Monday, June 22, 2009

Don't they mean, "Trust abortionists"?

Got this email from NARAL:

You've heard of wearing your heart on your sleeve. Well, in honor of Dr. George Tiller's work, we want you to wear yours on your wrist.

Dr. Tiller often wore a button that simply read, “Trust Women.” To honor his message and as a symbol of your pro-choice values, NARAL Pro-Choice America is launching a “Trust Women” wristband campaign.

Donate today and get your “Trust Women” wristbands.


Aside from the very fact that abortion is proof positive that some women can't be trusted, at least not with the lives of their unborn children in times of stress, is NARAL's real agenda about trusting women?

NARAL doesn't trust women at all. They don't trust that women are strong enough to handle information about the unborn children they're carrying. They don't trust that women are strong enough to cope with the stresses of pregnancy and motherhood. (They seem to think that the moment a woman is in a less-than-ideal situation she'll turn into Susan Smith, strap her kids into the carseats and push them into the lake.) They don't trust the women who regret their abortions and try to warn others that it's not the simple, put-it-all-behind-you solution. They don't trust the women who run prolife pregnancy centers.

Who they really are about trusting is abortionists. Trust abortionists to judge how much information a patient can handle. Trust abortionists to judge whether a minor's parents should be notified. Trust abortionists to decide when to protect patient safety and when to protect the bottom line, cutting corners and endangering women's lives and health.

I wish the abortion lobby would be honest about whose interests they're really protecting. And it's not the interests of stressed out, frightened, pregnant women in crisis.

23 comments:

JC said...

I'm reminded somewhat of the speech given at the University of Texas by NARAL leader Nancy Keenan. She essentially said that the "choice" should be up to "the woman, her family, her doctor, and her God." Yet, when you follow the actual practices of these people, you come to realize that they really mean "the choice should be up to her abortionist and anyone else pushing her to get an abortion."

"The choice should be up to the woman." Yet, there is no outcry about the fact that the single largest demographic in the country which favors abortion is young unwed men, and that many a woman is brought to the "clinic" against her own desire of even will.

"The choice should be up to her family." Who, specifically, does this include? Apparently not the parents, since NARAL and company oppose parental notification laws (let alone parental consent).

"The choice should be up to the girl's doctor." Yet these folks also oppose conscience clauses which would allow doctors (and pharmacists) to opt out of being complicit in abortion. They also oppose any option which involves crisis pregnancy centers, to which many a good doctor or pharmacist might refer the woman in question.

"The choice should be up to the woman's God." And yet, their rallying cry is often "Keep your rosaries of my *******." The oppose any statement by any religion (or religious leader) opposing abortion, whether it's an official statement, a voter's guide, a sermon or homily, a prayer vigil, or even a private counseling session in which the woman is told to "trust that God knows what He is doing in bringing this child to the world." Who, exactly, is the God to whom she was referring? Moloch? Quetzalcoatl? Obama?

Lilliput said...

Christina,

I have just read an article in the Therapy Today journal of September 2008 on abortion councelling. They interviewed two abortion providers in the Uk who said that they offered a pre and post councelling session as part of their service. They both find that fewer then 10% take up the pre abortion session and 2% take up the post abortion session.

They found that by the time the woman has called the abortion provider she has made up her mind and they just want to follow through. I guess thats what they mean by trusting women - when they tell you they have made up their mind.

It is unethical to force councelling on someone that doesn't want it - but its there if they need it. It is patronising to think that you know more about what is best for them then they do.

GrannyGrump said...

Lil, having made up your mind, and having made an informed choice, are two very different things.

At the very least -- totally taking out of the equation the fact that abortion KILLS SOMEBODY DELIBERATELY -- we're talking about surgery. What freaking surgery besides abortion is done, no questions asked, on patients who self refer?

