Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Abortion advocate to fellows: Address this problem!

Abortion Advocate Chides Pro-Abortion Movement for Ignoring Lila Rose Videos

Mandy Van Deven has spoken out at the abortion-advocacy blog "RH Reality Check" (a misnomer, since the by "RH" she means "reproductive health", which abortion damages, and by "Reality Check" she means "platitudes to calm the sheep when they start to be alarmed by reality"). She wants the abortion lobby to tackle the Lila Rose videos head on.

Now, here's the test of how long you've been in this game. Why does Ms. Van Deven want the abortion lobby to tackle the Lila Rose videos?

If you said, "Because she's disgusted that people are ignoring sexual abuse of teens, and PP's facilitation thereof," you win the coveted Hopelessly Naive Award.

If you said, "Because she thinks they need to do damage control rather than hope it goes away," you're absolutely right.

I can count on one hand the number of times, in a quarter century of prolife activism, that I've seen abortion advocates acting from actual concern for real women rather than from a standpoint of damage control for The Cause:

1 & 2. Two cases of abortion clinic staff reporting dangerous practices -- one to the National Abortion Federation, and one to the medical board.

3. A feminist newsletter did an expose on a seedy abortion mill.

4. Planned Parenthood teamed with prolifers to drive a dangerous abortionist out of Pennsylvania.

5. A prochoice author arranged a raid on an illegal abortionist who had killed a patient.

So, Mandy Van Deven, I'm sure that child abusing perverts are breathing a sigh of relief that they have you in their corner. But wouldn't it be a bit more decent of you to have some actual concern for the victims? Just as a refreshing change of pace?


Lilliput said...

Hi Christina

I have been reading a lot about adoption and IVF children - there is a lot of negative stuff on the web. Things I obviously didn't have a clue about - lots of adoptees and birth mothers completely against the concept - I wondered if you had read about it too - especially since you have many friends and relatives that have adopted.

I guess it ties in with this post as I don't know what you want a 14 year old to do with her baby? I would say that she could keep it but as it stands now children of teenage parents are disproportionately higher represented in jails, substance abuse and mental health - and of course morelikely to have teenage pregnancy themselves.


Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, it would depend upon the 14-year-old. For some, an adoption plan would make the most sense. Others could successfully raise the child if given support. Perhaps for some a semi-permanent foster-care placement where the mother can be active in the child's life and gradually start assuming more responsibility as she matures and the relationship with the child is nurtured.

I think that one of the biggest differences, by and large, between prolife thought and prochoice thought is that prolifers recognize that there's no quick, easy solution, but prochoicers tend to think that killing the baby will magically fix everything as if the mother had never been pregnant in the first place.

It's not, as abortion advocates assert, a simple solution to a complex moral issue. It's a muddle of complex solutions to a simple moral issue.

Lilliput said...

I don't think that pro choicers think that there its a simple solution or that its a simple moral issue - I think they are just being realistic. I think they go through the possibilities - all of them painfull - and choose the one that they think will hurt the least.

All I am saying is that you are fighting against abortion coercion when adoption coercion is just as bad. Both are million dollar industries and neither of them have the best interest of the child.

I don't know about foster care in the US but here there are not enough - and that seems to be the most damaging time in whole care process - can u imagin a 2 year old asking his 16 year old biological Mom - if he even understood what it was - why he can't come and live with her?

They are all difficult choices and noone is saying otherwise.

Jolene said...

It's interesting that you pick apart the name RH Reality Check without mentioning the deceiving nature of the name of your blog. Real Choice? As if choosing life is the only choice. As if carrying a baby to term isn't just as and more dangerous than having an abortion. Abortions are highly personal decisions and until you are in that situation you don't fully understand how important places like PP are. A place where you can get medically accurate information, not tainted by personal opinion.

Did you know that 80% of maternal death are caused by blood clots? Did you know that depression is just as likely carrying a baby to term? Did you know that most of the women who reported mental health problems after an abortion had them before becoming pregnant?

Real Choice, to me and all who are pro-choice, means that a woman has a choice. Whether it be having an abortion, giving a child up for adoption or carrying it to term. That they are given the opportunity to do what is best for them in a safe atmosphere.

