Forced Abortions: Majority Of American Women Feel Coerced To Abort
Tuesday, September 8th, 2009Many women experience pressure, abuse, and coercion when faced with a surprise pregnancy. This is bearing out with research reported by LifeNews:
Elliot Institute director David Reardon, co-authored a Medical Science Monitor study of American and Russian women with the 64 percent figure.
His new report, Forced Abortion in America, documents cases of violence against women who refused to have an abortion.
It also highlights cases like the one in Maine, which saw a couple charged with abducting their pregnant daughter in an attempt to force her to have an abortion, and another in Georgia, where a woman forced her pregnant daughter to drink turpentine to cause an abortion.
Reardon says the cases are just part of an epidemic of coerced and forced abortions in the U.S.
Reardon said that cases of women being pressured, threatened, or subjected to violence if they refuse to abort are not unusual.
He pointed out that studies have shown that homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S. and that women in abusive relationships are at risk for increased violence during pregnancy.
“In many of the cases documented for our ‘Forced Abortion in America’ report, police and witnesses reported that acts of violence and murder took place after the woman refused to abort or because the attacker didn’t want the pregnancy,” he said in a statement LifeNews.com received.
“Even if a woman isn’t physically threatened, she often faces intense pressure, abandonment, lack of support, or emotional blackmail if she doesn’t abort. While abortion is often described as a ‘choice,’ women who’ve been there tell a very different story,” he added.
It has been the rare woman in my practice who sought the abortion and feels no guilt years later. Most women were either pressured to abort or chose the abortion and feel guilt later and remorse later. It is the rare woman who truly “chose”. It is a rarer woman who has no regret over her choice.
Cyber Rape: Conservative Women Have It Coming & The Hypocrisy of Feminism–UPDATED
Tuesday, June 9th, 2009My latest Pajamas Media column practically wrote itself this last weekend and could have been twice as long. The column discusses how feminists are a-ok with misogyny as long as conservative women are the recipients. It’s summed up nicely in the bumper sticker, “They’re not women! They’re Republicans!”
I’d like to add a few more examples of the Feminists willful ignorance and determination of silence in the face of injustice. India has experienced a gendercide–that is millions of female babies have been aborted because they’re female. The same thing has been happening in China where single men looking for women become scam victims. All in all, the very tool the Leftist women worship (Bonnie Erbe, “Abortion is a rite of passage”) is used against women to annihilate the “lesser” sex. Leftists will stand around and wonder, however, what happened to 100,000,000 women–that’s the gender disparity now. Don’t say it ladies. Do not say it. Don’t condemn the tool used to create this disparity. And don’t condemn the religious and cultural foundation of hate for women. Don’t do it.
You know those women being stoned in Saudi Arabia for showing ankles? Crickets. You know the women beaten, have acid thrown on them, and are beheaded for shaming a man? Not a word.
No wonder the Feminists are okay with President Obama’s hideous Cairo speech. No wonder they stay silent regarding the hypocrisy of a President Obama’s moral equivalence while he kept his wife out of Egypt and out of a burqua.
And finally, why would Feminist women condemn the cyber-rape of women they believe have it coming when they won’t even defend themselves. Cassy Fiano writes of a Dutch journalist kidnapped and repeatedly raped by Islamists in Afghanistan who then goes on to defend her attackers who “respect her”:
This is a perfect example of the problems with so many liberals today. They are so terrified to call Muslim jihadists what they are — terrorists, murderers, monsters — not because they might be physically harmed in some way, but because they might be branded intolerant. People like Joanie de Rijke don’t look at themselves as sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome, they look at themselves as righteous and intellectual and open-minded and modern. What Mrs. de Rijke, along with so many others on the left, do not understand is that we do not call Muslim thugs and murderers (like the coward who abducted and raped her) monsters or terrorists simply because they are Muslim. We call them monsters or terrorists because they are murderers, rapists, and terrorists. Unfortunately, situations like this are black and white, even though liberals love the idea of moral relativism. There are no shades of grey. Murder is murder, just like rape is rape. A rapist cannot “respect” you, and rape is not something beyond a man’s control simply because of his “high testosterone”.
Also interesting is de Rijke’s description of Gul as a religious man, yet also a hypocritical one. She, of course, is holding Gul to Judeo-Christian religious standards, not Islamic ones. The truth of the matter is, that his actions would indeed be considered hypocritical (and monstrous) by Judeo-Christian standards. By Islamic standards, they are not only not hypocritical, they are expected and acceptable. Muslims are commanded in the Koran to rape and kill infidels, and de Rijke would be considered an infidel. Of course, that little nugget of truth does not fit very neatly into her enlightened liberal worldview, so she ignores it.