I "knew" for TEN YEARS that I wanted oral surgery to fix the mismatch between my upper and lower jaws. I had long since made up my mind. But I'd done it without full knowledge. My oral surgeon put me through a prolonged (and at the time extremely annoying) informed consent process. He would NOT proceed with surgery just because a patient had thought about it and made up her mind. He knew from years of experience that there were a lot of things patients didn't realize when they came in asking for surgery. It was his job to make sure that the patient REALLY understood what she was getting into. And in the end I rejected the surgery, grateful that my doctor cared enough about my well being to refuse to proceed based purely on my assumptions about what the surgery was all about and what the risks were. HE DID HIS JOB.

But there we are with abortion, life-changing surgery, and somehow it's considered sufficient that the woman self-refer in the belief that this surgery will improve her situation. The doctors are not, like conscientious doctors, making sure that the patients have all the information they really need to be making an informed decision.

What other kind of situation could it be even remotely be considered adequate for a doctor to assume that when a patient requests a particular treatment, that the doctor has zero responsibility for making sure that the patient made the request with full knowledge of the risks and ramifications?

These women could be getting their information about abortion from Ms. magazine, from their Aunt Harriet, from their sister who had an abortion, from a web site. What doctor in his right mind does surgery a patient has self referred for without having any idea why the patient thinks this surgery will fix her condition?

Lilliput said...

Christina,

Thats the difference between "elective" and emergency or necessary surgery.

A plastic surgeon, does what his patients want - even though he tells them that the results wont be worth their while. IVF specialists don't ask any questions either - if you can pay they will inseminate - look at Octomom for gods sake - but how would you prevent that? By making all people go through psychological testing to make sure they have enough intelligence and sanity to agree with the surgery? What happens then is we have a group of people having power to decide other peoples's lives - and that is very dangerous.

Christina, what would you like the women to be made aware of? That they are about to kill their baby?, that there are charities who will help them to keep their baby, that if they want to they can give the baby up for adoption as there are lots of infertile people who would love a white newborn to bring up? That each of these choices have their own repurcussions? Here are the numebrs of people who deal with each choice so you can see which suits you? (please let me know if there is anything that I have left out)

Chrsitina, if an unexpectedly pregnant women does not know the above - I worry about any child born to her. If she is already standing at the abortionists room - she has made up her mind and all the Dr can tell her is that it she will be sore, there is a risk of infertility and haemorrage and can she sign this form on indemity.

Purple Envelope Project said...

Lillyput, you're wrong. Many types of elective surgeries already require psychiatric evaluation. Gastric Bypass is a great example of this.

Lilliput said...

They don't do psychiatric evaluation - the evaluate if the surgery will be successfull eg if you don't lose enough weight before the surgery you will not get as good results and if you liquidize everything and eat it - you will not lose weight.

Tlaloc said...

"They don't trust the women who regret their abortions and try to warn others that it's not the simple, put-it-all-behind-you solution."

Why should we trust hypocrites who are only too happy to get abortions themselves and then attack others who want the same freedom?



"They don't trust the women who run prolife pregnancy centers."

The same prolife pregnancy centers that have abyssmal records of lying to women? You complain about some abortionists not giving full information to patients (if true a valid complaint) but ignore the endless BS that pregnancy centers spew out?

Come. On.

Tlaloc said...

"Yet, there is no outcry about the fact that the single largest demographic in the country which favors abortion is young unwed men, and that many a woman is brought to the "clinic" against her own desire of even will."

Why would there be outcry about men supporting choice? Should we decry that there are whites who were against slavery?

As for women being forced-
a) nobody is supporting forced abortion
b) there are resources for any such woman, and most prochoicers have no problem with putting more resources towards helping battered women
c) that said how does it help an abused woman to bring a child into her abusive relationship?

Your complaint seems to boil down to "sure she's abused but the important thing is she bring a child into that situation!" Whereas I think the more reasonable reaction is "she's abused, that, not abortion, is the problem."



"Yet these folks also oppose conscience clauses which would allow doctors (and pharmacists) to opt out of being complicit in abortion."