And as someone who developed blood clots in my left leg and lungs two years ago at the age of 26, do you want to tell me that if I were to get pregnant I couldn't make a choice and have a procedure that would literally save my life? I didn't choose blood clots. But I can choose to have a safe and legal abortion.

Unknown said...

Lilliput wrote:
All I am saying is that you are fighting against abortion coercion when adoption coercion is just as bad. Both are million dollar industries and neither of them have the best interest of the child.BZZZT! Logic error detected!

Adoption coercion is not "just as bad" as abortion coercion, because an adopted child will usually survive the adoption process. Aborted children are dead.

I'm not saying that adopted children don't suffer. They do. I'm sure that coercive adoptions cause even more pain to mothers and children alike. But the adoption process is not fatal, so the wounded will have a chance to recover.

Kathy said...


Can you cite your source for your "fact" that 80% of maternal deaths are caused by blood clots? Because this article puts pulmonary thromboembolism pretty far down on the list of maternal complications. And the best way to avoid this particular complication is to avoid a C-section.

However, since you know you're at risk for blood clots, I trust you've gotten yourself sterilized, since hormonal birth control makes you more likely to have a blood clot. However, my cousin developed a blood clot in her leg when she was younger than you, so had to go off her birth control pills, and conceived her son who is now 15 years old. There was no risk to her health in pregnancy.

Besides, I think you ought to get a bit off of your high horse, because the moderator of this blog did have the opportunity to have an abortion, so she *was* in that situation and *does* fully understand how important places like PP are -- abortion mills designed to churn out dead babies and broken women in the name of help and choice. She also understands how important alternative choices are from people who are not going to be profiting from selling women abortions, which is what PP does. "Medically accurate information not tainted by personal opinion" my @$$!

And there are very, very few people who would say that women who have a condition that is actually life-threatening should not be allowed to have an abortion if the baby is pre-viable; although a preterm induction is the course of action to follow after the baby is developed enough to live outside the womb.

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, the whole idea that abortion somehow solves women's problems is based on the idea that complex problems (poverty, undereducation, unemployment, domestic violence, child abuse, etc.) have a simple solution: Kill the fetus and it's like hitting a reset button on your life.

ANY philosophy that holds up killing an innocent person as a perfectly valid way of coping with your problems has a lot of explaining to do.

And I didn't say I favored coercive adoption. I said that it was one of the possible alternatives. A live baby, which (call me freaky) strikes me as preferable to a baby in bloody chunks. Go figure. Prolifers are weird that way.

And I'd be the first to say the foster care system needs a lot of revamping, but even a horrible foster care system beats hell out of death.

Even the worst of life situations -- say, a concentration camp -- still leaves open the possibility of life, maybe even a good life, at a later point. "Your life might suck so we'll just kill you" is a way of reducing your own distress while destroying all hope for the other person.

Christina Dunigan said...

Jolene, read the subhead. RealChoice is about the side of "choice" that the abortion lobby doesn't want you to see. The ugly reality behind the feel-good slogans.

Now let's address some more of your statements:

1. Choosing life is the only choice that gives an innocent human being a life. Choosing abortion is to deny an innocent human being all opportunity for choice, ever. Why does one person's one choice somehow trump another person's entire lifetime of choices? If you're really for CHOICE, wouldn't you be supporting maximization of life choices, rather than fixating on one that leaves a baby dead?

2. We don't know the comparative risks of carrying to term versus abortion, for reason I'll get into if you exhibit any interest. If all you want to do is repeat abortion lobby "talking points" I'll not waste my time.

3. Just because something is "highly personal" doesn't mean that there's no right or wrong. The decision to molest a child is also highly personal. Should we therefore butt out when people are making the intensely personal choice to have sex with small children?

4. Don't give me the line about not knowing the woman's anguish. I came very near to aborting my son thanks to "prochoice" indoctrination that insisted that abortion is the only real choice for poor women who couldn't afford to care for their born children. I was fortunate. Other women deserve to be just as fortunate.

5. If you actually care, I'll tell you about what Planned Parenthood did to my babysitter. And plenty of other examples of why they're hardly Missionaries of Charity.

