parents and the child—and that preempting the family, as he calls it, is an acceptable method of dealing with the problem.
What argument would you address to this person to convince him that he is wrong, that babies under the age of 1 were deserving of legal protection and a right to life? What objective, non-arbitrary standard would you set for the beginning of life that would be accessible and knowable for him, even coming from his different faith tradition? What rational or philosophical ideas would underpin your objective definition that a newborn is a human being or a person? On what basis do you claim the moral high ground and tell him that your belief that babies ought not be killed is correct and his belief that they can be is incorrect?
What is your rational and philosophical definition of human being and/or person? What categories of person/human being deserve a right to life and is that right to life an objective truth or conferred by something/someone else?
The "what if" statements can cause you to become blue in the face. Each person is entitled to their own opinions as long as they do not force said opinions on others or require others to follow in their stead-fast beliefs. I do not require you to not use electricity on the Sabbath nor do you require me to take communion. I could tell you about the joys about living a day without electricity and without modern conveniences and you can tell me all about the fantastical-ness that is Jesus and the great love in being Saved. Neither one of us would force our issue on the other.
ReplyDeleteMy rational and philosophical definition of a human being is one that breathes air not from an umbilical cord. That's it. To me, that is when life begins and anything before it would not be considered as such.
You won't get me to change my mind by giving me all sorts of what if questions. It is not my job, as I have taken it upon myself NOT to get a job in this field, to deter strange-religiously minded people from killing their children at any age. Were I to be in that business, I might answer your questions. But I'm not.
And to TBF, why is that a logical progression of things? Are we all Jonathon Swifts?
And I must ask, what is wrong with assisted suicide if it is what the person truly wants? We treat our animals better than we treat our elderly and sick. If we are supposed to be following in the way our ancestors did, most of our elderly would not be alive. There would be no such thing as resuscitation paddles or medication for things such as pneumonia or the flu. So why when we extend life, thought it is not worth living (based upon the following articles I have read about the pain in extending life beyond its natural end [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20pacemaker-t.html?_r=1] as well as my own experiences with it in my family), do we ignore the pleas of those who are in pain?
I'm also pro-death penalty, in case anyone was curious.
I'm sorry a pushed the subject. I withdraw my questions.
ReplyDeleteNot to worry. :D
ReplyDeleteThebluefox responds:
ReplyDelete"Here's my last shot: In some well established businesses, it is easier to let non-productive people stay in their jobs until they retire/pass away, than to go through the hassle of firing them for being unproductive. In a few years their non-productivity will no longer be around and more useful people will be hired in their place.
Unless that one non-productive person can convince others that non-productivity is more beneficial than being productive, their belief system fades with their leaving the company.
This example from corporate-America can be extended to the nation as a whole.
-
Luckily, my wife and I have three children and in the next 18 years our opinions will out number the collective opinions of most pro-abortion families.
Whether morality should be exerted upon those who are amoral will be put to a vote. The majority will win the debate. Go ahead, kill your children (abortion) and parents (euthanasia) by the time you are finished, there will be nobody left to agree that amorality is a personal decision and not something that impacts all society.
The debate will be won by sheer numbers and voting power.
There is no real need to argue beliefs / belief systems, the decision will be made by whoever has the most children.
Abortion and homosexuality are self-defeating arguments."
-TBF
I would certainly love to believe that, Jeff, but unfortunately I think that amorality has a strong recruiting power that will be able to draw from the population that the moral produce. While the moral tide does change, the point is it changes and not always for the best. In all honesty, I don't think the next major battle will be between the secular and Christian world but rather between Islam and those rational enough to realise Islam is not their friend... But that is a-whole-nuther can o worms that has probably made everyone discredit my opinion. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I'm pro-death penalty too. Though I don't think it is properly utilized now. In case you were wondering, I make a huge distinction between people who haven't done anything (like the unborn) and people who have committed vicious and haneous acts (like axe murderers).
Thanks, I really enjoyed the conversation, Devin. but I think I'll call it quits here.