So backward and insane are feminists that they will abuse themselves, abuse other women, and annihilate their own gender to serve the ideology that there is no right or wrong and that there is no one better or worse. The only sin is the sin of judgment and intolerance. And these women are willing to tolerate nearly anything except anyone who points out the limitation of their belief system.
Please read the column here.
Addendum: Yesterday night, Media Lizzy and I talked about feminism, beautiful women, sex and much more on my radio show for RFC radio called Right Doctor. You can listen Monday and Wednesday nights and chat with me from 10 – 11 EST, 9 CST, or catch the podcast from iTunes. Subscribe to The Right Doctor on iTunes.
UPDATED:
Megan Carpentier editor of Jezebel contacted me and noted that she had written about the Playboy article. I had read her post but didn’t link the article since the website itself seemed more of a fashion and style website. Upon further investigation, the site covers news of the day, too. Megan deserves credit for giving voice to what many self-professed pro-women refused to do: condemn sexism. Read her piece here.
About Dr. George Tiller, Legality & Morality
Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009I didn’t want to write about this topic. At. All. It’s absolute insanity. And it’s personal.
The procedure that Dr. George Tiller became expert at is absolutely gruesome and he was an “expert” over sixty thousand times. That is a medium sized city of people who died being pulled limb from limb or by chemical burn. The numbers make me want to throw up right now.
People need to know the facts. Bill O’Reilly gave the facts while sharing his personal opinion that abortion is wrong. It’s his right. More about O’Reilly and free speech and the Left’s hypocrisy at my Pajama’s Media article.
This topic is personal because my own sons were born at 24 weeks five days. Here is a picture of a baby a week older. There is no question in my mind, not even a shadow of a doubt, that what Dr. Tiller did, over and over, was murder. That is, an innocent life was taken. How the man lived with himself every day, I don’t know. How he distanced himself from his acts of barbarism is beyond me.
But a pox on all our houses.
This is America. We are a country of laws. The laws should be written that something like this procedure is illegal. There is no question it is immoral. 72% of Americans were against this procedure in a survey taken two years ago. I’d venture to guess the number is higher now. Each year that passes, the ability for doctors to understand these tiny babies increases. No one doubts that they’re babies. If born, with treatment, they survive. Just like grandma survives a stroke, if given treatment. Just because she’s on life support for a while doesn’t mean that she’s not alive.
The thing is, we all know this. We all know that the baby is alive.
The disingenuous left wanting to paint those who are pro-life as wackos know that the majority of Americans, and even they themselves, know the baby is alive. For them, it’s not about killing the baby. It’s about promoting the life of the mother–rarely literally, mostly metaphorically. This whole topic is about a woman controlling her destiny by controlling her uterus. They conveniently ignore the control she had when the baby was made.
This procedure should be illegal in all 50 states. A man like Dr. George Tiller should have committed maybe 20 of these procedures over the lifetime of his practice to save a woman who was going to die, imminently, because it was either her or the baby. It should be so rare and unique that we all agonize with the devastated family. I know a woman who had this horrible choice as her body marched toward death with leukemia. The moral choice was clear, but she will live forever with the loss of her child. It was not a fetus. It was her baby. And the choice was devastating.
Otherwise, we become a nation immune to the horrors of these deaths and all bear the guilt of allowing such a thing to happen.
Dr. Tiller was murdered. His profession and his expertise was legal. A raving lunatic took justice into his own hands and killed this man in cold blood. The killer should get the chair for an act so premeditated. He clearly planned this killing.
The rule of law rules all. A murderer should be brought to justice. When it comes to late term abortion, the law needs to be changed.
Kathleen Sebelius Will Let You Die
Tuesday, April 21st, 2009And why not? You, old person, do not fall within the parameters of the rules for saving. Neither do you, small child with degenerative disease. Nor do you, Lance Armstrong with your 10% chance.
Suck. It. Up.
And remember, you’re saving money for the people who are worth saving. From Matt Lewis:
Reading the Associated Press report, one would assume Tiller is the only problem, yet he barely draws a mention in Kyl’s press release on Sebelius. Instead, Kyl (who voted against Sebelius) singled out Sebelus’ views on “comparative effectiveness research”.
In English, that translates roughly as research to determine who is worth health care and who we should just let die. [Emphasis added]
Essentially, when you factor “comparative effectiveness” into medical decisions, it means that those decisions have to be made at least partially based on cost rather than the best interest of the patient.
She should receive no Republican support but she’s got two Senators in her corner. And some wonder why the Republican brand is crap.