6. I'd need to see where you get your info on 80% of maternal deaths being caused by blood clots. That doesn't sound right. The last studies I'd seen indicated that maternal deaths tend (in developed countries) to be highly idiosyncratic events that don't follow a single pattern.

7. Actually, depression is more prevalent post-abortion, and the mental health problems are still more common in post-abortion women even after you adjust for pre-existing conditions. And ask yourself this -- if what they've told you is true, that women who have depression after abortion had pre-existing conditions, WHY ARE FACILITIES NOT SCREENING FOR PRIOR MH ISSUES and warning those women that they'll be at higher risk of subsequent depression if they abort?

8. If you think abortion as practiced in the US is really about giving women choices, I have some prime land in Florida to sell you.

9. If you have a pre-existing clotting disorder, you'd be far better off under the care of a high-risk OB/GYN than under the care of an abortionist. They're not the cream of the crop. Don't delude yourself into thinking legal equals safe. All it means is that there's virtually zero chance the abortionist will suffer any repercussions if he kills you.

Lilliput said...

Sometimes truth is stranger then fiction:

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this. Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. Abortion - like homosexuality has been a part of human society since its inception - and therefore it must have a benefit otherwise it wouldn't continue - even if don't know what the benefit is.

I cannot see how you are happy with a situation like Brazil - where children are running around sniffing glue and prostituting to survive. I would love to hear how not having all forms of birth control available in Brazil - would not improve their quality of life.

Here's another viewpoint on child bearing:

Christina Dunigan said...

Per act of intercourse, contraceptives reduce the risk of pregnancy. But as a public health measure for decreasing unintended pregnancy it's doomed to failure due to the law of unintended consequences.

By lowering the perceived risk of sexual activity, a contracepting society significantly increases the frequency of intercourse in untenable situations, to the point where it actually overcomes the pregnancy-risk reduction of the contraceptives.

"But people will just have sex anyway!" Well, not necessarily. What happens is that there are a certain percentage of people who live up to societal expectations, and a certain percentage of people who will fall short. And they will fall short by a certain distance.

If the expectation is virginity until marriage, then the percentage of people who live up to expectations will not have sex in untenable situations, and thus have zero risk of STDs and premarital pregnancies. And the percentage that fall short of societal expectations will fall short by whatever measure they tend to fall short, by perhaps experimenting a few times, or having occasional intercourse in an exclusive relationship, or by frequent intercourse in a series of relationships, etc. Each "shortfaller" will fall short by whatever measure they tend to fall short by.

If the expectation is "They'll all rut like weasels, but at least they'll use birth control consistently," then the ones who live up to expectations will have the STD and pregnancy risks that once were limited to the percentage of people who fall short of societal expectations. And when the bar is so low, then each "shortfaller" is falling short of a lower bar and thus you wind up with lots of sex with inconsistent birth control.

As a public health measure, contraception simply can't work.

Kathy said...


By posting that story, it made me wonder if you agreed with this man's choice to kill his children by a post-natal abortion? After all, you have no problem with killing children before they are born because they might end up in horrible foster care (or they might end up in wonderful foster care, or in the care of wonderful parents, either adoptive or biological) should they not be sucked out of the uterus into a biohazard bag or flushed down the drain.

I suspect that you shared this story to show that "foster care is horrible, and here we have a man who survived child abuse from foster parents, and went on to kill his children by bludgeoning them to death, so we need to have more abortions so children aren't bludgeoned to death." Well, they may not be "bludgeoned" to death in utero, but they are equally dead, and frequently die by being torn limb from limb, which I think is quite possibly a worse way to die. Although both are horrid and grotesque.

What this story tells me is that perhaps the foster care system needs to be revamped, to make sure that foster parents are going to actually care for the children put in their charge (like my friends who were foster parents of two darling boys for 3 years while their mother got her act together), rather than just killing anyone who might at some point perhaps possibly end up in foster care or an otherwise negative situation. And this doesn't even touch on the numerous couples I know who have adopted out of the foster care system, including one just this past week.

Yes, child abuse is bad -- before or after birth. So is murder -- before or after birth. You are just more comfortable with abortion because it's "out of sight, out of mind," rather than the true horrors of it being broadcast in front of you thousands of times a day, the way this story grabbed your attention.