I don't have any problem with a conscience clause so long as the pharmacy or hospital will still provide the service. If an individual pharmacist won't give out plan b or penicillin of freaking aspirin I don't care, so long as the pharmacy provides another employee who will. Then it's up to the pharmacy if they want to continue employing someone who won't do the entire job.



"They also oppose any option which involves crisis pregnancy centers, to which many a good doctor or pharmacist might refer the woman in question."

That's because CPCs have proven themselves to be horribly unethical and to lie almost pathologically about every aspect of contraception and abortion. They shouldn't be trusted, and in fact they should be closed down as public health menaces.



"Who, exactly, is the God to whom she was referring? Moloch? Quetzalcoatl? Obama?"

It should be whatever faith, or no faith, that the woman ascribes to. If a woman doesn't want an abortion because of her faith that's fine. It's her choice and her personal faith can absolutely inform that decision.

On the other hand if a local Bishop tries to force his choice on women, that's not fine. It wasn't his choice. It's her faith, not his that matters.

Tlaloc said...

"totally taking out of the equation the fact that abortion KILLS SOMEBODY DELIBERATELY"

That's not a fact, because it's not a fact that the fetus is a "person." It's your subjective belief. And you are entitled to your belief, but you are not entitled to call it a fact.

Purple Envelope Project said...

Lilliput, a psychiatric evaluation is most certainly done before bariatric surgery. I have a family member who had gastric banding. Before she could have the surgery she had to see a psychiatrist for an evaluation. She had to meet other criteria as well, but the psychiatric element was definitely there.

kris said...

The pro-choice claim that the women have already made up their minds when they come for an abortion is false on so many levels.

First, I don't know how many women who have had abortions I have personally talked with who have said something exactly like, "If only they would have told me..... I NEVER would have had an abortion."

The fact is that many women have already said that they had no idea that their baby had a heart beat or brain waves at the time of their abortion. And then to find out later after they have already had the abortion is just unthinkable.

I think it's plain cruel that so called pro-choice people would want a women to have to live the rest of her life with an abortion without knowing all the facts first. An uniformed choice is no choice at all.

Secondly, remember 40 DAys for Life? Pro-life folks just praying outside of abortion clinics for 40 days 24/7. HUNDREDS of babies have been saved because WOMEN WHO HAD SUPPOSEDLY MADE UP THEIR MINDS to get an abortion changed their minds just by seeing pro-lifers praying!!

Just this past fall, I was praying during a 40 Days, and a women pulled up w/a baby her car. She told me that she had had an appointment for an abortion there many months before. She said when she got to her appointment she saw the pro-lifers praying and she changed her mind. She never went in for her appointment.

SHE THANKED ME FOR BEING THERE AND TOLD ME NOT TO STOP AND SHOWED ME HER LITTLE BABY IN THE BACK SEAT!

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
army_wife said...

Uh, CPCs do not show "fake" ultrasounds. Where are you getting this bizarre information?

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
army_wife said...

I see. So they "might" show fake ultrasounds.

Here's what I do know. Unless I am mistaken about the law, only a properly trained and licensed individual can give an ultrasound in the first place. Which means that this person themselves could be held accountable for any wrongdoing. I have never heard of anyone giving a "fake" ultrasound except for ABORTION PROVIDERS (intentionally underestimating gestational ages by doing measurements incorrectly in order to circumvent laws that limit abortions to certain gestational ages).

OperationCounterstrike said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tlaloc said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rachael C. said...

Let's finish that sentence, shall we? "Trust women...to kill their unborn child" Now that'd make a bracelet! Or how about "Trust women...in the hands of shoddy doctors"

JC said...

"Why should we trust hypocrites who are only too happy to get abortions themselves and then attack others who want the same freedom?"