My Latest Pajamas Media Column: Embryonic Stem Cell Research & Government Funding–UPDATED
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009Here’s an excerpt of my latest Pajamas column titled “Much Ado About Obama and Embryonic Stem Cells”:
In a move that shocked no one, President Barack Obama reversed President George W. Bush’s executive order to ban government-funded human embryonic stem cell [ESC] research on new embryonic stem cell strains. This decision has caused many to rejoice and many to lament.
Some question the timing: lifting the stem cell research funding ban is a political win for Obama at a time when he’s losing public opinion ground on the economy. It also puts Republicans on defense–moderates and Democrats favor embryonic stem cell research, while conservatives dislike it. Moderate Republicans welcome the policy shift because they view the issue as a political loser and want it off the table.
Go read the whole thing and give me your feedback here or on Twitter.
UPDATE:
I missed this part in the Stem Cell hub-bub:
Bioethcis attorney and watchdog Wesley J. Smith says the Obama decision to also reverse this executive order shows Obama is really the anti-science president, not his predecessor.
“Of course, the Administration didn’t have the candor or courage to publicize this part of his nasty work,” he said. “But the now dead order explicitly required funding for alternative methods such as the new IPSCs, which offer so much promise without the ethical contentiousness.”
“Alternative methods are one of the few areas in which we can all row in the same direction, which I thought this president wanted to do,” Smith added.
“I can think of only two reasons for this action, for which I saw no advocacy either in the election or during the first weeks of the Administration,” Smith says. “First, vindictiveness against all things ‘Bush’ or policies considered by the Left to be ‘pro-life’ and second, a desire to get the public to see unborn human life as a mere corn crop ripe for the harvest.”
“So much for taking the politics out of science,” he concludes.
UPDATED AGAIN:
NeoNeocon says:
Many people have applauded Obama’s actions. But to agree with Obama’s new policy is it really necessary to distort history? Although it is indeed likely that the Obama directive reversing the Bush position will open up more opportunities for research with stem cells, it’s not as though under Bush things were not progressing, through the use of adult stem cells and other creative solutions (see this and this for two examples). But to acknowledge that would be to acknowledge that Bush wasn’t really against science, just a particular form of science that he considered unethical.
A 12 Year Old Speaks On Abortion, But Should She?
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009My friend and fellow blogger pointed me in the direction of this video by a 12 year old girl explaining her opposition to abortion. It looks like a school project where she either practiced using the video equipment or turned in her project on video. Go watch it and then come back.
While the content of the girl’s argument is sound and I personally agree with her perspective, my meta issue is the fact that she’s 12, a child herself. The video crawled all over me as a parent. Just as the kids made to sing Obama songs, pay fealty to Obama’s image in school, or in my daughter’s case, come home with homework that required her to describe a change she was going to make (this was a ready-made work-sheet by the way) in honor of Barack Obama’s presidential win, exploits a child ideologically, having a child discuss abortion and then post it on the internet seems…wrong.
A child under the age of 18 cannot enter a contract because he is not “of age”. That is, a person entering a contract must understand the provisions in the contract in order to be held to it. Likewise, a 12 year old child may have the moral clarity to feel a certain way about a topic, but does he have the understanding to comprehend the long-term consequences of having those opinions aired publicly?
This is, no doubt, a gray area. I immediately call to mind child actors, musicians, etc. Children can be mature and wise and change the world for the positive. Lots of kids have started charities, written books, etc.
What do you think?
Murder, Abortion, No Big Dif
Friday, February 6th, 2009It’s a fine line, isn’t it? I mean, really, an unwanted child shouldn’t be in this world because that’s bad. So, I think we should reframe this unfortunate event as a mercy killing. RedInkTexas notes that the mother might as well say, “I want you to murder my unborn child, I just don’t want to watch…” . He continues:
She WILLINGLY went to an abortion clinic to have a late term abortion. But when the child was born alive, she was aghast that the abortionist put the child in a plastic bag and suffocated it. Yeah, like that was any more humane than trying to kill it some other way… The fact that it was done by someone without a medical degree is in my mind kind of secondary. SHE INTENDED TO KILL THIS POOR CHILD! Now she is suing because the child died. What in hell is wrong with this picture? Who is the Murderer here? I say the woman who went to the clinic to kill the child is the proximate murderer here. She took the pills. She knew what they did. I say hang them both for first degree murder, they both conspired to do this.
It was a mercy killing. Sheesh! I don’t understand why people are so judgmental.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
LifeNet
Monday, February 2nd, 2009Thomas More Society Sues Abortion Clinic In Miami Infanticide Case