Why is death such a desirable target for you, rather than changing what is wrong with a faulty system to make it better without killing children?

Lilliput said...

All I am saying is that death is a part of life - pre and post utero.

I published that story to show you that if you are forcing people to have their babies then you have to be certain that they can be looked after. Under the current care situation that is not possible and therefore you cannot force peopel to have their babies.

Do you in general think that every women should have children?

Christina - when you write this -

As a public health measure, contraception simply can't work.

Do you really not see the difference contraception has made between the first and third world?

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, if I was to put a defining difference between the developed world and the developing world, it'd sanitation, not contraception.

Kathy said...


No one is forcing people to get pregnant. All we're saying is, once you have a baby growing, you can't kill it -- pre or post birth. And to borrow Christina's analogy -- firemen don't have to make sure that they can take care of victims they pull out of burning buildings, before rescuing peoples' lives. What you're saying is that if there is any possibility that a person inside a burning has some sort of injury which might cause some sort of pain after being rescued (whether that's 3rd degree burns over much of his body or just smoke inhalation), then the firefighters should let him burn to death because of the potential for a negative outcome -- even though his life could be spared, and he may be perfectly fine (with or without treatment), and odds are that he will be perfectly fine.

Do you not realize that child abuse has become more of a problem in Western society, since abortion was legalized? That's certain the case in America. And I've also read a study that showed that children who were wanted and whose pregnancies were planned were more likely to suffer abuse at the hands of their parents than children born after unplanned pregnancies.

There has been a breakdown of family and society, which has led many people into premarital sex, early sex, teenage pregnancy, etc., and then when these babies are born, the breakdown of family and society further contributes to them not having basic skills to take care of their children -- whether due to plain ignorance or outright selfishness, or some other factor. Yet, every time we social conservatives try to get at the root of the issue and attack the *cause* of the problem, rather than just complain about the problem or try to control the symptoms, we get people like you standing in our way. Fine -- do your symptom control, but let us try to attack the cause.

Lilliput said...

Kathy, I don't know if we will ever have a way of finding out wether the rate of child abuse is better or worse then before because we have no records. Things are better now as child abuse is illegal whereas previously it was just par for the course. This is something that you are not seeing. Also read "The girls that went away" about what was done to unmarried mothers.

The firefighter analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

Christina, it can't ever be just one thing that differentiates first from third world. Its a myriad of factors resulting in poverty and lack of education which gives rise to no sanitation - but even then not everyone in Africa is dying from cholera - its more malaria and Aids. Its also about women's rights - the more education they have the higher the quality of living for the whole community.

Kathy said...

Ok, you didn't understand the firefighter analogy; I'll try to break it down. You said in a previous post: "I published that story to show you that if you are forcing people to have their babies then you have to be certain that they can be looked after." WHY? Why do WE have to be certain that the babies can be looked after before we object to their lives being taken?

When firefighters are called to a burning building, they just start saving people and trying to stop the fire. They do not ask themselves whether or not the people will have anything but the clothes on their backs, nor are they required to make sure that the people whose lives they save will have clothes, food, shelter, and whatever else they need, after possibly losing everything in the fire. Some people they save will undoubtedly sometimes be physically scarred, burned by the fire. Firefighters are not called to save only the people who will never hurt, or who will have plenty of physical and material comforts in life.

You have previously said that people in foster care or low-income families have a tendency towards negative outcomes, negative consequences from being born into untenable situations. You want to ensure that no children born in such an environment have any sort of negative outcomes or consequences. You say that we pro-lifers "have to be certain that they can be looked after" before we stand in the way of their deaths. No. No more than firefighters "have to be certain" that the burn victims they pull out of burning buildings "will be looked after" before saving their lives. There are undoubtedly many people who lose everything in fires, and even are physically scarred and have long and difficult and painful recoveries after a fire -- this is analogous to some children who are born in poverty or who go to foster care. Yet it is not the firefighters' responsibility to make sure these people are taken care of before saving their lives. Sure, we all pitch in and help the victims; but to say that until we are sure that no one is hurt at any point in the future, that we can't stand against abortion is just plain wrong.

Lilliput said...