That's not necessarily hypocrisy. In the context of the post, "They don't trust the women who regret their abortions" it is called "wisdom" or "learning from experience." Prior to having had the abortion, the women in question may have fully supported it. Then they had the abortion, and, upon reflecting upon it, realized that this was a bad idea. Perhaps they came to this conclusion morally, i.e. that it is a morally bad idea (and thus felt a lot of guilt for what they had done). On the other hand, it is possible that they opposed abortion from experiencial though non-moral reasons. For example, suppose I go to a restaurant to eat. I discover that the food is awful, the service is bad, and everything is over-priced. It does not then make me a hypocrite to warn other people that it is a bad idea to go the the restaurant. Extrapolating to the moral, a woman might go have an abortion, only to discover that she feels a great deal of guilt afterward; her morals have changed, perhaps. It does not therefor make her a hypocrite to warn other women that abortion is a bad idea, and that they ought not get one.

JC said...

"The same prolife pregnancy centers that have abyssmal records of lying to women? You complain about some abortionists not giving full information to patients (if true a valid complaint) but ignore the endless BS that pregnancy centers spew out?"

You have not a shred of evidence for this claim. Lying in what way? By offering to show them a sonogram? By telling them that there are alternatives to abortion? By offering every reasonable aide to women who are facing a crisis pregnancy, except for abortion? And don't bring out the old cant about how they pose as abortion clinics. It should be fairly obvious to the woman upon entering that the place is not an abortion clinic, and if she has some doubt either way, it is a fairly simple matter to ask about when she can schedule an abortion; an answer that this is impossible should confirm the center's purpose.

JC said...

"Why would there be outcry about men supporting choice?"

Mostly because those men who support "choice" are pressuring women to get abortions. And don't try to argue that this is perfectly legitimate, since you have already argued several times that it is bad for people to pressure or even counsel against getting an abortion.

"Should we decry that there are whites who were against slavery?"

By that logic, why decry that there are people who are against abortion? You apparently do so, and have in fact done so in the cases of people who merely counsel against it. If a parallel can be drawn between abortion and slavery, it is that the pro-lifers are the abolitionists infringing upon the woman's "right" to treat another human being as something else.

JC said...

"As for women being forced-
a) nobody is supporting forced abortion"

Except, apparently, the governments of China and India. And there is a distinct lack of condemnation of these forced abortions by the side calling itself por-choice. Moreover, there have been a number of arguments for "choice" which ,when taken to their logical conclusions, actually become arguments for forced abortions. See any argument about how the population is too large. If you don't believe me about this being the logical conclusion, recall that this discussion began with the one-child policies in China and India, whose justification is that the populations of those two countries are too large.

"Your complaint seems to boil down to 'sure she's abused but the important thing is she bring a child into that situation!'"

Now you're putting words in my mouth. At no point did I deny that the abuse was a problem. Rather, I denied that it is the only problem. Of course the woman should get out of that situation. However, killing her child will do nothing whatsoever to accomplish that end. You have put words into my mouth in order to make a non-sequitur argument.

JC said...

"That's not a fact, because it's not a fact that the fetus is a "person." It's your subjective belief. And you are entitled to your belief, but you are not entitled to call it a fact."

It was considered a "fact" by every textbook of biology or medicine published prior to 1973. In 1973, Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton were passed down. These deliberations changed the law, but they had no power to change the nature of reality. That a newborn baby may be considered a person while a 9 month old fetus may not is a matter of metaphysics and not of science; in other words, your argument relies on metaphysics (which is more open to subjective interpretations); the argument that the unborn is a human being, on the other hand, is based on science. This is the reason why many of the major pro-choice philosophers have focused so much on arguments other than those involving personhood (or humanity): they know that they've already lost that argument.

"On the other hand if a local Bishop tries to force his choice on women, that's not fine. It wasn't his choice. It's her faith, not his that matters."

Force, in what way? Excommunication? That is just being faithful to the Church's teachings. It is forcing nothing, only saying that if reject the moral rules of the Church, then you will not be in good standing with the Church. This should be a no-brainer. By preaching against abortion? Again, this is in keeping with his pastoral duty as a bishop. Preaching against a thing does not mean forcing it to not occur; at best, it means that the woman might be convinced to change her mind and not have an abortion, while at worst the woman will leave the Church unaffected.