Kathy, people aren't saying that - what tehy are saying is that the pro lifers are very adament about making a woman have her baby but dissappear when it comes to supporting her to raise it.

Firemen are paid by the government to save people from burning fires. They do this on the basis that any survivors will be treated and rehoused by the government - at least that is how it works here. If there was no such help - then it would be immoral to pull a man out of a burning building to leave him lying on the pavement to die.

With having babies, you have poor mothers or mothers with other children who fall pregnant by mistake and feel that they cannot support the child - where do they go for help is what I am asking you? And I bring up Brazil here as its the perfect example - never mind firemen - here is a country the Pope is delighted with - no condoms and no abortions - but also no money to feed the kids running in the streets - they have to turn to glue and prostitution - its like leaving that burnt man suffering on the pavement.

Can you see that?

Kathy said...

Women may accidentally get pregnant, but they don't accidentally have sex. It's like playing with matches -- you may not intend to start a raging forest fire or set an apartment complex on fire, but it can happen accidentally, and if you play with enough matches, you will eventually get burned.

This conversation is pointless, because you're going to find some excuse -- any excuse -- to support abortion, simply because you want to, and you do not value human life. You support abortion in Brazil because they don't have a foster care system to take care of children. You support abortion in England because, even though they have a foster care system to take care of children, you don't think it's good enough. You support abortion for poor women because statistically their children are more likely (but not necessarily) going to grow up and commit crimes or have other negative outcomes. But you also support abortion for rich women and any other woman that does not fall into the previous "reasons" for abortion, simply because you support abortion. End of story. I don't even know why you come on boards like this, except I guess you like to argue.

Oh, and a lot of kids are running around ruining their lives, even though they have two-parent families, simply because their parents don't raise them right (typically due to selfish adults who don't instill values and respect into them).

The solution is a lot more difficult than your socialist plans and dreams. But it's worth it, because it still continues to value human life as intrinsically worth saving. The plans you support don't work and won't work; if they did, abortion would be rare in the West, and society would be free from all its ills. Instead, we've got worse and bigger problems than we had 50-100 years ago, despite all the promises made by eugenicists like you to the contrary.

Lilliput said...


I've always said we have to agree to disagree. You believe that to be alive - under any condition is better then dead. I believe that to be dead is sometimes preferable to some states of living eg starving and prostitution.

I believe that a human being pushed to its limits - will not behave like a human being anymore - so whats the point.

It is obvious that in Europe things are better then they were 50-100 years ago.

Babies were left on the side of the road or taken to foundling homes to die - can u honestly say that that is more humane? Abortion is better then that but not better then a failsafe method of birthcontrol - which I am sure we will soon develop.

I think when you get right down to it - it boils down to your first sentance - you want to regulate when people have sex. That's whats bothering you the most.

I myself am not sure why I come here at all. At first I was piqued by Cristina's morbid fascination of death and then I think its great that someone highlights the risk associated with abortions.

I guess its also to interact with people who have a completely different viewpoint.

Feminist Review said...

"I'm sure that child abusing perverts are breathing a sigh of relief that they have you in their corner. But wouldn't it be a bit more decent of you to have some actual concern for the victims?"

You're either with the perverts or you're against them, is that it? Because improving health care by supporting orgs like PP in order to ensure staff are enforcing mandatory reporting policies couldn't possibly be an option, right? Do you honestly believe that decreasing services for victims of sexual abuse (which is what would happen if PP closes) is going to help them? Come on, Christina. Look outside of the black and white framework you're living in and see if you can find the grey areas because they're all over the place, lady.

Kathy said...


"When faced with the choice between two evils... choose neither."

Lilliput said...


Not choosing - is a choice as well.

You can choose for yourself - but you cannot choose for others.

That's why the phrase - "the lesser of two evils" actually came about.

Life is not black and white - its varying shades of grey......

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, choosing to abstain from any of a number of various shades of evil choices sounds like a pretty good choice.

Kathy said...

But when a woman chooses an abortion, she is choosing for another, not just for herself. And she's choosing death for another, rather than a chance at life, which may actually turn out to be a pretty darn good life. But in choosing death before the child is born, she negates any other choice the child may ever make, as a child or an adult.